C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real

[DeistPaladin]

Are you stupid or something?
or is it your hope I don't know how to use my own point of reference???

works for me!!!! cut and pasted:

I figured out what your problem is. You're clicking on the links to "Herod" and getting ALL references to that name, including both Antipas and Herod the Great, aren't you? 

EDIT TO ADD: I'll go slow. When you click on that link to "Herod", you get Matt 2:1, 2:3, 2:7, 2:12, 2:13, 2:15, 2:16, 2:19 and 2:22. These are references to the story of the Wise Men and Herod's slaughter of the innocents, which all is a reference to Herod the Great. I hope you're not disputing that this Herod is Herod the Great, which would really put you in dispute with mainstream scholarship, especially since Antipas didn't rule over Jerusalem. 

You can't figure out, even after being corrected all these times, that you made that mistake. 

Sweet Reason, you are a moron. 

[Drich]

when where?

---

last we spoke as on luke 1 ands the use or identification of herod antipas and I showed you or told you to click on the translation count specifically "Antipas"

looks like this:KJV Translation Count — Total: 44x
The KJV translates Strong's G2264 in the following manner: Herod, Antipas (27x), Herod, the Great (11x), Herod Agrippa (6x).

This will give you each verse that was translated antipas Luke one is included in that 27 times!!!

This is what happens when you click on the links for "Antipas" on your source

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/s...rimary_0_1

Luke 3:1 ...
Luke 3:19 ...
Luke 9:7 ...
Luke 13:31 ...
Luke 23:7 ...

...but NO reference to Luke Chapter 1 verse 5.  

Furthermore, every single reference to Antipas that your source quotes specifies "Antipas" and thrice refers to him as ruler of "Galilee" NOT over Judea. This dovetails with my textural evidence to support my claim. 

My source, Oxford University, confirms the mainstream interpretation that Luke 1:5 is referring to Herod the Great. 

On the other hand, when you follow your link to see the references to Herod, the Great, look what comes up:

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod,  the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

You lose, sir. Good day, sir.

Dear Dummy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas

Herod Antipas
Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea

Coin of Herod Antipas
Reign
c. 4 BC/AD 1 – 39
Predecessor
Herod the Great
Successor
Agrippa I
Born
Before 20 BC
Died
After AD 39
Gaul
Wives

• Phasaelis, Daughter of Aretas IV
  
• Herodias
  

[size=undefined]
Dynasty
Herodian Dynasty
Father
Herod the Great
Mother
Malthace[/size]
Herod Antipater (Greek: Ἡρῴδης Ἀντίπατρος, Hērǭdēs Antipatros; born before 20 BC – died after 39 AD), known by the nickname who bore the title of tetrarch ("ruler of a quarter") and is referred to as both "Herod the Tetrarch"[1] and "King Herod"[2] in the New Testament although he never held the title of king.[3] He is widely known today for accounts in the New Testament of his role in events that led to the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.
After being recognized by Augustus upon the death of his father, Herod the Great (c. 4 BC/AD 1), and subsequent ethnarch rule by his brother, Herod Archelaus, Antipas officially ruled Galilee and Perea as a client state of the Roman Empire.[4][5] He was responsible for building projects at Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and more important for the construction of his capital Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Named in honor of his patron, the emperor Tiberius, the city later became a center of rabbinic learning.

which was the region Jesus was born in.. IE Luke 1

---

Are you stupid or something?
or is it your hope I don't know how to use my own point of reference???

works for me!!!! cut and pasted:

I figured out what your problem is. You're clicking on the links to "Herod" and getting ALL references to that name, including both Antipas and Herod the Great, aren't you? 

EDIT TO ADD: I'll go slow. When you click on that link to "Herod", you get Matt 2:1, 2:3, 2:7, 2:12, 2:13, 2:15, 2:16, 2:19 and 2:22. These are references to the story of the Wise Men and Herod's slaughter of the innocents, which all is a reference to Herod the Great. I hope you're not disputing that this Herod is Herod the Great, which would really put you in dispute with mainstream scholarship, especially since Antipas didn't rule over Jerusalem. 

You can't figure out, even after being corrected all these times, that you made that mistake. 

Sweet Reason, you are a moron. 

OMG... that is what it is.. You don't know how to use this simple point of reference material and rather than ask or show weakness of any kind you rather assume the fault is mine and call me a liar! what a broken 6th grade response this is. Is 6th grade the limit of your intellect? seriously you want me to not know how to use the reference material I supplied so you are just calling me a liar out of thin air, in hopes that I am wrong. That's trolling or at least flaming.


Wow


here's the thing sport I cut and pasted from the reference material and explain your error. go back and read the post you are respnding to. it shows your intentional mistake as well it bears out my explanation!

I show where herod antipas was identified in luke 1 which is simply translated "king herod" in the english. and then I showed you via a wiki page where herod antipas was also known as king herod...

That sport ends the discussion if truth is any concern, the rest is trolling.

[DeistPaladin]

Dear Dummy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas
...

Oh Sweet Reason, are you seriously trying to hit the reset button and start all over, hoping to wear me down and you "win" when I give up trying to correct your strange beliefs? We've been all over this. 

Herod Antipater (Greek: Ἡρῴδης Ἀντίπατρος, Hērǭdēs Antipatros; born before 20 BC – died after 39 AD), known by the nickname who bore the title of tetrarch ("ruler of a quarter") and is referred to as both "Herod the Tetrarch"[1] and "King Herod"[2] in the New Testament although he never held the title of king.[3] He is widely known today for accounts in the New Testament of his role in events that led to the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.
After being recognized by Augustus upon the death of his father, Herod the Great (c. 4 BC/AD 1), and subsequent ethnarch rule by his brother, Herod Archelaus, Antipas officially ruled Galilee and Perea as a client state of the Roman Empire.[4][5] He was responsible for building projects at Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and more important for the construction of his capital Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Named in honor of his patron, the emperor Tiberius, the city later became a center of rabbinic learning.

which was the region Jesus was born in.. IE Luke 1

The Gospel of Luke (which is the specific part of the New Testament we're discussing) refers to Herod Antipas as "Herod the Tetrarch" (see Luke 9:7). It would be an inconsistency by the author to refer to him elsewhere as "king". Hence, textural evidence supports my position. 

Furthermore, Herod Antipas did NOT rule all of Judea, so it would be an error to refer to him as "the king of Judea". Historical evidence supports my position. 

This is why mainstream scholarship, including my citation of a publication from OXFORD UNIVERSITY, believes that Luke refers to "Herod the Great" when he says "Herod, the King of Judea" in Luke 1:5. 

Your own source material, whoever the hell these bluebook bozos are, does NOT support your conclusion that "Herod, the King of Judea" in Luke 1:5 refers to Antipas. 

You lose, sir. Good day, sir. 

"Calling you 'stupid' would be an insult to stupid people."

-A Fish Called Wanda

[Drich]

Dear Dummy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas
...

Oh Sweet Reason, are you seriously trying to hit the reset button and start all over, hoping to wear me down and you "win" when I give up trying to correct your strange beliefs? We've been all over this. 

Herod Antipater (Greek: Ἡρῴδης Ἀντίπατρος, Hērǭdēs Antipatros; born before 20 BC – died after 39 AD), known by the nickname who bore the title of tetrarch ("ruler of a quarter") and is referred to as both "Herod the Tetrarch"[1] and "King Herod"[2] in the New Testament although he never held the title of king.[3] He is widely known today for accounts in the New Testament of his role in events that led to the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.
After being recognized by Augustus upon the death of his father, Herod the Great (c. 4 BC/AD 1), and subsequent ethnarch rule by his brother, Herod Archelaus, Antipas officially ruled Galilee and Perea as a client state of the Roman Empire.[4][5] He was responsible for building projects at Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and more important for the construction of his capital Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Named in honor of his patron, the emperor Tiberius, the city later became a center of rabbinic learning.

which was the region Jesus was born in.. IE Luke 1

The Gospel of Luke (which is the specific part of the New Testament we're discussing) refers to Herod Antipas as "Herod the Tetrarch" (see Luke 9:7). It would be an inconsistency by the author to refer to him elsewhere as "king". Hence, textural evidence supports my position. 

ad nauseum but I can keep going over and over this as the research bit has been done and is staring you in the face.
The reason your argument:

refers to Herod Antipas as "Herod the Tetrarch" (see Luke 9:7). It would be an inconsistency by the author to refer to him elsewhere as "king"

is invalid for the following reasons:
1) Luke in the greek only used one word ever to originally describe herod and that is Strong's number: g2264 Ἡρῴδης Hērōdēs (the first number being the word number in the Strong's lexicon/every word in the bible has a greek number so as to track how many times it shows up and how it is translated. The same word is used in luke 1 as well as in your reference luke 9:7. Meaning Luke in the koine greek only used one word and that was: word number g2264 In luke 1 we know Antipas is referenced because the translation count part of the referenced website includes G2264 as being counted among the herod antipas translation

2) when the word was translated to english in luke 1 Herod Antipas was used, and when G2264 was translated in luke 9 shows the same greek word g2264 being used, but it was translated Tetrarch why? the above wiki article describes why.. because this man was known to the greeks as the tetrarch and to the jews as herod antipas, so both where used so this passage speaks to a broader audience.

3)but despite that the same exact word was used in luke one as well as luke 9:7
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/s...rimary_0_1

Furthermore, Herod Antipas did NOT rule all of Judea, so it would be an error to refer to him as "the king of Judea". Historical evidence supports my position. 

Jesus was born in galilee moron luke one references his birth so this would be bethlehem which is smack dab in the middle of galilee!!! chapter 9 says herod is simply seeking info about Jesus, nothing more. Book chapter and verse n the judea bit please.

This is why mainstream scholarship, including my citation of a publication from OXFORD UNIVERSITY, believes that Luke refers to "Herod the Great" when he says "Herod, the King of Judea" in Luke 1:5. 

you have yet t post one 1 ONE point of reference. not only that you were quoting some other rando source before this one. and despite your petagree... You don't understand how an intellectual debate is structured. Oxford cambridge yale all mean dick here. As anything they offer is a commentary or in the classification of source material a teteriary source. mean it has gone through at least 3 if not 4 interpretations or rewordings before you have a chance to misunderstand it..

I on the other hand offered links to primary and secondary source material meaning you are hearing things directly off the translation matrix. no filters no bias just pure raw fact/truth. You are providing material that tells you what o think I am providing information to allow a smart person to draw their own conclusion! Primary material ALWAYS trumps tertiary material. Tertiary you have yet to once produce btw. While I provided links to the actual greek being used in luke 1 and in luke 9 showed you it is literally the same word and word number, meaning the author used only one word, but in the english it was translated in the first instance to antipas and in the second the tetrarch.. again a translation decision as for the reason the wiki tells us because to the jews he was a king and to the greeks/romans he was a tetrarch. Your argument despite coming from oxford is at a legitimate end sport. your pedigree means dick next to a primary sourced argument with deets/reference notations. which I have provided in quadruplet.

Your own source material, whoever the hell these bluebook bozos are, does NOT support your conclusion that "Herod, the King of Judea" in Luke 1:5 refers to Antipas. 

ask one of your peers dummy. you are obviously not smart enough to know what a lexicon is let alone use it. The blue letter bible is the gold standard on line source for any and all on line bible study it is a concordance lexicon interlinear and about 5 more reference sources all pertaining to koine greek and hebrew translation to english. This is a complete one stop definitive source as a free to all online bank of biblical reference, from pronunciation of the greek and hebrew to maps of the time and region to links to modern sources. For you as just a lexicon let say for a moment that there is a book that takes the bible word for word and identifies/translates each and every greek and hebrew word in the bible assigns it a number than not only translates the word but defines it, then catalogs how many times the word is used and if the same word is used to translates different word when and where each difference use was translated.

That my small minded friend is just the lexicon part. that alone ends your argument because we can go back in the kone greek and indeed see the same exact word being used to identify antipas in chapter 1 as well as the tetrarch in chapter 9. the word being Hērōdēs both times.. so luke used the same word... we in the english decided to translate ne antipas and the other tetrarch

so lets see a meme of you eating crow troll..

[DeistPaladin]

[quote pid='1866850' dateline='1544547962']

Drich

is invalid for the following reasons:
1) Luke in the greek only used one word ever to originally describe herod and that is Strong's number: g2264 Ἡρῴδης Hērōdēs (the first number being the word number in the Strong's lexicon/every word in the bible has a greek number so as to track how many times it shows up and how it is translated. The same word is used in luke 1 as well as in your reference luke 9:7. Meaning Luke in the koine greek only used one word and that was: word number g2264 In luke 1 we know Antipas is referenced because the translation count part of the referenced website includes G2264 as being counted among the herod antipas translation

2) when the word was translated to english in luke 1 Herod Antipas was used, and when G2264 was translated in luke 9 shows the same greek word g2264 being used, but it was translated Tetrarch why? the above wiki article describes why.. because this man was known to the greeks as the tetrarch and to the jews as herod antipas, so both where used so this passage speaks to a broader audience.

3)but despite that the same exact word was used in luke one as well as luke 9:7
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/s...rimary_0_1

[/quote]
You are as delusional as you are moronic. You keep clicking on the link to "Herod", which is giving you all the references to BOTH Herod the Great AND Herod Antipas. I've already pointed out your error but I'll go even slower:

Notice on the page you link to how there are eight (8) references to "Herod" in Matthew Chapter 2.  

Look carefully. Even you can't miss it. 

Matthew Chapter 2 details the story of the "wise men" and the "slaughter of the innocents" and Jesus' family's escape to Egypt. You know the story, I assume, so I don't have to cut-and-paste all eight verses where Herod's name is mentioned? 

This story references Herod the Great. 

I'm going to pause to give you time for your addled brain to catch up.  

This story references Herod the Great on the page of references you claim mention only Herod Antipas. 

Now are you going to argue that Matthew Chapter 2 is also talking about Herod Antipas? Then why are they in Jerusalem, a city that Antipas never ruled? 

Jesus was born in galilee moron 

What does that have to do with Herod Antipas not being King of JUDEA? 

Again, I'll go slow.

Antipas... never... ruled... all... of... Judea. 

Therefore... he... was... not... "King of Judea". 

Even... if... he... had... the... title... "king".

Is that point sinking in yet? 

you have yet t post one 1 ONE point of reference. 

New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, Oxford University Press, footnote on Luke 1:5

"In the days of King Herod of Judea" refers broadly to 37-4 BCE.

No mention of any scholarly controversy about this point. Odd, isn't it? It's almost like nobody supports your bullshit account. 

ask one of your peers dummy. 

I think at this point, the only question anyone will have is why I'm wasting time trying to reason with a deluded moron like yourself.

[Drich]

[quote pid='1866850' dateline='1544547962']

Drich

is invalid for the following reasons:
1) Luke in the greek only used one word ever to originally describe herod and that is Strong's number: g2264 Ἡρῴδης Hērōdēs (the first number being the word number in the Strong's lexicon/every word in the bible has a greek number so as to track how many times it shows up and how it is translated. The same word is used in luke 1 as well as in your reference luke 9:7. Meaning Luke in the koine greek only used one word and that was: word number g2264 In luke 1 we know Antipas is referenced because the translation count part of the referenced website includes G2264 as being counted among the herod antipas translation

2) when the word was translated to english in luke 1 Herod Antipas was used, and when G2264 was translated in luke 9 shows the same greek word g2264 being used, but it was translated Tetrarch why? the above wiki article describes why.. because this man was known to the greeks as the tetrarch and to the jews as herod antipas, so both where used so this passage speaks to a broader audience.

3)but despite that the same exact word was used in luke one as well as luke 9:7
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/s...rimary_0_1

You are as delusional as you are moronic. You keep clicking on the link to "Herod", which is giving you all the references to BOTH Herod the Great AND Herod Antipas. I've already pointed out your error but I'll go even slower:[/quote] This is a lie #1 you have failed to point out anything. you only reference some magic book only you can see. over and over I ask for a point of reference and over and over you reference or rather make a statement you think you'd find in a commentary but anyone with a year's experience would be able to see through your words.

Notice on the page you link to how there are eight (8) references to "Herod" in Matthew Chapter 2.  

Lie #2 or rather moving the goalposts. We have YET to speak of the book of Matthew and now you are bring it up as if this was in a single argument of yours. This is a liar move sport.
Because IF
Look carefully. Even you can't miss it....

If you click on Herod the great translation scroll down to luke 1 you will see it is the same word. Meaning 'Herod" is all we have. technically The bible rather mathew nor luke makes a distinction between the herod of luke one or matthew 2. all we have is church tradition.. Nothing in the bible says church tradition is infallible. That said there is evidence for both what I have said to be true and an earlier birth to be true. either way the church no matter which side of the debate you are on knows the time line is off.

Matthew Chapter 2 details the story of the "wise men" and the "slaughter of the innocents" and Jesus' family's escape to Egypt. You know the story, I assume, so I don't have to cut-and-paste all eight verses where Herod's name is mentioned? 

to put on my atheist shoes, nothing in secular history says this even happens.. Either Way church tradition ascribes this to the great while the bible ambiguously says "herod' to say one or the other would mean the same man did both what is recorded in luke and in mat...

This story references Herod the Great. 

again shifting the goal posts as we have yet to discuss matthew, but gain the translation would allow for both oly church herod the great.

This story references Herod the Great on the page of references you claim mention only Herod Antipas. 

Now are you going to argue that Matthew Chapter 2 is also talking about Herod Antipas? Then why are they in Jerusalem, a city that Antipas never ruled? 

I'm saying the translation is ambiguous and either or will work here!!! Luke references "herod" and Matt only references "herod.' one or both can technically work here. Meaning Herod the great or antipas depending on who you think ruled.

I'm going to pause to give you time for your addled brain to catch up.  

Should I do the same? if so I'll leave a little short video for you to watch that summarizes what just happened to you.

Jesus was born in galilee moron 

What does that have to do with Herod Antipas not being King of JUDEA? 

Again, I'll go slow.

Antipas... never... ruled... all... of... Judea. 

Therefore... he... was... not... "King of Judea". 

Even... if... he... had... the... title... "king".

Is that point sinking in yet? 

One thing at a time. we are still working on translation and the ambiguity of "herod.' If you want to look at the great then know the bible makes room for this take as well!

New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, Oxford University Press, footnote on Luke 1:5
http://www.allsaintstupelo.com/Bible_NRSV.pdf
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...on=NRSVACE

So shall we call this (the magical reference only you can see) lie number 3?

[quote]
"In the days of King Herod of Judea" refers broadly to 37-4 BCE.

No mention of any scholarly controversy about this point. Odd, isn't it? It's almost like nobody supports your bullshit account. 

wait a tick when was jesus born? You honestly don't know.. You don't know there are 2 schools of thought here one that jesus was born before and the other Jesus was born late. I was working with the late theory because you wanted to argue luke 1. While luke identifies Herod 1 by identifying jesus was born while herod was king he does not say king of what. which leaves the door open. However if you want to bring mat into the equation luke's translation will allow a early 4 to 6 bc birth as well because luke identifies herod the same way matthew does. So again it works either way.for example here is the other explaination:
https://www.gotquestions.org/what-year-w...-born.html

Seem to me you are one of the atheist dummies that don't know Christ was not born on december 25 0001... That our years were estimated by some monk in the 500s and was not used till the 800 this monk guesstimate how long back Jesus was born through various records and genealogies. he was not far off but missed the target by about 4 to 6 years.

I like to think born late because it pull the time line between the gospels and epistles and makes them jive better, and it gives the reason for the census. ( pre census as a new ruler would demand one to know how and where to tax) which would make sense as Joseph was called back to bethlehem in galilee where antipas ruled.


[quote]
I think at this point, the only question anyone will have is why I'm wasting time trying to reason with a deluded moron like yourself.

What a dishonest person you are. lie #4
because keep on arguing the points, because you think you can pull a loss out of my win by moving goal posts. you pretend like you had a reference point you pretended you referenced or provided it many times.

Tell you what sport I'm done here you can call it a win if you like because everything I have to say has been said and backed up many times over with proper translation.

[DeistPaladin]

If you click on Herod the great translation scroll down to luke 1 you will see it is the same word. Meaning 'Herod" is all we have. technically The bible rather mathew nor luke makes a distinction between the herod of luke one or matthew 2. all we have is church tradition.. Nothing in the bible says church tradition is infallible. That said there is evidence for both what I have said to be true and an earlier birth to be true. either way the church no matter which side of the debate you are on knows the time line is off.
...
to put on my atheist shoes, nothing in secular history says this even happens.. Either Way church tradition ascribes this to the great while the bible ambiguously says "herod' to say one or the other would mean the same man did both what is recorded in luke and in mat...

...

Tell you what sport I'm done here you can call it a win if you like because everything I have to say has been said and backed up many times over with proper translation.

I'm exhausted from repeating myself as well but I do note how you've moved to the position that the use of the word "Herod" is "ambiguous", as if it could have referred to either Herod. No, it's not (edit to add: for reasons already articulated ad neuseum) but hey, I'll take any progress at this point.

[Angrboda]

I love how this uneducated moron continually goes on about how we don't understand proper research and debate, and yet he's the one who posted three sources that directly contradicted his claims all in a row. If you don't get the big bits, I'm pretty confident you don't get the small bits, either.

This is the problem with stupid. Stupid never gets tired.

[Drich]

If you click on Herod the great translation scroll down to luke 1 you will see it is the same word. Meaning 'Herod" is all we have. technically The bible rather mathew nor luke makes a distinction between the herod of luke one or matthew 2. all we have is church tradition.. Nothing in the bible says church tradition is infallible. That said there is evidence for both what I have said to be true and an earlier birth to be true. either way the church no matter which side of the debate you are on knows the time line is off.
...
to put on my atheist shoes, nothing in secular history says this even happens.. Either Way church tradition ascribes this to the great while the bible ambiguously says "herod' to say one or the other would mean the same man did both what is recorded in luke and in mat...

...

Tell you what sport I'm done here you can call it a win if you like because everything I have to say has been said and backed up many times over with proper translation.

I'm exhausted from repeating myself as well but I do note how you've moved to the position that the use of the word "Herod" is "ambiguous", as if it could have referred to either Herod. No, it's not (edit to add: for reasons already articulated ad neuseum) but hey, I'll take any progress at this point.

Here 's the problem you have. 

You said antipas could not have or hold the title king. That was wrong. you never admitted to this, and this was the primary crux of my argument. to show you in secular and in transitive history how and indeed why antipas could be considered king even as a tetrarch. all your references hinged in luke which again is ambiguous as the word could be used for both was my point. When you brought in the book of Matthew you moved the goal posts and changed the dynamic of the discussion.

If at any point you had simple conceded the point I was making we could have moved on to who was actually king. my argument was not about who was king when Jesus was born but how the word could have been used. It was not till you brought in the book of Matthew did the conversation change and then become about who was actually on the throne.

I am sorry or my roll in this mix up

---

I love how this uneducated moron continually goes on about how we don't understand proper research and debate, and yet he's the one who posted three sources that directly contradicted his claims all in a row.   If you don't get the big bits, I'm pretty confident you don't get the small bits, either.

This is the problem with stupid.  Stupid never gets tired.

what i love is when someone jumps in a third part discussion at the end of someone else's effort and proceeds to do a victory lap, when she has been given her own challenge that thus far goes unanswered.

[DeistPaladin]

You said antipas could not have or hold the title king. That was wrong. you never admitted to this, and this was the primary crux of my argument. to show you in secular and in transitive history how and indeed why antipas could be considered king even as a tetrarch. all your references hinged in luke which again is ambiguous as the word could be used for both was my point. When you brought in the book of Matthew you moved the goal posts and changed the dynamic of the discussion.

I said that Luke 1:5 is a reference to Herod the Great. 

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea

I offered textural evidence that Luke refers to Antipas as...

Luke 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch

...and it would have been an inconsistency for him to refer to Antipas as "the king of Judea". 

I also offered you historical evidence: Antipas never ruled Judea. 

I also offered you scholarly consensus. 

You only offered your link to the Bluebook Bible where you clicked on "Herod". My mention of Matthew, which was on that page, was to point out your error. 

You lost, sir. Good day, sir. Quit flogging that horse.