Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Minion of Jesus on June 08, 2012, 06:17:46 PM
-
Okay. 2 questions. Are Ananias (EC) Sapphira, Seven Sons of Sceva, adn Herodians Heretics? Are all the Herods kings of Israel?
-
1. No I do not think they are.
2. Yes I think
-
No to both.
-
what are Herod's then if not kings??
-
Q1. No, Heretics are only people that were leading God's people away by using false teachings and using the claim that they are Christian. There are plenty of people even in current times are Heretics. Just so this doesn't go into a debate I will not name anyone here.
Q2. Officially, I would say that they are.
-
The REG does not list Herods as Kings of Israel, but considers them Kings and Roman. Possibly not Kings of Israel since it was a province of the Roman Empire at that time?
-
Israel was considered a province of the Roman empire. It did not change its name to "Isrealome.
-
REG doesn't list Rehoboam as a King of Isreal but he is treated as one as far as I know. REG is incorrect on quite a few identifiers mainly between various sets. (ie the Unlimited version of Astrologers is Generic, but the Promo doesn't have that Identifer)
Biblically, the Herods are Isrealite Kings, but didn't rule Samaria, because in the New Testament Samaria is a different country alltogether.
-
The Herods ruled (parts of) the Roman province of Judea. Israel was no longer a nation when they ruled.
-
So, they would be considered Judean kings?
-
The New Testament does mention Isreal in a present tense, as well as Judah. At this time both were seperate countries as well as Samaria. Each had their own rulers (ie the Herod during Pilate's time was a King of Judah) the main thing is that you would have to look on an ancient map where the limitations were, but most Herods ruled either Isreal or Judah.
-
Israel was a culture and descriptor of a people group also.
-
That can be said of any and all nations, But Isreal was still a Country at that time, so it would be a Nation that would be able to be ruled at that time.
-
Isreal was still a Country at that time
No it wasn't.
-
Semantics aside it has been ruled that Kings and Queens of Israel/Judah group in Redemption is limited to those that ruled during the time of both country's independent(sovereign) status. I will try to return after church with the thread containing the ruling
-
I haven't seen that since the King that ruled Isreal when it was captured by the Babylonians would then not be a King of Judah/Isreal.
-
Korunks is correct. The Herods are neither Kings of Judah nor Israel. Some historians would probably say they were not really Kings at all, but they are recognized as such in the Bible, so they are considered Kings for Redemption purposes.
-
So they are Kings of Isreal/Judah?
-
So they are Kings of Isreal/Judah?
Korunks is correct. The Herods are neither Kings of Judah nor Israel. Some historians would probably say they were not really Kings at all, but they are recognized as such in the Bible, so they are considered Kings for Redemption purposes.
Bolded your answer
-
I know they are not, and they are not intended to be, but the REG does say HAII is for some reason. I mentioned in another thread (Denarius) that he shouldn't be AFAIK.
-
The problem is Kings of where then?
-
The problem is Kings of where then?
Kings of the Roman Province of Israel/Judea. Like I said, many historians don't refer to them as kings, the only reason that they are ruled that way is that the Bible refers to them as Kings. But they certainly weren't kings in the traditional sense (since they were subservient to the Emperor).
-
The problem is Kings of where then?
Kings of the Roman Province of Israel/Judea. Like I said, many historians don't refer to them as kings, the only reason that they are ruled that way is that the Bible refers to them as Kings. But they certainly weren't kings in the traditional sense (since they were subservient to the Emperor).
I dunno about that. Many early civilizations had territories or city-states ruled by a king who answered to a High King. Saying that they weren't Kings just because they answered to a Higher King would mean that an argument could be made that every Judean King that followed Hezekiah wasn't a real King because they answered to Kings claiming authority over them, in that case Assyria/Babylon.
-
The problem is Kings of where then?
Kings of the Roman Province of Israel/Judea. Like I said, many historians don't refer to them as kings, the only reason that they are ruled that way is that the Bible refers to them as Kings. But they certainly weren't kings in the traditional sense (since they were subservient to the Emperor).
I dunno about that. Many early civilizations had territories or city-states ruled by a king who answered to a High King. Saying that they weren't Kings just because they answered to a Higher King would mean that an argument could be made that every Judean King that followed Hezekiah wasn't a real King because they answered to Kings claiming authority over them, in that case Assyria/Babylon.
I agree.