Author Topic: H and H (Read 2933 times)

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?

Nameless · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2012, 06:19:00 PM »

1. No I do not think they are.
2. Yes I think

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2012, 06:29:32 PM »

No to both.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2012, 06:59:50 PM »

what are Herod's then if not kings??

megamanlan · « **Reply #4 on:** June 08, 2012, 07:05:55 PM »

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.

sk · « **Reply #5 on:** June 08, 2012, 07:34:55 PM »

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?

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 08, 2012, 08:25:58 PM »

Israel was considered a province of the Roman empire. It did not change its name to "Isrealome.

megamanlan · « **Reply #7 on:** June 08, 2012, 09:14:00 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2012, 09:51:56 PM »

The Herods ruled (parts of) the Roman province of Judea. Israel was no longer a nation when they ruled.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2012, 07:51:52 AM »

So, they would be considered Judean kings?

megamanlan · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2012, 09:15:40 AM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2012, 10:31:38 PM »

Israel was a culture and descriptor of a people group also.

megamanlan · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2012, 10:40:48 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #13 on:** June 09, 2012, 10:44:03 PM »

Quote

Isreal was still a Country at that time

No it wasn't.

Korunks · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2012, 09:32:59 AM »

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

megamanlan · « **Reply #15 on:** June 10, 2012, 10:30:18 AM »

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2012, 10:23:51 AM »

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.

megamanlan · « **Reply #17 on:** June 11, 2012, 01:34:37 PM »

So they are Kings of Isreal/Judah?

Drrek · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2012, 01:47:38 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 01:34:37 PM

So they are Kings of Isreal/Judah?

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 11, 2012, 10:23:51 AM

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

Professoralstad · « **Reply #19 on:** June 11, 2012, 01:49:01 PM »

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.

megamanlan · « **Reply #20 on:** June 11, 2012, 01:52:02 PM »

The problem is Kings of where then?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #21 on:** June 11, 2012, 01:54:34 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 01:52:02 PM

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).

Praeceps · « **Reply #22 on:** June 13, 2012, 12:29:27 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 11, 2012, 01:54:34 PM

Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 01:52:02 PM
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.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #23 on:** June 13, 2012, 05:50:50 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on June 13, 2012, 12:29:27 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 11, 2012, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: megamanlan on June 11, 2012, 01:52:02 PM
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.

News:

Author Topic: H and H (Read 2933 times)