The accuracy of the following article re: King Herod.?

Question

I thought this article was an interesting read. Your thoughts?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen12292006.html

Answer 1

I don't do links, it clogs up my history folder.

Answer 2

There's allot in this link that isn't historically true. Herod, when he ruled in Jerusalem, asked for, and got from Rome, the title of "King of the Jews". When the Magi came looking for the Christ, he got upset because they were looking for the One Who was born "King of the Jews". The article said there is no evidence for the "Killing of the Innocents". Those killings are talked about in the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century, plus other contemperary historians.

The date this article gave for the destruction of the Temple was off by a few years, it was destroyed in 70 A.D. Also, regardless of what this article says, I don't think there were any communists in 1st century Jeruseleum.

Answer 3

I would say the writer of this article had an "axe to grind". Just look at how he spells his last name! Do you think that is just a coincendence? Someone who publically stands up and says that the book of Matthew is in error, and his name is "Cohen". I would have to suspect that the writer was somewhat "biased".

Answer 4

The Bible is the inspired word of God. I trust the Bible's account.

Psalms 146: 3-5: " Do not put YOUR trust in nobles,
Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.
4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perish.
5 Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help,
Whose hope is in Jehovah his God,"

Answer 5

there IS historical evidence that he sentenced his own wife and two sons to death and that he was probably insane, so it isn't as if he was a nice guy. But ordering the slaughter of all those sons under 2 in his kingdom?... no it never happened.

Answer 6

Just consider the source. A rag of a raving athiest.
The web addr says it all. .org/cohen says it all. LMAO