QUOTE(mako @ Mar 7 2006, 07:55 PM) [snapback]1093500[/snapback]
I and others have refuted your claims for Daniel, over and over, but you refuse to see the truth. Explain the historical mistakes that Daniel made, mistakes that a man that lived during that time would not have made. In the meantime, tell me when Jesus was born. If you can't give an answer that satisfies the gospels and history, then you will have shown that the NT is not god's word. If you refuse to answer, you have shown what a poseur you are.
Here we go again Mako;
from;
http://www.struggler.org/birth3.htmIn What Year Was Jesus Christ Born?
Most of the information needed to establish when our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ was born in the flesh is contained in the Holy Gospel according to St. Luke the Evangelist. Additional critical information is found in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, and in a Roman inscription discovered in 1794, as well as the other sources earlier alluded to. According to St. Luke, the Holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary conceived in the sixth month of the pregnancy of her well-aged cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:24-26). St. Elizabeth conceived (miraculously, considering her advanced years), immediately after "those days" (Luke 1:22-24), which were climaxed by a vision experienced by the priest Zacharias as he was offering incense before God in the Temple of Solomon while "the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of the incense" (Luke 1:10, AV; NEB reads: "The whole congregation was at prayer outside," and this was during the reign of "Herod, King of udæa" and prior to when Tiberius became Cæsar Augustus [Emperor] of Rome [Luke 1:5; 3:1], and when Quirinius [Cyrenius] was governor of Syria [Luke 2:2]). St. Matthew confirms that the Birth of our Savior took place while Herod the Great was King of Judæa. If St. Vincent of Lerins is correct, that information, together with ecclesiastical tradition, should certainly suffice to determine exactly when Jesus Christ was born. Could there be other sources of information as well?
Anglican historian Sabine Baring-Gould is of little help, given that he focuses on various relics of the event that are scattered about Europe. Most such relics are in Old Rome, some having been moved there from Constantinople, possibly when it was sacked by the Franks in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade.
In any event, physical evidence such as properly attested relics may help to date Christ's Birth, although not with precision. Our best sources of information, as St. Vincent of Lerins affirms, are the Gospels which the Orthodox Church has declared canonical.
Two keys for establishing the exact year in which our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ was born in the flesh are (1) the year of the death of King Herod the Great of Judæa, and (2) the first gubernatorial tenure of Quirinius in Syria. According to both Saints Matthew and Luke, Jesus Christ was born toward the end of the life of King Herod the Great while Quirinius was governing Syria (Matt. 2:19; Luke 2:2). It is important to understand and accept that these Saints are primary sources of information. Early non-Christian historians who recorded the events of that time in Judæa, most notably Flavius Josephus, did not report the Birth of Jesus Christ. As respected historian W. M. Ramsey admits, the time of Caesar Augustus, when Jesus was born in the flesh, "is enveloped in the deepest obscurity," in contrast to the reigns of Julius Caesar and Tiberius (Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?, 1898, p. 49). Even Flavius Josephus is not an entirely credible source about this period of time. The late Dr. Samuel Sandmel of Hebrew Union College, for example, has argued convincingly that Josephus even calculated Herod's age inaccurately (Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, vol. 2, p. 587). Competent historian though he was, Josephus's primary source of information about King Herod the Great was the court chronicle written by Nicholas of Damascus (see entry "Herod," p. 382, New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, 1970). Since this chronicle has apparently ceased to exist, leaving no way to verify the date of King Herod's death, one is forced to rely on other historians, one of whom is Dionysius Exiguus.
One of the first great Christian historians, Dionysius Exiguus was a Roman monk who wrote in the year 532. He examined all the historical evidence from which to calculate the exact year of the Birth of Jesus Christ. He established that Christ was born in the flesh in A.D. 1, a view which was not contradicted until some centuries later. (5) It was also Dionysius who coined the term Anno Domini (A.D., "in the year of our Lord") as a universal reference point. Prior to this coinage, every historian used a different point of reference, such as the year of the death of this or that monarch or the onset of this or that war, to calculate time. By coining the term "A.D.", Dionysius changed the way all future historians would set dates. Saints Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, wrote almost five centuries before Dionysius Exiguus was born, when the terms "B.C." and "A.D." did not yet exist.
It is ironic, and also significant, that the writings of early heretics such as Tertullian have been translated into English and widely disseminated, but the works of Dionysius Exiguus remain untranslated and available only in Latin. As a result, revisionist historians constantly refer to Tertullian, a heretic, to attack the Gospel of St. Luke, while they freely ignore or disparage Dionysius Exiguus. These same revisionists attack Saints Matthew and Luke as unreliable, but they venerate Flavius Josephus despite the fact that his assertions are not verifiable.
If Tertullian had not made one specific statement within a polemic which he had written against another heretic, Marcion, then Dionysius Exiguus might never have been questioned centuries later by the revisionist historians. Because of this one statement, however, the revisionists launched a full-scale assault not just on Dionysius, but on the entire Gospel of St. Luke. Tertullian wrote as follows:
. . . [T]here is proof that at this time [Tertullian refers here to the time when Jesus was told of His mother and brethren being nearby] a census had been taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their [the Marcionists'] inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ ("Fourth Book Against Marcion," Chapter 19 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, New York, 1908, p. 378).
"If Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria," proclaimed the revisionists, "this must mean that the Gospel of St. Luke is in error where it refers to the census 'when Cyrenius was governor of Syria'" (Luke 2:2 AV). The danger was clear. To attack the Holy Gospel, the Word of God, on one seemingly minor historical point is to attack the credibility of the entire Gospel account of the Birth of Jesus Christ in the flesh, and indeed of the entire Gospel itself.
Seeing this, the more conventional historians charged to the defense of St. Luke. In doing so, however, they cast overboard the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus. In order to "save" the credibility of the Gospel, they allowed the year of the Birth of Jesus Christ to be left in doubt. So matters stand to this day, which is why Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary has Jesus Christ born "ca. 6 B.C."
Interestingly, however, a Roman inscription, known as the Lapis Tiburtinus [Tiburtine stone(6)] was discovered near Rome in 1794. This inscription, kept in the Lateran Museum, refers to Quirinius as having twice been governor of Syria. Tertullian, it seems, had paid more attention to Flavius Josephus when he wrote in A.D. 207 than he had to the Orthodox Christian tradition from which he had departed. (On this point see Alexander Souter's article on Quirinius in the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, New York, 1948, pp. 778-779).
On the basis of Tertullian's statement, as opposed to the Holy Evangelists Matthew and Luke, the revisionists claim that the Birth of Christ could not have taken place during the census of Quirinius, as proclaimed by St. Luke (2:1-2), because, they say, Herod the Great was already dead when Quirinius was made governor of Syria. Tertullian, they say, is their witness, and he refers not to Quirinius but to his predecessor, Sentius Saturninus. Tertullian, however, is a secondary, not a primary, source. He wrote some two centuries after the event to which he made reference. One can only wonder why he chose to contradict the Gospel of St. Luke, with which he was certainly familiar. It is a known fact that he wrote as a Montanist, having become affiliated with this heretical group in A.D. 206. Montanists rejected the Christian episcopate and claimed for themselves prophetic gifts of the Holy Spirit. They described their denomination as the "Church of the Spirit" and the true Christian Church as merely the "Church of the bishops."
In any event, Orthodox primary sources are the Gospels supported by the Tibur inscription. Flavius Josephus is silent concerning the Birth of Christ. He does report on the life of Herod the Great, and his writings are therefore used to establish the year of Herod's death. As Dr. Samuel Sandmel has alleged, however, Flavius Josephus was in error in matters of Herodian chronology. Despite this, almost every standard reference currently in print attacks the dating established by Dionysius Exiguus while accepting the assertions of Flavius Josephus, who depended upon a chronicle which has been lost. It would seem that the present intellectual establishment either has its priorities mixed up or has an anti-Christian agenda. In the meantime Orthodox Christians will continue to follow what they have been taught in the Holy Gospels of Saints Matthew and Luke, which have been declared canonical Holy Scripture.
It is interesting to note that St. Justin the Philosopher, writing in A.D. 150, closely follows St. Luke. According to St. Justin, the Birth of Jesus Christ in the flesh took place during the census of Quirinius. Moreover, says he, the enrollments of Quirinius were, after all, a matter of public record. When he wrote, these records were indeed public. It is unfortunate that they have since been lost, but it is noteworthy that St. Justin could write with such confidence on the subject. (7)
In the revisionists' attack on Dionysius Exiguus and the reports of Saints Matthew and Luke, they face an additional problem: how to account for a life on earth which ended by general consent at age 33. If Jesus Christ was crucified at age 33 and during the governorship of Pontius Pilate which commenced A.D. 26, He could not possibly have been born as early as 6 B.C. as the revisionists claim. Hence their employment of the historian's all-purpose fudge factor in such situations, "c." or "ca." for circa before the numeral 6.
The information which is known from Flavius Josephus concerning Pilate's rule indicates that Pilate was rebuked by the Roman Senate, the revisionists say, in A.D. 31, because he demanded tribute money from the Jews. Does this not sound familiar? Could the rebuke have been issued, or could it have arrived, or could it have been acted upon later than A.D. 31, say as late as A.D. 33? If so, this makes it all the more difficult for the revisionists to make their case. St. Matthew tells us that when Jesus was in Capernaum, "They that received tribute came to Peter and said, 'Doth not your master pay tribute?'" (Matt. 17:24 AV, with quotation marks inserted by this writer). All three of the synoptic Gospels relate the story of the tribute money which concludes with "Render to Cæsar . . ." This took place in the Temple after the triumphal Entry of our Lord into Jerusalem, when the senatorial rebuke had not yet effected its intended objective, namely, to put an end to the payment of tribute money by the Jews. The issuance of the rebuke, however, clarifies why Pilate vacillated when Jesus was brought to trial. The Roman governor did not wish to risk another senatorial rebuke by offending a Jewish ruling establishment well connected in Rome, politically speaking. St. Luke tells us that on Great and Holy Friday when our Lord was crucified, "Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves" (Luke 23:12 AV). That such a feud had developed suggests a serious problem of some long standing. In other words, the Crucifixion had to have taken place when Pilate had been governor for more than just a few months, i.e., no earlier than in A.D. 33.
The conclusion of the matter is threefold:
The Holy Gospels are 100 percent credible and reliable,
The computations of Dionysius Exiguus have been attacked forcefully, but not definitively, and
The revisionists' alternatives have created more problems for the historian than the ones they were intended to solve.
Or wasn't it what was troubling you?
The gospels tell such thing? I wasn't aware of that.
.
Are you going to come back in again and say..ohh I know what you meant I was just pretending like last time? 
