Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Freeland Guy Myth of Star of Bethlehem Refutation

Freeland Guy Myth of Star of Bethlehem Refutation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by nicoromanos

More info:

Published by: nicoromanos on Dec 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 He begins,”As far as the birth of christ is concerned,, St Irenaeus placed it in 4/3BC and a wholeraft of latter fathers opted for 3/2BC”....modern scholarship favours earlier date............Creating the delusion of an imprecise innuendo that there was no consensus amongst the earlyfathers regarding the date of the birth of christ.Guy admits that working out the periods of temple duty from the passage luke 1:8-9, thiscoincides with the church tradition of a birth during mid winter.Freeland introduces the idea that the star of Bethlehem was an astral event and the rathercontentious support he placates for this theory is his identification of jupiter with the expectedmessiah that he claims, the jews had before the time of christ
freeland cunningly negates any argument against the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturntheory, [which he now informally adopts as the probable Bethlehem star].by interpolatingconjectureous material; he says” why would the star hover over a cave in bethlehem?” andthen knocks it,” this is a genuine phenomena and is mentioned by aristotle”. In other words, hemeans it is a natural phenomena, but the orthodox church believes it as a super natural event.. John Chrysostom
viewed the star as purely miraculous: "How then, tell me, did the star pointout a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and camedown, and stood over the very head of the young child? And at this the evangelist was hintingwhen he said, "Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Childwas." The holy fathers having enlightenment in the nature of all things understood the notion of the,uncreated light, which the west fell into error from and viewed all miraculous events ascreated phenomena, thus creating in the west disbelief in miracles which led to all forms of disbelief, atheism deism nilism etc.[english enlightenment and western enlightenmenthumanistic tendencies]Freeland creates further error........Freeland introduces his beliefs by citing what he thinks the probable cause of the apparition isand he does this by beginning with the sentence ,” experts have come up with an interestingtheory that dates back tp at least to the great astronomer keplerKepler, writing in the dark ages, has since been proven wrong, however in the polemic of freeland, he does nothing to weigh up arguments for and against, but rather avails andindulges himself to ideas that form the nucleus of his materialistic and agnostic tendencies andprejudices. The western premise for the bible became the onus of proof, without which religioncould not exist, they surmised. Freeland continues this man made tradition.Materialism was a great fatalism to western European culture that now centred activity andpurpose around man, instead of god. Man was now the centre of the universe as symbolised byleonardo's vitruvian man. For Freeland this embarrassing episode of medieval folly in the guiseof the enlightenment is the prototype of his conformation and the basis of all his errorsthroughout all his works. Orthodox councils condemn protestant enlightenment andreformation humanistic principles. Their is no doubt the reformation accelerated theiridolatrous humanist tendencies. while they hypocritically accused orthodox of worshippingidols. The sentence below, discredits freeland premise of a pro astral event--In 1614,Germanastronomer Johannes Keplerdetermined that a series of three conjunctions of  the planets
Saturnoccurred in the year 7 BC.[Although conjunctions were important in
astrology, Kepler was not thinking in astrological terms. He argued (incorrectly) thata
planetary conjunctioncould create a
nova,which he linked to the Star of Bethlehem.]Modern calculations show that there was a gap of nearly a degree between the planets, so theseconjunctions were not visually impressive.[]An ancient almanac has been foundin
Babylonwhich covers the events of this period, but does not indicate that the conjunctionswere of any special interest.[In the 20th century, Prof.
Karlis Kaufmanis, an astronomer, arguedthat this was an astronomical event where Jupiter and Saturn were in a triple conjunction in theconstellation Piscessource John, Mosley."Common Errors in 'Star of Bethlehem' Planetarium Shows". Retrieved2008-06-05.
In theEastern Orthodox Church, the Star of Bethlehem is not interpreted as an astronomicalevent, but rather as asupernaturaloccurrence, whereby anangelwas sent by God to lead theMagito theChrist Child. This is illustrated in the Troparionof the Nativity:  Your birth, O Christ our God,dawned the light of knowledge upon the earth.For by Your birththose who adored starswere taught by a starto worship You, the Sun of Justice,and to know You, Orient from on High.O Lord, glory to You.
uncreated light
In Orthodox
, the Star of Bethlehem is often depicted not as golden, but as a dark
,a semicircle at the top of the icon, indicating the 
, with a raypointing to "the place where the young child lay" 
. Sometimes the faint image of anangel is drawn inside the aureola.Freeland concedes his limitation on the subject,” there is the problem that the two planets werenever so close that they would have been seen as a single star”, he continues,” but perhaps jupiter was the star of bethlehem and it was the conjunctions which provided the astrologicalstory. On top of date, the person who he is “indebted to” david hughes admits of the possibilityof a mid winter birth, but opted for an alternative date.It is quite exciting to see scientists in disagreement in such an area where you would expectscientific accuracy and validity through a consensus underpinning one underlining irrefutabledate and truth. Once against modern science does not pretend to be scientific but suffers fromthe same distortions of observation that a person interchangeably taking off and on his readingglasses. As the world changed dating methods from the date of creation to the AD formulation,do doubt discrepancies would have occurred that may render a 2BC date as really 1AD. This isnot the problem, but the whitwashing on miraculous events as mere fables myths andallegories is.Because
did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars havededuced both AD 1 and 1 BC. Most have selected 1 BC (historians do not use ayear zero
).Because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year thatwas 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near thatEaster. Consequently one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March 1,
meaningthat Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesuswas nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus wasborn 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinksthat Dionysius placed the Incarnation andNativity 
in AD 1 .source for above paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus
In reference to freeland quote above about the problem with the two stars, he once again usesscience as the authority and then the deficiency of the science, uses allegory. To compensatefor whole in argument. While the sentence is ambiguous. He dedicates less than a line isexplaining the one flaw to his argument that he has so over zealously committed to favouringover other explanations. However the one sentence is without support and is ambiguous.Characteristic of ecumenist orthodox double speak!

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->