, 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!