He begins,”As far as the birth of christ is concerned,, St Irenaeus placed it in 4/3BC and a whole raft 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 early fathers 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, this coincides 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 rather contentious support he placates for this theory is his identification of jupiter with the expected messiah that he claims, the jews had before the time of christ

freeland cunningly negates any argument against the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn theory, [which he now informally adopts as the probable Bethlehem star].by interpolating conjectureous material; he says” why would the star hover over a cave in bethlehem?” and then knocks it,” this is a genuine phenomena and is mentioned by aristotle”. In other words, he means 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 point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child? And at this the evangelist was hinting when he said, "Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was." 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 as created phenomena, thus creating in the west disbelief in miracles which led to all forms of disbelief, atheism deism nilism etc.[english enlightenment and western enlightenment humanistic tendencies] Freeland creates further error........ Freeland introduces his beliefs by citing what he thinks the probable cause of the apparition is and he does this by beginning with the sentence ,” experts have come up with an interesting theory that dates back tp at least to the great astronomer kepler Kepler, 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 and indulges himself to ideas that form the nucleus of his materialistic and agnostic tendencies and prejudices. The western premise for the bible became the onus of proof, without which religion could not exist, they surmised. Freeland continues this man made tradition. Materialism was a great fatalism to western European culture that now centred activity and purpose around man, instead of god. Man was now the centre of the universe as symbolised by leonardo's vitruvian man. For Freeland this embarrassing episode of medieval folly in the guise of the enlightenment is the prototype of his conformation and the basis of all his errors throughout all his works. Orthodox councils condemn protestant enlightenment and reformation humanistic principles. Their is no doubt the reformation accelerated their idolatrous humanist tendencies. while they hypocritically accused orthodox of worshipping idols. The sentence below, discredits freeland premise of a pro astral event-In 1614, German astronomer Johannes Kepler determined that a series of three conjunctions of the planets Jupiter and Saturnoccurred in the year 7 BC.[ Although conjunctions were important in astrology, Kepler was not thinking in astrological terms. He argued (incorrectly) that a planetary conjunction could 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 these conjunctions were not visually impressive.[] An ancient almanac has been found in Babylon which covers the events of this period, but does not indicate that the conjunctions were of any special interest.[In the 20th century, Prof. Karlis Kaufmanis, an astronomer, argued that this was an astronomical event where Jupiter and Saturn were in a triple conjunction in the constellation Pisces source John, Mosley. "Common Errors in 'Star of Bethlehem' Planetarium Shows". Retrieved 2008-06-05.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Star of Bethlehem is not interpreted as an astronomical event, but rather as a supernatural occurrence, whereby an angel was sent by God to lead the Magi to theChrist Child. This is illustrated in the Troparion of the Nativity: Your birth, O Christ our God, dawned the light of knowledge upon the earth. For by Your birth those who adored stars were taught by a star to worship You, the Sun of Justice, and to know You, Orient from on High. O Lord, glory to You.[62] uncreated light

In Orthodox icons, the Star of Bethlehem is often depicted not as golden, but as a dark aureola, a semicircle at the top of the icon, indicating the Uncreated Light of Divine grace, with a ray pointing to "the place where the young child lay" Matt 2:9. Sometimes the faint image of an angel is drawn inside the aureola.

Freeland concedes his limitation on the subject,” there is the problem that the two planets were never 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 astrological story. On top of date, the person who he is “indebted to” david hughes admits of the possibility of 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 expect scientific accuracy and validity through a consensus underpinning one underlining irrefutable date and truth. Once against modern science does not pretend to be scientific but suffers from the same distortions of observation that a person interchangeably taking off and on his reading glasses. 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 is not the problem, but the whitwashing on miraculous events as mere fables myths and allegories is. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. Most have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a year zero). Because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and Nativity 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 uses science as the authority and then the deficiency of the science, uses allegory. To compensate for whole in argument. While the sentence is ambiguous. He dedicates less than a line is explaining the one flaw to his argument that he has so over zealously committed to favouring over other explanations. However the one sentence is without support and is ambiguous. Characteristic of ecumenist orthodox double speak!

Freeland works are characteristic of materialistic pluralists and relativists who parade their fancy dress of scientific precedence in the guise of experts who produce results that are favourable to the created political and cultural climate of the day, rather than the amicable pursuit of truth that we expect them to produce. This doublespeak is defined below. Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing [1]), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.[2][3] However, euphemism is not the same as doublespeak. It will not be considered as doublespeak if it is used appropriately and without the intention to deceive. For example, using "passed away" to suggest somebody is dead is an appropriate use of euphemism Freeland reveals his dispositional inclination by saying,” he appropriately gives considerable weight to the biblical texts and to the astrological background, but little to church tradition” Here Freeland emphatically separates the bible with church tradition as two separate cords.orthodoxy never separates the bible from holy tradition. Guy goes on saying that if those who believe in the mid winter christ birth tradition there is only one alternative[interpreted words not verbatim],” if one accepts the tradition of the mid winter nativity” implying we have no other alternative . Here guy deceives away from what the orthodox church and holy father actually believe and teach. Augustine says that it is a “new star” and that it was “not of the number of those stars, which from the beginning of time observe their paths of motion according to the law of their Maker; but a star that first appeared at the birth”. And again, the same Doctor of Grace says, “It was first created at His birth.” , St. John Chrysostom is most explicit in maintaining that the star of Bethlehem was not what we would call a star when he writes: “This was manifestly not one of the common stars of Heaven. First, because none of the stars moves in this way, from east to south, and such is the situation of Palestine with respect to Persia. Secondly, from the time of its appearance, not in the night only, but during the day. Thirdly, from its being visible and then again invisible; when they entered Jerusalem it hid itself and then appeared again when they left Herod. Further, it had no stated motion, but when the Magi were to go on, it went before them; when to stop, it stopped like the pillar of cloud in the desert. Fourthly, it signified the Virgin's delivery, not by being fixed aloft, but by descending to earth, showing herein like an invisible virtue formed into the visible appearance of a star.” St. Maximos the Confessor says that when the intellect is illumined by the infinite Light of God it becomes insensible to everything made by Him, just as the eye becomes insensitive to the stars when the sun rises. The Magi did not just drop off their gifts and leave, for they left from the presence of Christ as men forever changed by their experience. Their superior intellect and knowledge was confounded by the presence of a little child born under the humblest circumstance The Holy Fathers tell us that this star can be compared to the miraculous pillar of fire, which stood in the camp by night during Israel’s Exodus, or the light from heaven, which overwhelmed Saul on his way to Damascus. St. John Chrysostom, in his homily on the second chapter of Matthew, says God called the wise men by the things that are familiar to them, for being astrologers they were naturally astonished at such a large star. He says that God, for the salvation of those in error, allowed Himself to be served by astrologers, normally used to serve the devil, so that He might gently draw the Magi away from their customs and lead them toward a higher wisdom.

source http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/12/magi-and-star-orthodox-understanding.html He dubiously purports the Jupiter and Christ connection to seal his erroneous ideas however their may be true associations of mother Mary with Venus. In this last sentence, freeland expounds his gnostic and fanatical over zealous allegorical leanings,” why does matthew irrespective of its historicity, gives such prominence to the story of the magi and the star, here is a doorway to the understanding of the meaning of the mystery of the incarnation through astrological symbolism the magi would have unravelled? Never once did freeland concede the otherside of the story which happens to be the orthodox one. How in fact the orthodox fathers view this phenomena as a uncreated light and miracle not as an astral event. One can open themselves up the possibility of an astral event, as this would not have devalued the historical event, however there is no credibility to it because the science does not add up and so it has to be rejected. Most importantly because it contradicts the bible account which shows this light star to move, to reappear, disappear and as unlike an other star, that is created. His arrogance is made clear when he admonishes the traditionalist audience, inferred in his style of writings, that if one accepted the more patristic tradition of events, they still had to settle for a non traditional date august 12, 3BC. “which would have been more favourable to matthew”.. . Science conforms to orthodoxy to the degree that it will be prove the existence of the creator through the created world, however the parameters of science and its limited scopes and apparatus cannot fathom these miraculous realities. Science has dismissed the 2 planet conjunction phenomena as sharing the characteristics of the starlight in the bible. An uncreated light star would have been important so to show to the pagans who followed astrological and astronomer charts of known star orientated positions that the messiah is dissimilar to the stars of the pagans and is a god made incarnate not subject to the fallen categories of this world. A kind of symbolism is also embedded Science can explain how a seed becomes a fruit or how flower harnesses energy through photosynthesis, but it cannot explain why it happens. As this Is the mystery embedded in nature and is the reason why science's role is to honour nature, not exploit it as a resource for money or use science as a theological speculative tool. Science cannot claim to be theologians and so therefore have a narrow scope of definitions limited to the empirical realities of her methodologies .when science claims agnosticism, this is religious belief set according to the tenets of ideology and it happens to have absolutely no support in the material and physical sciences.

In greco roman tradition, science had an unmaterialistic foundation contrary to the medieval enlightenment one that claimed to have re-appropriated the lost knowledge of the greeks of romans into its truer, fuller and proper context. Which was a fabrication as the greeks and romans viewed nature as sacred and no subject to exploitation. The medieval enlightenment which was produced by a very pronounced era proceeding the dark ages, which indicates also the level of education and intellect these en lighteners had, held the premise that science cannot explain any process of nature, no matter how simple, in a true holistic way, but rather in a linear fashion they can merely postulate the actual processes and cause agents that can be observed by the eye, but the inner workings and intellect behind them remains a mystery, as they could not be perceived with the mind in speculation alone, but with man in his whole being, and in relation to his environment is the true existential empirical approach of science. Which Is the science of the fathers who attained the knowledge of all things from their spiritual struggles, their contemplations and experiences. The antenna of reception is his whole being wired up greater than any man made conception, which can perceive god and his knowledge through the participation with his environment better than any telescope or any other man made device can ever hope to produce. Studying the science of natural phenomena alone, can identify that all the processes of nature, sustain man perfectly, however this reason is distorted when the corrupt man can properly adduce the properties of a natural element or could properly identify a process occurs in nature, but rather than give glory to god and praise how the environment sustains us, sorts to find ways to exploit this process for profit because he does not have the spiritual intelligence of deduction to perceive that his whole well-being and livelihood is dependant on this fragile ecosystem and environment,he identifies no communal value whatsoever. Thus distorting and reshaping the image of god in creation to become the image of man unto his own rules in creation and now all science is based on this idea that without the religion of science, the destiny of man is in peril. Since western man destroyed the true image of nature and its place in the cosmos, glod has created signs and portents of events showing disfavour with our abuse of god's created environment, instead of interpreting them as signs of warning from the creator to stop disturbing the balance of nature by continuing to use petrol and gasoline products for energy; for example and creating irreversible havoc onto the environment, they see it as a pretext for further scientific exploration and exploitation in the guise of scientific progress. Freeland conforms science to theology and when one deduces his article,”the magi and the star of Bethlehem” one will see that, as demonstrated, his tenets of support are construed across flimsy methods of reckoning with a series of contradictory scientific findings of dates, a bunch of syncretistic materialistic astrological theories that contradict the bible and when the bible on its own accord is accurate in relaying real actual events, [as he in fact admitted too]eg in reference to working out the periods of temple duty from the passage luke 1:8-9 cited in the beginning of my work, he completely ignores the evidence, despite creating an anomaly to his conclusion, especially in the light of the reality that the bible is a tried and tested historical record of actual and literal events, so he bases his conclusion against the patristic fathers, against the consensus of science which produces ambiguous and contradictory dates for the birth date of christ. A theory that has been debunked so that he completely hides from the possibility of a truly miraculous event which us christians accept through faith and the uncreated knowledge of god as real historical events. Lastly what freeland calls invented, are the names of the 3 magi, which the holy tradition of the church holds so dear. The implications are evidence of his complete abhorrence to christian tradition. Especially given that these magi were real people who are commemorated as saints

in the church. Freeland can never content that the magi's arrived on the date the church commemorates as he is aligned to believe science over faith.Freeland says,” matthew's primary objective is to show good news of incarnation is foreshadowed by the old testament. Guy insinuates a natural rendering of events, its historicity” unknown and therefore allegories actual historical events. Into myths He criticises gospel of Matthew for sparingly using little of the old testament accounts for his nativity narrative. Which ought to have supported freeland's over nonsensical allegorising of gospel records tendencies. This thus,Showing the arrogance in full measure.

In Latin tradition dating from the seventh century,(from a greek manuscript) their names are given as Gaspar (or Caspar/Jasper), Melchior and Balthasar. According to one tradition, the Magi were baptized by the Apostle Thomas, and became bishops. The Church commemorates the Magi as saints; the Eastern feast day of the Magi is December 25. freeland uses origen to push his materialistic views as he is a heretic of the church and there is evidence the catholics used his gnostic texts in reconstructing their theological medieval witch hunting society. He uses another unorthodox father, giotto for a comet or naturalistic theory. Amazing a purported orthodox paper that completely ignores the orthodox position of this christmas theme is typical of modern day ecumenists. Folly, fools and franks in the eyes of god. Birthmaximos.

Russian icon of the Nativity. The Star of Bethlehem is depicted at the center top as a dark semicircle, with a single ray coming down



Other scientific and archaeological support for supporting the orthodox tradition of a genuine miraculous event of the uncreated light witnessed by many. ...Have scholars found firm evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, His earthly father and one of His half brothers? An intriguing find bears their names. First it was the name of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate found in a monument in Caesarea, Israel, in 1961. Then came the discovery in 1990 in Jerusalem of an ossuary, a burial box for bones, bearing the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus. Just recently it appears the most spectacular of all archaeological finds relating to Jesus has surfaced. Another ossuary has come to light, this one bearing the names of Jesus, James and Joseph, three of the most prominent people in the New Testament. The ancient Aramaic words inscribed on the limestone box state that it belonged to "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus ◦ By its very nature the artifact can be dated to within a few decades. Such bone boxes were in use from about 20 B.C. to A.D. 70, when according to Jewish custom the dead were first sealed in caves or rock-cut tombs, then their bones later transferred to a limestone bone box after the body had decayed.

"Maternus did not mention Jesus´ name," says Molnar. "But Roman astrology was a popular craze at the time and everyone reading the book would have known the reference was to Jesus and that the astrological event was the star of Bethlehem

Eusebius, a scholarly church historian of the early fourth century, evidently made a considerable study of the literature available from the centuries before him, and came to this conclusion about the star. "The star was new and a stranger among the usual lights of heaven, a strange star besides the usual ones, a strange and unusual star, not one of the many known stars, but being new and fresh." A recent writer, Robert McIver, has spent three decades researching this subject. In his book, Star of Bethlehem-Star of Messiah, published 1998, he cites star records from ancient Chinese and Korean astronomers who both noted such an unusual new star about the time of Christ's birth. He also discusses paintings in the Roman catacombs, as well as coins from various countries which depict an unusual star about this time. He even notes possible sightings of the star in the Americas. Much of his evidence is vulnerable to other possible interpretations, but it is at least an interesting coincidence, if nothing else, that such indications of an unusual new star at about the time of Christ's birth can be found all over the world. Proves false pagan rendering on birthday of christ

With regard to a December religious feast of the sun as a god (Sol), as distinct from a solstice feast of the (re)birth of the astronomical sun, some scholars have commented that, "while the winter solstice on or around December 25 was well established in the Roman imperial calendar, there is no evidence that a religious celebration of Sol on that day antedated the celebration of Christmas". ^ S.E. Hijmans, The Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome(ISBN 978-90-367-3931-3), p. 588 •

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful