While scientists may think Jesus was born on June 17, a careful study of the Bible indicates the more likely date to be some time in late September/early October with Rosh Hashanah figuring very prominently in the calculations.

This study gives all the details: http://gracethrufaith.com/topical-studies/holidays...

"Scientists claim the Christmas star was most likely a magnificent conjunction of the planets Venus and Jupiter,"

I have lost count of the number of stories of that kind I have seen over the years.

2,000 years after the event, nobody is ever likely to find out the date of Jesus' birth.

Even if they did, Christmas Day would probably remain on 25 December, because it is too firmly fixed in the Church's calendar.

If you remove Catholicism from the list, few Christians believe Jesus was born on December 25.

Since there's no evidence an actual "jesus" ever existed, and the date of his supposed birth isn't given anywhere in the bible, how is that "more accurate?" It's just a different guess.

Being accurate requires having evidence to demonstrate accuracy. That's not the case here.

By the way, that article isn't "science," and it isn't "evidence." It makes several worthless assumptions -- one being that the "star" was a real thing that occurred, one being that it was actually a conjunction of planets. Neither is supportable by any evidence.

No, it was never intended to be accurate.

Dec. 25 was chosen to offset Saturnalia.

It's probably closer to Sept or Oct that he was born.

The whole thing is fake anyway so why change.