Cancel Christmas!

That's what the headline blared today.

But when you read the article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1093053/Cancel-Christmas--Jesus-born-June-17-say-scientists.html), it is obviously written by someone who had not taken the time to find out more - a crime, really, for a any newspaper reporter. But I suppose, not surprising, considering which newspaper this is. Known for its sensationalism and gossip, the reporter must have been in a rush to meet a deadline.

He describes the three wise men as mentioned in the Bible. I need to show him my post in The Hinge (http://thehingeblogs.blogspot.com/2008/12/frankincense.html) about how this is not true!

As for the date that is mentioned, it is obvious that the date is only for the "star". It still does not mean that June 17 was the date of the birth. This reporter even makes mention that the nativity could have happened between 3BC and 1AD. That means that when the Christmas star" which was most likely a magnificent conjunction of the planets Venus and Jupiter, which were so close together they would have shone unusually brightly as a single 'beacon of light' which appeared suddenly" appeared, the "baby" Jesus could have been as old as 2 years old.

All said and done, it doesn't bother me if the birth is celebrated in the winter of England, or in the winter of Australia (i.e. middle of the roman calendar). The historic birth cannot be denied.

Furthermore, in my books, Christmas is all year round. It's a celebration of the birth of the one and only Saviour. Any day is good for that.