Animation Source Forums

(First seen on "The One Show" on BBC1, and then used an article from Daily Mail.

It may not be too late to send the presents back, as astronomers have calculated that Christmas should not be celebrated on December 25 - but on June 17 instead.

Researchers tracked the appearance of the 'Christmas star', which the Bible states three wise men followed to find Jesus.

Australian stargazer Dave Reneke used complex computer software to chart the exact positions of all celestial bodies and map the night sky as it would have appeared over the Holy Land more than 2,000 years ago.

He discovered that a bright star really did appear over Bethlehem 2,000 years ago - but pinpointed the date of Christ's birth as June 17, and not December 25.

Scientists claim the Christmas star 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.

Mr Reneke says the wise men probably interpreted it as the sign they had been waiting for, and they followed the 'star' to Christ's birthplace in a stable in Bethlehem, as described in the Bible.

Generally accepted research has placed the nativity to somewhere between 3BC and 1AD.

Using the St Matthew's Gospel as a reference point, Mr Reneke pinpointed the planetary conjunction, which appeared in the constellation of Leo, to the exact date of June 17 in the year 2BC.

Mr Reneke, who is editor of Sky and Space magazine, said: 'We have software that can recreate the night sky exactly as it was at any point in the last several thousand years.

'Venus and Jupiter became very close in the the year 2BC and they would have appeared to be one bright beacon of light.

'We are not saying this was definitely the Christmas star - but it is the strongest explanation for it of any I have seen so far.

'Astronomy is such a precise science, we can plot exactly where the planets were, and it certainly seems this is the fabled Christmas star. There's no other explanation that so closely matches the facts we have from the time.

'This could well have been what the three wise men interpreted as a sign. They could easily have mistaken it for one bright star.'

He added: 'December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

'This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

'Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith.'

Previous theories have speculated that the star was a supernova (exploding star) or even a comet.

But Mr Reneke says that by narrowing the date down, the technology has provided the most compelling explanation yet.
A leading theory behind why December 25 was chosen as the date to celebrate Christ's birth, was that it was selected by the church as it aligned closely with a major pagan festival, which allowed the church to claim a new celebration for Christianity.
However, if the findings are correct, it would mean a change from Christmas cards featuring traditional snowy scenes to sunny beach views in June.

As far as I know, the date of Christmas was actually moved to coincide with the Pagan winter solstice so as not to offend too many people.
(I think.)

Everything about Christmas is pagan. The tree, wreaths, mistletoe, etc

How about the star on top of the tree, ah?

That comes from the shop.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Christmas is celebrated at different times of the year in other countries... not to mention the other religions.

Hahaha I was trying to point out that the star on top of the tree was a religious symbol representing the north star the 3 kings followed.

I know. I was joking with it. P=
Also why lots of people use fairies or angels to top the tree instead of a star, because they don't want it to be religious.

Frankly, I just like to make it look shiny and pretty.

Not usually... the star is symbolic and angels are more generic.
Without meaning to sound offensive...

I have this much to say about some of the traditions: yes, a number of them are pagan in origin (I won't get religious about this, but I will say that this was not the doing of people who were, shall we say, of the same persuaion I am concerning religious practices). It was wrong for them to do so, but for us in the present, is it a matter so much whether one celebrates Christmas in a certain way, within reason? People of that time may have worshiped trees, for example, but do we now? I, for one, do not. I don't think it matters whether you celebrate Christmas with a pine tree or no tree at all (although a living tree does make a nice addition to the yard later), or whether you snack on gingerbread or Graham crackers. The only part of it I feel is indispensable is the spirit in which it is honored. That, sadly, is what is lacking so much today.
So celebrate Christmas any day. In fact, celebrate it every day. The spirit of giving, the spirit of love great enough to offer up one's very life for another, is something no one should ever limit to one culture or time.

My mistake on the origin of the Christmas tree tradition. But let me explain what I meant, and why I am against the mingling of symbolism.
Up to a point, you are right. Not to get into religious debate, as much as I would like to, but let me put this as purely historically as I can. When Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and all those social benefits were attached to it, the church tried to make itself more palatable to those coming from a pagan background. I can't say exactly how without breaking the rules (as it is I could be hammered on a few technicalities), but in some areas I feel they went a bit too far, incorporating things that were, at best, misleading with regard to their message.
Now, I am all for putting spiritual and moral messages into a context people will find pertinent. I wouldn't be a writer on this site otherwise. I'm all for, say, celebrating Thanksgiving with local foods instead of the traditional turkey and cranberry sauce (after all, assuming one believes in a single God, does it not make sense to thank Him for any kind of food, not just those particular kinds?). But when you take a symbol from a culture, you need to consider what that symbol means to the people in that culture. And sometimes, you have to adjust how you say what you say in order for it to come across suitably to the recipient. For example, there is a native tribe in South America which at onetime (I don't know if they still think this way) believed that the soul resided in the liver (which makes some poetic sense if you think about i, but only in English). So when missionaries were communicating with them and wanted to talk about the "heart" in the metaphysical sense, they used the word for "liver." But sometimes, mixing cultures can lead to trouble. For example, a missionary (I can't remember his name) once succeeded in teaching a cannibal tribe that it was bad to eat people. Good, right? But because of their background, he had to wait years before introducing them to the practice of... well, I won't finish that here unless UK gives me the go-ahead, so if anyone wants to know otherwise, they'll have to PM me.

Everyday Christmas? Woah, that's alot of money...

I hope that's a joke.