I am convinced that Jesus Christ was born on Nisan 1, 5 BCE. In the Julian calendar, the biblical month of Nisan corresponds to March/April. If calculated correctly, Nisan 1, 5 BCE corresponds to March 9/10 in the Julian calendar. This would mean that Jesus was born on the sixth day of the week, just like Adam, who was created on the sixth day of the week. And Jesus is the better Adam, the new Adam, who replaced the old Adam. Nisan is the first month in the biblical calendar, which means that Jesus was born on New Year's Day. He was born on New Year's Day because He is the beginning of the new creation, who replaced the old creation. Nisan 1 was the day on which the tent of God was completed, because Jesus is the new tent of God, who replaced the old tent. The Catholic Church, which claims that Jesus was born on December 25, 1 BCE, is gravely mistaken. I advise Catholics to repent.
But now we come to the title of this post. I maintain that there is probably a genuine photograph of the Star of Bethlehem. I arrive at this assumption based on the following: The ancient Chinese report that sometime between March 9 and April 6, 5 BCE, a tailed comet appeared in the sky and was visible for more than 70 days. This means that this comet was visible until at least May 5 BCE. Now, if we count exactly 2000 years from the birth of Jesus, we arrive in the year 1996. At the beginning of March 1996, a comet became visible to the naked eye in the sky until the end of May. In total, this comet was visible to the naked eye for about 90 days. This comet had a long tail. This comet is known as "Comet Hyakutake." What I believe is this: I believe that God celebrated the 2000th anniversary of his son's birth by sending back the Star of Bethlehem. I suspect that this comet of 1996 is the same comet that appeared in 5 BCE. Comet Hyakutake was closest to Earth in late March 1996. In 1996, Nisan 1 fell on March 21. A few days later, on Nisan 15, there was a total lunar eclipse, just like on Nisan 15, 5 BCE. So we see similarities between 5 BCE and 1996.
You know we're on the Gregorian calendar, right? You keep talking about the Julian calendar in these threads when its leap year drift is why Christmas ended up all the way in December by time Gregory XIII came up with a non drifting calendar.
(The Julian calendar aligns with the Roman calendar of the first century. The proleptic Gregorian would be two days off from that in that century. There's no issue which one you use, but IMHO most historians use the Julian because the locals did at that time.)
The leap year drift does account for why Christmas is December 25 instead of the solstice around December 21, because it took about 4 centuries of drift to solidify; but the solstice has always been in late December and not at the beginning (kalends) of a new Roman month. But God knows why he let different eras use different calendars, and no data point is contradicted by the existence of drift of "Christmas".