The date is irrelevant. There are so many inaccuracies and contradictions surrounding his birth that we could never be certain of anything. For instance, the gospel of Luke tells us that he was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria and that Herod was ruling at that time. Herod subsequently died after ordering all the newborn boys to be killed. Problem is that the Romans we're really good at keeping records. Herod died two years before Quirinius was appointed Governor so Luke couldn't have gotten it right.
But I hear you cry. "That's not important. What is important is that he died for our sins and was resurrected" (Thus he conquered death to give us all the hope of eternal life)
But when we look at the 4 gospels describing the actual resurrection, none of them agree. They don't agree as to who found the empty tomb, or what they saw when they arrived there. Mark says they went in the daytime, John says night-time. Mark ays the ascension occurred in Galilee, Luke says it was in Bethany. If the inerrant word of God offers 4 different versions of the resurrection, surely we can have reasonable cause to doubt it's accuracy and authenticity?
