It used to bother me that we don’t really know the time of year when Jesus was born, yet all churches celebrate it on December 24 as a fact. The “substitution theory” says that it was to take people away from celebrating Yule, a pegan worship of the winter solstice, when the day is the shortest and the night the longest, literally the darkest time of the year (in the northern hemisphere anyway). The scripture did not specify the month or the season of our Messiah’s birth, even though it was very specific about the date of his death (the third day of Passover, which begins on Nisah 15).
But having worked out a tentative liturgy schedule covering the scripture topics to coincide with the winter solstice, passover, and the summer solstice, it seems to work out well.
There is something beautiful about this structure. Whereas the winter solstice is the darkest time of the year, the birth of Jesus brought light into the world, and the light keeps growing until it climaxes in the new heaven and new earth in the Book of Revelations, to be discussed during summer solstice. Then we go back to learn about the creation of the old world. As men fell into sin, the light keeps getting shorter.
The passover also coincides with the spring equinox, which gives us almost three months of the year to learn about the teachings of Jesus. Some churches may use some of this period to observe lent.
Although this liturgical schedule does not substantiate the birthday of Jesus in any way, we can find symbolism in its coincidence to seasons (again, in the northern hemisphere anyway). If a church follows this liturgy schedule, it would cover the whole Bible in a year in a way that aligns with the traditional holidays.