Mary pregnant with Jesus for 10 years
We are informed that Jesus was born six months after John the Baptist. However, when we put the dates in the bible, we clearly see this isn’t the case.
Of course, the bible doesn’t give the date of Jesus birth (or of any events that suppose to have had taken place before, during, and after the reign of this Jesus), however, Luke provides us with enough information that we could, at the very least, make an somewhat educated guess as to when Jesus may have been born.
If we insert the dates of when Herod the Great reign over the land of Judea, and when P. Sulpicius Quirinius became governor of Syria, we’ll clearly see that Mary would have been pregnant for at least ten years.
Mary conceived six months after Elizabeth, but didn’t give birth until ten years later according to the bible.
Let’s open the bible to Luke and we will read chapters 1 and 2. 
Note: You can always read the entire two chapters. However, for the purpose of this study, I’m only going to emphasize the verses that are relevant to the point I wish to bestow upon the reader.
Luke 1:5 THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. . . Luke 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. . . Luke 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months. . . Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luke 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luke 1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. . . Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. . . Luke 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
Luke 1:40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. . . Luke 1:56 And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house. * . . Luke 1:57, Now Elizabeth full time came and she delivered; and she brought forth a son. ~ John the Baptist. ~
* Mary is three months pregnant at this point in the story.
Fact: Herod the Great (c. 73-4 B.C.E.) King of Judaea from 37 to 4 B.C.E 
Therefore, according to the testimony of Luke, Mary and Elizabeth conceived sometime between 37 B.C.E. and 4 B.C.E. The most popular date being 5/4 B.C.E. since Herod died in 4 B.C.E. At Luke 1:5 the date of 5 B.C.E. will go here.
Note: We are still in the days of Herod when Elizabeth gives birth.
Now let’s go to Luke chapter 2
Luke 2:1 And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria.
Luke 2:2 And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
Luke 2: 3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Luke 2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. .Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Fact: Quirinius, Publius Sulpicius (d. 21 C.E) Consul in 12 B.C.E. and imperial official under Emperor Tiberius (ruled 14-37 C.E.) Appointed governor of Syria in 6 C.E…, he was responsible for the census conducted in Judaea following the territory’s annexation. 
At Luke 2:1 the date of 6 C.E. will go here.
Note: Elizabeth give birth in the days of Herod and Mary give birth when Cyrenius (Quirinius) is governor of Syria in 6 C.E.
Now let’s count the years between births.
If Mary concieved in 5 B.C., and gave birth in 6 A.D, as the bible inform us, she was pregnent for at least ten years with Jesus!
From 5 B.C to 6 A.D. is 10 years: 5 B.C. 4 B.C., 3 B.C., 2 B.C., 1 B.C., 1 A.D., 2 A.D., 3 A.D, 4 A.D., 5 A.D., 6 A.D. 10 Years! And the earlier these women concieved in the day of Herod, the longer Mary would have been pregnent.
According to The Anchor Bible Dictionary concerning this matter:
QUIRINIUS (Person) [Gk Kyrenaios]. When P. Sulpicius Quirinius, who appears to have been born in the fifties B.C., died in A.D. 12, he was one of the most powerful men in Rome. He was noted for his long service as a soldier and his long-standing friendship with the emperor Tiberius (A.D. 14-37).
He has a also been the subject of intense controversy. This controversy stems from Luke’s statement that the birth of Christ took place while Quirinius’ was governor of Syria and Herod the Great was on the throne of Judea. The other evidence for Quirinius’ career, some inscriptions from Syria (which are not to be confused with the acephelous text from Tibur which has wrongly been thought to provide details of his career). Tacitus’ Annales, Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and Strabo’s Geography, reveal that Luke’s statement must be “Incorrect” Herod died in 4 B.C., but Quirinius was governor of Syria in A.D. 6/7.
Luke wrote (2:1-2), “It happended in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world be registered for a tax, the degree first went out while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.” Cyrenius is the Greek form of the name Quirinius (PW 4:823), and the fact that he held a census during his term in office is confirmed by an inscription from Apamea (Modern Aleppo) in Syria as well as by Josephus.
Although it was already recognized in antiquity that there was a problem with Luke’s chronology-Tertullian knew that Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria at the end of Herod’s life (d. Marc. 4.19)-a number of efforts have nevertheless been made by modern scholars to reconcile this statement with Luke’s belief that Herod was still alive when the census was held. The most forceful argument has been that Quirinius must have been governor twice and that he must have held two census. It is based upon the Contention that Quirinius is the officer mentioned on an inscription from Tibur which contains part of the career of a senator in the reign of Augustus.
This inscription does not, however, preserve the “Name” of the man it commemorates, and, indeed, it preserves only part of the career. The surviving section runs, “…king, which he brought under control of Caesar Augustus and the Roman people, the senate decreed two days of thanksgiving to the immortal gods because of the deeds which he had successfully accomplished; as proconsul he obtained the province of Asia and, serving again as a legateof the divine Augustus with pro-praetorian power he obtained the province of Syria and phoenicia …” (ILS 918).
The Latin text of the phrase, “…serving again (iterum) as legate…,” is legatus pr. pr divi Augusti iterum Syrian et Phoenicen optinuit. Many scholars have wanted to translate this as “Serving as legate of the divine Augustus with pro-praetorian power he obtained the province of Syria and Phoenicia again (iterum),” taking iterum with optinuit rather than with the words which proceeded it. This has enabled them to claim that this official governed Syria twice, and that he must be Quirinius. Aside from the obvious circularity, the most serious objection to this argument is that this is not the proper way to read Latin. In normal Latin iterum is understood with the words that precede it. There is no reason to translate it any other way here, and the phrase should be taken as a reference to the fact that the man in question had held more than on province as a legate of Augustus (Syme 1973: 592-93).
A great number of other arguements have been adduced at one time or another to resoncile Luke’s narrative with the facts of Roman history. all of them fail to answer four basic objectives to the historicity of Luke’s statement.
1. There is no other evidence for an empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. 2. In Roman census Joseph would not have to been required to bring Mary with him. 3. A Roman census could not have beeen carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive. 4. Josephus refer to the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6/7 as something that was without precedent in the region.
In the face of these objectives, It’s “Imposible” to defend Luke’s dating of the Nativity. 
During the 3rd century there were no fixed date for the birth of Jesus.
Uncertainty about Jesus’ birthday in the early third century is reflected in a disputed passage of the prebyter Hippolytus, who was banished to Sardinia by Maximin in 235, and in an authentic statement of Clement of Alexandria. While the former favored January second, the learned Clement  of Alexandria enumerates serveral dates given by the Alexandeian chronographers, notably the twenty-fifth of the Egyptian month Pachon (May twentieth) of the year A.D. 1, although he favored May twentieth.
This shows that no Church festival in honor of the day was established before the middle of the third century. Origen at the time a sermon denounced the idea of keeping Jesus’ birthday like the Pharaoh and said that only sinners such as Herod were so honored. Arnobius later similarly ridiculed giving birthdays to “gods.” A Latin treatise, De pascha computus ( of ca. 243), placed Jesus’ birth on March twenty-first since that was the supposed day on which God created the Sun (Gen. 1:14-19), thus typifying the “Sun of righteousness: as Malachi (4:2) called the expected Messiah. A century before Polycarp, martyred in Smyrna in 155, gave the same date for the birth and baptism placing it on a Wednesday because the creation of the sun on that day. 
When I inform Christians that I didn’t find any conclusive evidence that Jesus was born on Christmas day (or on any other day for that matter!), during my research, they are very quick and eager to inform me that; It doesn’t matter when Jesus was born, what matters is what he did for mankind. Well, I suppose it doesn’t matter that he was ten years old as the evidence clearly inform us (directly from the bible mind you), when Mary gave birth to him neither huh?