I don’t think I’ve ever heard any year given for His birth, but I am curious about how the Church figured He was born on Dec 25. From what I can find in Scripture, I am more inclined to believe John the Baptist was born around the time of the Passover, and Jesus was born 6 months later (around the Feast of Tabernacles).
[quote=Joe 5859] Pertaining to the words of St. Irenaeus, this is a clear example of why we must always look at the original context (in this case, Book II, Chapter 22 of Against Heresies). If you go to that chapter, you can plainly see that the quote from above is at the top because it is the heresy he is refuting! It is not Irenaeus’ position.
Maybe you should read more of this work -
[quote=Book II, Chapter XXI, par 5] They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month.
but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.118 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.119 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement.
It is not only his position (that Jesus was 50 when He was crucified), but he claims it was taught by by John and other Apostles. The heresy was the claim that Jesus was baptised, preached for 1 year, and was crucified in the 12th month. This is just an example of the fallibility of the ECF’s.