Talk:Astrological age

The Age of Pisces marked the birth of Jesus the Christ and the Age of Aquarius marks the Second Coming

I added... The Age of Pisces marked the birth of Jesus the Christ and the Age of Aquarius marks the Second Coming. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:B413:D7AA:C0B9:9DC0 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Really! Interesting... we are in the end of days now! It's obvious to everyone who's read the bible. Thats knowledge everyone should already know. But when is the end to come? Has anyone figured that out yet or has at least pin pointed it within a certain periodof time? RhianonSky420 (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This assertion is not supported by anything in traditional astrological research, and SHOULD BE REMOVED. We do not promulgate astrology as a voice for modern interpretations of the Bible. AMGunn (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)A. M. Gunn

Traditional or not does not matter. We do not make a difference between different flavors of humbug. The Christianity connection is sourced to something called "Astrology Club" though, and I do not know its status. Is it a reliable source for what astrologers believe? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, the date of the end has been pinpointed a lot. See List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Age of Capricorn

Age of Capricorn redirects to Astrological age, but there is no information on the Age of Capricorn in the article.--173.187.80.123 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Astrology articles do not belong under the heading "paranormal series"

Astrology articles do not belong under the heading of "paranormal series." Astrology is not, and has never been, associated with the paranormal; this is a complete misunderstanding of what astrology is, and should be removed, so that astrology articles can be accurately referenced. AMGunn (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Alison M. Gunn

Age of Pisces / Aquarius

I left a message on the Age of Aquarius talk page under "Previous Ages" explaining the problematic assumption of 'what Astrological Age are we really in?' which I will briefly note here.

If the Age of Pisces corresponds to Islam and Christianity and these two religions are extant and dominant then it escapes me how anyone can say we are in Aquarius. Yes we have nuclear energy, computers, the sexual revolution and the United Nations but so long as those two religions are in force it might be premature to say that the Age of Pisces is over.

Considering the birthdate of the Jesus (0-1 AD) and dividing a Great Year (25,772 y.) by 12 to get the length of an astrological age (2,147.5 y.) clearly we have at least another hundred years to go before the dawning of the age of Aquarius (if there is such a thing!) Wokepedian (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wokepedian: The Age of Pisces did not begin at the birth of Christ but rather when the antecedents for his birth were in place. I place that at the time the Hasmonean dynasty (aka the Maccabbees) came into power ~ 140 BCE. This was also the date of the birth of Gaius Julius Caesar, father of Julius Caesar. The assassination of Julius in 44 BCE set the stage for the overthrow of the Hasmonean dynasty by Herod the Great with Roman support in 37 BCE, which set the stage for the birth of Christ.

So, that would place the Age of Aries at ~ 2300 BCE, the approximate date of Sargon of Akkad's conquest of Mesopotamia, and the Age of Taurus at ~ 4400 BCE, the beginning of the Sumerian civilization and a bit later the Ancient Egyptian civilization. It would also mean that the Age of Aquarius has indeed just started, most likely at the Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Aquarius on the Winter Solstice in 2020. Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skyerise: The precession of the equinoxes over each fixed star, per se the first and last in the Constellation of Pisces is an exact method devoid of all hypothetical intellectualisms. One needs only to make observations and time the start and end of any hypothetical "Astrological Age" using said fixed stars. Theoretical babble aside, astronomy is the best basis for making astrological assumptions. Robert Hand's "Essays On Astrology" (Para Research), chapter 13, includes Islam as well as Christianity in the description of equinoctial precession through the Pisces Constellation if you're interested in more information. I'm not interested in discussing this so don't bother pinging me again. Thank you and goodbye. Wokepedian (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Judaism didn't disappear at the beginning of the Age of Pisces either. Neither did Greek or Roman paganism. To expect such a thing is what is ridiculous here. Skyerise (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

All that does not matter. Wikipedia notes what reliable sources write about what crackpots believe about this idea, and that's it. Of course it does not make any sense, they are crackpots. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

lede paragraph

should the last paragraph in the lede read "do NOT agree...," as it goes on to say that different practitioners hold to dates that differ by hundreds of years? PurpleChez (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. An IP vandalized it and it has been fixed. Skyerise (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Article is a mass of confusion

Of course, the writers who speculate on this using constellation boundaries simply don't know what they are doing. The zodiac was never about the constellations, which were simply a source of convenient labels for 30 degree portions of the year - not the sky. The whole matter about dates could be resolved by simply paying attention to the star which Cicero called Nodus Coelestis, which means "the Knot of Heaven." That star is Alresha, also known as Alpha Piscium, where the serpent of the Zodiac bites its tail. This is the sidereal 30º Pisces / 0º Aries. If one knows this and can make the right calculations (the tool I use only goes back to 1800, so is useless for this application), then the years of transition can be quite simply and easily calculated. Of course, as far as I know, no one uses this method, but it would be in accord with the ancient knowledge as summarized by Cicero. Skyerise (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is a mass of confusion as this is the state of the topic amongst astrologers and the academics who study them and so the article must reflect this confusing reality. Terry Macro (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggest merge from Aeon (Thelema)

This article seems to be discussing the same topic, so it should be merged here. See WP:POVSPLIT. Skyerise (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No similarity between astrological ages and Aeon Thelma other than they denote periods of time. 23:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed "Past Ages" section

We gave editors a decade and a half to improve this unsourced and unencyclopedic section and they failed. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Anno Domini / Dionysius Exiguus section

First off, minor issue but I'm pretty sure that Dionysius's calendar places the birth of Jesus in 1 BC, not 1 AD.

Second, the way this section is worded, it's not clear whether this is to be understood as the mainstream view or a fringe theory. (I do not see any mention of axial precession on the Dionysius Exiguus page or Date of the birth of Jesus page.)

I could be mistaken but to me it sounds very "fringe". The Bible itself (most notably Luke 3:1 combned with 3:23) gives a pretty narrow window for the year in which Jesus could have been born. Without knowing anything else about Dionysius, it sounds much more plausible that he would have inferred his 1 BC date from the Bible or gotten it from some related tradition, rather than trying to backdate it from some future planetary alignment using faulty assumptions about how long an astological age is supposed to be. If he did that and somehow arrived at 1 BC then that's quite the coincidence, seeing as 1 BC is one of the dates we would expect (2 BC is probably the better choice though).

Anyway, it just sounds to me like a fringe theory. In which case I question whether it's even worth including here, and, if so, then I think it's important to mention whose theory this is or who its proponents are. (I know that sources are cited, but I don't have any way to check.) 2601:49:8400:26B:1921:3F36:9E7D:CACA (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)