Talk:Astrological age

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Age of Pisces marked the birth of Jesus the Christ and the Age of Aquarius marks the Second Coming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Age of Capricorn 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Astrology articles do not belong under the heading "paranormal series" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. An IP vandalized it and it has been fixed. Skyerise (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article is a mass of confusion 

message: 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)
replies: text: No similarity between astrological ages and Aeon Thelma other than they denote periods of time. 23:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merge from [[Aeon (Thelema)]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed "Past Ages" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Astrological_age#Anno_Domini|Anno Domini / Dionysius Exiguus section]]