> Milo re your "Perhaps the 2nd centur is too specific, after
> all: "ages are not constant because the rate of precession is
> steadily increasing, therefore each age is shorter than the
> previous age". Therefore, pehaps the transition of last age
> coincided with the Age of Pisces, when the fish became its
> symbol. We're now entering into the Age of Aquarius..."
> Unfortunately the rate of precession is not increasing that
> much! The difference is only one or two decades per age.
> Therefore the same conundrum arises - how can we be at the end
> of an age if there is no evidence that 2150 years ago there is
> no evidence that an age ended in the 2nd century BC.
But the mistake I think you're making is that you're looking for a specific year. As you must know, there can be considerable overlap between one age and another as there is a transition from one age to another, and around 2,000 years ago, there was a change in the general consciousness of humanity and that was marked by Jesus Christ, who ushered in the age of the fish, hence, Pisces. IMO, Christ did not have to arrive bang on the exact year and day of when the transition actually takes place...