> 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
I have never mentioned a specific year - I mentioned a specific century. It seens reasonable that an age such as the age of Aquarius should arrive in a specific century. And if I was searching for a specific year, how would you possibly know that this is a mistake?
I certainly don't know that there can be a considerable overlap between one age and another. This is based on the discredited cusp theory. No reputable modern astrologer to my knowledge acknowledges cusps as a legitimate technique in any other branch of astrology, so why should it be applied to astrological ages to mask the shortcomings of the contemporary approach to the ages? Only the general public and novice astrologers, who don't know any better, think that cusps have any legitimacy. In astrology the Sun (or any relevant body) moves from 29 degrees, 59 minutes and 59 seconds of one sign to zero degrees the next sign - it is a clean cut like a guillotine. There is never any advanced overlap from any sign in astrology - this is just an urban myth. To base an approach on urban myth is like building your house upon the sand.
Around 2,000 years ago there was a change in the general consciousness of humanity??? I must have missed this in my history books. What change in consciousness? It certainly could not have been by Christians otherwise we would have to explain to all those people murdered, executed, burnt at the stake or persecuted by Christians over the last 2,000 years that their killers had higher consciousness so it is all OK. There is nothing to indicate that Christians are any worse or better than the rest of humanity. If you are going to judge a tree by its fruit the Christian tree seems to produce some good fruits, mostly average fruits and some downright rotten and disgusting fruit in a bell curve like most religions or groups of people.
Historians on the other hand consider that the Judeo-Greco-Roman Western heritage was forged in the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries BC and that the modern world arrived around 5 centuries ago.
Reputable astrologers state that of all the branches of astrology, the one that contains the most nonesense is the branch of the astrological ages. How will regurgitating nonesense on the ages bring any clarity on the ages?