> Yes, it is my opinions versus your opinions except for one very
> important point that you constantly fail to address. I can get
> support for my opinions from historians, anthropologists etc
> who have no familiarity with astrology.
The problem is that you make vague assertions that are difficult to respond to... for example, you write, "I can get support for my opinions from historians, anthropologists etc who have no familiarity with astrology." That's all fine and dandy but this discussion is centred around the Bible and that is the primary authority I appeal to above your selected "historians" and "anthropologists", etc. If you don't want to have a discussion centered around the Bible why did you enter this thread?
> I am not talking about
> one historian, I am talking many historians that will support
> the change of ages in the 8th century BC and the around the
> 15th century AD.
Please elaborate on what exactly you're talking about here... what "ages" specifically are you talking about in connection with the 8th and 15th centuries?
> In the end if the astrological ages have any validity
> whatsoever they must have some correlation to historical
> events. If historians cannot detect these historical events
> than who can? Historians can detect changes in the 8th century
> BC and 15th century AD and another 2150 years before that
> again! There is no support that the Pisces age began at the
> birth of Jesus no matter how many Christologists jump up and
> down in estatic frenzy that Jesus commenced the Pisces age.
You obviously haven't read what I've written because no where have I claimed that Pisces began in the exact year of Christ's birth. Please re-read what I wrote in respect to that!
> You do not tender support from people who have reputations for
> their historical skills, therefore your opinions are
> unsupported. So do my opinions that have support from
> historians etc only have the same validity as your opinions
> that have no support? I don't think so.
You seem to be trying to change the subject of this thread. This thread is primarily about present day events and I'm suggesting that present world events are climaxing towards the culmination of an age which is marked by apocalyptic tribulations and you don't need to quote academics to know that the world is currently experiencing apocalypse for many reasons!
> You should not hide the fact that you are a Christologist.
This label doesn't mean anything whatsoever to me!
> You should promote yourself as such so that other
> Christologists can congregate to you and the rest of us don't
> have to waste our times with mere opinions based on your
> personal belief system that has no correspondence in
> rationality or support from people that look at history
> rationally. I am sure you can find numerous like minded souls.
> This would be the honest way to approach the situation from
> your side.
You seem to have a very narrow idea of what this thread is about and I'm sorry you so obviously feel confused. This thread is not about ancient or even more recent history. It's about modern times!
> If you had demonstrated a serious interest in your research you
> would not be sprayng me with your opinions, you would be
> showing me support from reputable sources associated with
Well, you've certainly been spraying your opinions in this thread... sure, you may claim to be able to back up what you want to discuss in history, but I suggest you start your own thread on the subjects you want to discuss and we now keep this thread primarily about the subject that I started this thread with! You seem to be confused about what this thread is primarily about!