The implicit part of the sentence was "why would I" "take Ulansey for granted"?Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:56 amAs a possible answer to your question. If Ulansey is correct and the Mithraists applied the phenomenon of precession to their cosmology (Mithras slaying Gavaevodata at the beginning of time; Mithras turning the wheel of the cosmos, etc), than Mithraism becomes an implicit reference to the assigning of the signs of the zodiac to "ages" or periods of creation and destruction.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:18 amWhy would I do that?Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:10 pm If you take Ulansey for granted, the Mithraic tauroctony would itself be evidence for the concept of astrological ages.
Is it evidence, or is it assumption? Evidence that relies on an assumption is worth no more than the assumption.
And the assumption isn't evidence of anything.