Loaves and Fishes

[Ulan]

But you are still speaking about constellation identities and boundaries from a modern perspective.

I have absolutely no idea about these things, but if I understood Robert correctly, it's not about crossing a somewhat arbitrary constellation boundary, but about directly crossing one of the straight line of stars that makes up one of the "fish" in the constellation, which should be quite unambiguous. Of course, the error would still be large, given the slow progress of that event.

[neilgodfrey]

But you are still speaking about constellation identities and boundaries from a modern perspective.

I have absolutely no idea about these things, but if I understood Robert correctly, it's not about crossing a somewhat arbitrary constellation boundary, but about directly crossing one of the straight line of stars that makes up one of the "fish" in the constellation, which should be quite unambiguous. Of course, the error would still be large, given the slow progress of that event.

Understood, but I would like to see these star boundaries testified in the ancient divisions. I am not denying they are the same as we know them today and that the crossing at this point had the meaning then that Robert attributes to it now. But I never like to assume anything. I always like to be assured from the primary data or sources wherever possible.

[Ulan]

Understood, but I would like to see these star boundaries testified in the ancient divisions.

I'm still not sure whether we are on the same page when you talk about "boundaries". A straight line of stars doesn't have "boundaries". It's more or less one-dimensional.

I am not denying they are the same as we know them today and that the crossing at this point had the meaning then that Robert attributes to it now.

No idea about this. Honestly, I never heard anything about anything related to this. Which doesn't mean much, but I'm definitely not sold on this whole "astrotheology" thing.

[neilgodfrey]

Understood, but I would like to see these star boundaries testified in the ancient divisions.

I'm still not sure whether we are on the same page when you talk about "boundaries". A straight line of stars doesn't have "boundaries". It's more or less one-dimensional.

I like to be sure the same stars were acknowledged as part of a particular constellation, and where different "scientists" of the relevant time themselves saw "boundaries" etc -- Robert too often gives the impression he is appealing to our modern understanding and constructs. He so often uses current maps that leave me wondering what connection they have with people like Hipparchus. He speaks of constellations as we understand them today which opens up the same questions for me.

The constellation of Pisces consists of two fairly straight lines of faint stars, conventionally known as the first fish and the second fish. These two lines join together at the star Alpha Piscis, known as the knot or Al Rescha. The two lines of stars are depicted as ropes or cords holding the two fish. The first line is near perpendicular to the path of the sun, while the second line is roughly parallel to the path of the sun.

and again in the illustration he writes:

This diagram of the traditional constellations shows Aries the Ram placing his foot where the sun crosses the line of stars. . .

How do we know these "traditional" groupings were the same for all or some peoples in the Hellenistic/Roman era? How do we know those people also imagined the foot of Aries at that point?

Again my point is not to deny any of this but to simply ask for clear evidence that we are not relying upon anachronisms. I would prefer Robert to be less dogmatic and more open to the extent to which his ideas are debatable. That is, I'd like to see him present it as a hypothesis and be as open as anyone else to testing it and being prepared to concede its uncertain status. Unfortunately I suspect that his ideas are more than simply a matter of intellectual exploration and involve an element of "spiritual" belief that is not so easy to reconcile with doubt.

[Ulan]

I like to be sure the same stars were acknowledged as part of a particular constellation, and where different "scientists" of the relevant time themselves saw "boundaries" etc

Fair enough. I don't know enough of this topic to answer this.

[andrewcriddle]

There is an astrological article precession which gives a diagram of where the Sun's position at equinox was in relation to Pisces. (I don't guarantee accuracy but it seems sensible.)

Exactly when the equinox crossed into Pisces seems to depends on (arbitrary) choices of where Pisces begins.

Andrew Criddle

[Robert Tulip]

You see Robert there is something of value in what you are saying (21 CE).

I am very pleased that Stephan Huller sees that my observation that the equinox precessed into Pisces in 21 AD is important for science and theology. I want to focus on this constructive area of agreement, although I will also note areas of difference.

My claim of a 21 AD dawn of the Age of Pisces is original research, based on wondering for a long time what the astronomical basis for dating of the dawn of the Age of Pisces might be. I read a range of claims about this topic, and decided to look for myself with astronomy software. SkyGazer 4.5 is available in demo version for free on the internet. I used the demonstration version available at http://www.carinasoft.com/downloads.html#SdemoAnchor

Anyone can use it to replicate my work to zero in on the moment when the equinox crosses the first fish. To what extent SkyGazer is accurate I do not know. That would need to be checked and confirmed by astronomers. I would not expect major error, since astronomers tend to be extreme pedants for accuracy in such clockwork matters, and any error would be mentioned in the notes for the software.

There are problems with ancient calendars, for example with the Julian-Gregorian shift, the absence of a year zero, and the use of different eras of precession. These can all be readily addressed, and should not affect this specific question of when the equinox point crossed into Pisces.

The bigger questions here are defining the boundary of Pisces. I will come back to that in response to later comments. But first, I must note that as he has done before, Stephan Huller next descends into some rather foolish comments:

the rest is just nonsense (Daniel, 26 CE). That's the problem with Acharya. Mixing gold with shit

My comments about Daniel were heavily caveated, describing its relevance as unlikely, but not impossible. It looks like Stephan ignored that comment before deftly placing both feet in a quite adroit and admirable yoga position.

What Stephan is doing here is asserting as a matter of personal dogmatic certainty, with the delightful terms “nonsense” and “shit”, that he has absolute knowledge that the Babylonians did not see this shift of the equinox into Pisces as a shift of ages, that such knowledge was not possible, and it definitely did not provide the basis for anything in Daniel.

Anyone can express superiority in this way, but I think such comments are hasty, if not arrogant and foolish. I prefer to present such matters as open questions. The Babylonian seers carefully watched the stars for over a thousand years before Christ, enabling them to calculate a range of accurate astronomical observations, such as timing of eclipses.

The seers of Babylon could use eclipses, as Hipparchus did, to measure precession of the equinox, and so to predict several centuries in advance when the equinox would cross into Pisces. Such a feat is entirely within the bounds of possibility for ancient astronomy, not impossible as Stephan implies. It is entirely possible that the seventy weeks prophecy in the Book of Daniel is based on accurate astronomy. I understand why people might scoff at that, but we really should default to a position of greater respect for ancient science.

[Stephan Huller]

I researched the company's claims for historical accuracy. They seem to be pretty good - enough for some re-assurance.

The rest of my comments stand. I think the ancients already accepted astrology. Christianity wasn't centrally focused on astrotheology. It was just accepted by the world at large

I don't mind discussing any topic. I just see any evidence for Christianity actively pursuing "astrotheology." Tertullian however does say the Marcionites thought Jesus's appearance in the world was dictated by astrology. It would support something like what you are suggesting

[andrewbos]

...

[Bernard Muller]

It is entirely possible that the seventy weeks prophecy in the Book of Daniel is based on accurate astronomy. I understand why people might scoff at that, but we really should default to a position of greater respect for ancient science.

A much better explanation about the 70 weeks of Daniel (do not miss the table at the end of the webpage. What precedes is how I justified it):
http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html

Cordially, Bernard