The Mystery Religion – Jesus (The Sun of God)

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Your ideas clearly doesn't compute when you look at the Babylonian idea of the constellation of virgo. Seen Below:

A woman holding a palm front or an ear of grain does not relate well to a woman with the moon as a footstool and a crown of 12 stars on her head. Virgo has 26 exoplanets — planets outside of the solar system — orbiting around 20 stars. Doesn't come even slightly close.

You can ignore it if you want to, but the passage is clearly referring to the constellation Virgo which has a "crown" of 12 stars around the area of its head. Study up on the constellations and their positions around one another and it will become clear. A sign appearing in "the heavens" is talking about the sky, and the sky is often referred to as the heavens within the bible, so a sign appearing in the sky is definitely based on astrology.

But you could also just ignore it and assume it's not true.

The moon being under Virog's feet is not a regular ocurrence, but it does happen at certain points in history where the moon is underneath the feet of the constellation Virgo. Did you visit the link I left? I assume you didn't.

Marking the passing of the time with the rising and setting of the sun and the seasons is not astrology. It is keeping time.

Marking "sacred times" by studying the position of the stars is a form of astrology. Sacred relates to divine, deciding what times are divine (sacred) or not based on the stars is the definition of astrology.

Your not talking about what people do in sin that is against the religion, you are attempting to prove it is the religion itself and its teachings.... and this is something you are unable to do, since Babylonian astrology is against the religion itself.

People will always commit sin and go against the religion, but the chosen Messiah did not. He was without sin and I take umbrage to someone calling HIM a sinner.

The religion clearly uses astrology, astronomy, and the zodiac within its teachings and stories, so no its not against the religion. It may claim that it isbut that is a lie.

Jesus didn't write the bible nor did he form the church that decided what was kept and what was discarded.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

You can ignore it if you want to, but the passage is clearly referring to the constellation Virgo which has a "crown" of 12 stars around the area of its head. Study up on the constellations and their positions around one another and it will become clear. A sign appearing in "the heavens" is talking about the sky, and the sky is often referred to as the heavens within the bible, so a sign appearing in the sky is definitely based on astrology.

But you could also just ignore it and assume it's not true.

I do not need to make assumptions of anything.

Your premise is that the passage in Genesis is NOT talking about keeping time, but is telling you to look at Virgo to see a sign in the end of days, then according to your theory, this sign will have no choice but to happen in the middle of the day.

In the middle of the day, it will be impossible to see this sign you speak of, so you cannot gauge the sign by looking.

Also, you then need an additional 3 stars in Leo in order to have 12 stars, which don't currently exist... and then of course you need Leo not to be Leo anymore because crowns are not in the area of the head they are ON the head.

In my exegesis, one does not have to make flying leaps but can clearly understand the keeping of time, whereas in your exegesis one needs to make flying leaps well beyond logic and rational.

The moon being under Virog's feet is not a regular ocurrence, but it does happen at certain points in history where the moon is underneath the feet of the constellation Virgo. Did you visit the link I left? I assume you didn't.

Your theory doesn't hold water. Let's see why:

The moon follow the ecliptic, with a plus or minus 5 degree variation. See illustration below, the red lines are the limits of the moons travel above or below the ecliptic, which is represented by the blue line.



I used Stellarium in order to gauge what the variations can possibly look like from earth, and have determined, from going through 2000 + years, that it will never look as if the moon is under Virgo's feet from earth view. It is always off by at least 5 degrees at the extreme closest point of the variation.

Anyone who chooses can use Stellarium in order to see this for themselves. It's a free program.

Therefore, fact does not support your theory.

Marking "sacred times" by studying the position of the stars is a form of astrology. Sacred relates to divine, deciding what times are divine (sacred) or not based on the stars is the definition of astrology.

Sacred Times, are things like the sabbath, which happens once every 7 days. It is a good thing to be able to mark when the sabbath should be, and it is a way of keeping time, as I have earlier stated. Quite a simple exegesis really and you don't have to delve into the realm of the astrological to do so.

The religion clearly uses astrology, astronomy, and the zodiac within its teachings and stories, so no its not against the religion. It may claim that it isbut that is a lie.

Only if you take leaps and bounds away from very simple, rational explanations. Occam's razor explains that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is the most likely.

Jesus didn't write the bible nor did he form the church that decided what was kept and what was discarded.

edit on 2/4/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

The New Testament is the teachings of Jesus, written by his apostles and followers in their own words and remembrances. In the first 4 books there is not deviation from a simpler form of Judaism. And again I reiterate, Judaism states clearly that Babylonian astrology is a sin and untrustworthy for anything.

If you believe the New Testament to be written by men rather than God therefore have a preference in searching for man made explanations rather than Godly, then go for the extravagantly fanciful explanations in lieu of simple and straight forward which then, of course, will lead you to hold tight to your beliefs. Which, by no means do I feel you don't have the right to do. You can believe whatever you choose, just don't be upset when logic wins in the hearts and minds of most people leading them not to follow in your footsteps.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Your premise is that the passage in Genesis is NOT talking about keeping time, but is telling you to look at Virgo to see a sign in the end of days, then according to your theory, this sign will have no choice but to happen in the middle of the day.

My premise is not about Genesis not being about keeping time, my premise is that it says the stars are there for signs and to mark "sacred times", a.k.a. using the stars to predict and know when god claims a day as sacred.

Let's look at the KJV of the verse.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Let them be for signs? What kind of signs? Maybe the kind that Revelation 12 speaks of? Obviously, what other kind of sign would appear in the heavens other than the ones the stars are made for in Genesis? Why does Revelation say a sign appeared in the heavens with stars? It is an astrological sign that Revelation is speaking of, you can't deny that can you? It's obvious by the terminology used in the passage.

Even the three wise men followed a star in the sky to find baby Jesus. Clearly a sign from god using the stars as a compass, meaning the wise men were aided by astrology. Astrology is all over the NT, you just choose not to see it.

In the middle of the day, it will be impossible to see this sign you speak of, so you cannot gauge the sign by looking.

Just because you can't see it with the naked eye does not mean the sign is still not there and that the stars, moon, and sun are not aligned in the way that Revelation describes. On September 23, 2017 the moon will be at Virgo's feet and the sun will be near her head. No, you won't be able to see the moon but that doesn't mean it is not there.

This logic reminds me of the saying "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". You're turning a blind eye to the phenomenon on the basis that you won't see it with the naked eye.

Also, you then need an additional 3 stars in Leo in order to have 12 stars, which don't currently exist... and then of course you need Leo not to be Leo anymore because crowns are not in the area of the head they are ON the head.

You're mistaken, the crown of 12 stars is not a reference to Leo, it is a reference to a formation of stars between Leo and Virgo. It looks like this:



12 stars sitting at the head of Virgo. Virgo means "virgin" and the woman mentioned in Revelation is said to be the "Virgin" Mary. You can't get any more obvious or clear cut than that.

Your theory doesn't hold water. Let's see why:

The moon follow the ecliptic, with a plus or minus 5 degree variation. See illustration below, the red lines are the limits of the moons travel above or below the ecliptic, which is represented by the blue line.


I used Stellarium in order to gauge what the variations can possibly look like from earth, and have determined, from going through 2000 + years, that it will never look as if the moon is under Virgo's feet from earth view. It is always off by at least 5 degrees at the extreme closest point of the variation.

Anyone who chooses can use Stellarium in order to see this for themselves. It's a free program.

Therefore, fact does not support your theory.

Here's where the moon will be in relation to Virgo on September 23, 2017.



The alignment of the moon in this picture seems to be very similar to the one shown in yours. This is a cyclical thing as well, meaning this will not be the first nor the last time this alignment takes place. As you can see, the moon is clearly at the feet of Virgo. If you cannot see that then you are nitpicking and/or turning a blind eye to it.

Sacred Times, are things like the sabbath, which happens once every 7 days. It is a good thing to be able to mark when the sabbath should be, and it is a way of keeping time, as I have earlier stated. Quite a simple exegesis really and you don't have to delve into the realm of the astrological to do so.

Again, the KJV says otherwise. It says that the stars are for signs, a.k.a. astrological signs from god like the one mentioned in Revelation 12 and the one that led the three wise men to baby Jesus.

Only if you take leaps and bounds away from very simple, rational explanations. Occam's razor explains that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is the most likely.

So what was this "sign from the heavens" (sky) that dealt with stars? You're really reaching here to disassociate the sign in Revelation with an astrological sign. The terminology, obvious connection to Virgo, and the heavenly signs mentioned in Genesis make it painfully clear what it really is, an astrological sign.

The New Testament is the teachings of Jesus, written by his apostles and followers in their own words and remembrances. In the first 4 books there is not deviation from a simpler form of Judaism. And again I reiterate, Judaism states clearly that Babylonian astrology is a sin and untrustworthy for anything.

If you believe the New Testament to be written by men rather than God therefore have a preference in searching for man made explanations rather than Godly, then go for the extravagantly fanciful explanations in lieu of simple and straight forward which then, of course, will lead you to hold tight to your beliefs. Which, by no means do I feel you don't have the right to do. You can believe whatever you choose, just don't be upset when logic wins in the hearts and minds of most people leading them not to follow in your footsteps.

Politicians make promises on their campaign trails then break them after being elected all the time. Just because someone or something says not to do something doesn't mean they aren't doing it themselves.

Sorry, but faith has nothing to do with logic, believing a man rose from the dead after rotting in a cave for 3 days has nothing to do with logic, believing a snake and a bush talked has nothing to do with logic, believing a man walked on water has nothing to do with logic, believing people rose from their graves after Jesus died has nothing to do with logic.

You say that the NT wasn't written by men, but church tradition and history prove otherwise. Half of the NT was written by a man named Paul who was just as mortal as any of us, the gospels were written by men as well who were mortal.

The bible was not written by God, and you contradicted yourself by first saying Jesus' apostles (who were men) wrote the gospels then went on to imply that you believe god wrote it. Which is it? God or men?

@3NL1GHT3N3D1....You can ignore it if you want to, but the passage is clearly referring to the constellation Virgo which has a "crown" of 12 stars around the area of its head.

No, its not ''clearly'' referring to Virgo. In revelations.... the woman with the ''12 stars'' also gave birth to boy. And you know constellation do not ''give birth'', so once again you are only looking at superficial similarities... ''a woman in the sky here and a woman in the sky there.''

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Yeah definitely superficial, I mean who would think he was talking about something in the sky with him mentioning the moon, sun, and stars? Those things are all in the sky, but come on! He obviously wasn't talking about anything up there, even if he did say he saw a sign in the sky. No, definitely not.

Who cares if the twelve starred crown mirrors the 12 stars above Virgo's head? And who cares if the woman in Revelation is supposed to be the Virgin Mary and Virgo stands for virgin? Who cares about the fact that the sun and moon align with Virgo in the exact same way he describes about the Virgin Mary in Revelation? I mean we all know a woman can stand on top of he moon, but we know a constellation can't have a baby! It's so obvious that those connections don't matter!

All these connections with astrological references and alignments are just "superficial", I mean stars can't have babies! That seals the deal, we should just ignore the connections and only focus on that one thing.

Good argument, let's just cover our eyes and act like the connections don't exist.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Yeah definitely superficial, I mean who would think he was talking about something in the sky with him mentioning the moon, sun, and stars? Those things are all in the sky, but come on! He obviously wasn't talking about anything up there, even if he did say he saw a sign in the sky. No, definitely not.

Who cares if the twelve starred crown mirrors the 12 stars above Virgo's head? And who cares if the woman in Revelation is supposed to be the Virgin Mary and Virgo stands for virgin? Who cares about the fact that the sun and moon align with Virgo in the exact same way he describes about the Virgin Mary in Revelation? I mean we all know a woman can stand on top of he moon, but we know a constellation can't have a baby! It's so obvious that those connections don't matter!

All these connections with astrological references and alignments are just "superficial", I mean stars can't have babies! That seals the deal, we should just ignore the connections and only focus on that one thing.

Good argument, let's just cover our eyes and act like the connections don't exist.

edit on 2/5/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

YOU made the claim that the woman with the 12 stars is virgo, of the zodiac. I showed you why she isn't. The ''connections'' are imaginary and superficial and your logic is ''X here and X there, so therefore they are one and the same''. You point out these superficial similarities but shy away from investigating into the details of the biblical narrative that you claim points to a zodiac sign.

3NL1GHT3N3D1...Good argument, let's just cover our eyes and act like the connections don't exist.

the only ''connection'' is that of superficial similarities. An X here and an X there. Thats all that this thread is about. Either get into the details or stop assuming that the biblical narrative means something else.

reply to post by nenothtu


As I understand it our ancestors observed stuff about the solar system/sun/stars – the same stuff we can see today

They seem to have encoded that information in the form of stories and myths; perhaps they did it to aid memory or more likely to keep the information to themselves and a select few others

These stories and myths pop up in many religions including Christianity

So just to be clear
Astronomical observation ->encoded as a story/myth -> story/myth ends up as somebody’s religion, for example Jesus is the sun

By just focusing on the astrology thing you are not seeing the full scope of the problem

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


So are you saying the biblical narrative of Mary has her with the moon at her feet and wearing a crown with 12 stars on at some point before giving birth to Jesus? Are you also saying Mary ran into the wilderness for 1,260 days after giving birth to him? If not then you are being hypocritical by not following your own rules.

The connections are far from superficial, you just see it that way because if it is true (which it is) then you would be proven wrong and would have to admit that the Bible's story is heavily influenced by astrology and based on myth. You have too much pride to admit you are wrong. You haven't proven anything, you've only shown you are emotionally and psychologically glued to the myth and will not acknowledge anything that goes against it, no matter how logical the argument is. Of course you'll say I'm being illogical, but it is you who is being illogical by not changing your views with new information.

Believe as you will but I have made my case and it is obvious to anyone looking at it objectivley and without preconceived notions that both Jesus' story and Revelation are based on the zodiac and astrology. The symbolism is clear cut and easy to see for those with eyes to see. You do not have eyes to see, you have been blinded by religious dogma and the threat of eternal punishment if you think any differently.

sk0rpi0n the only ''connection'' is that of superficial similarities. An X here and an X there. Thats all that this thread is about. Either get into the details or stop assuming that the biblical narrative means something else.

Get into the details? What do you think my last two posts have been? What do you think my posts throughout this thread have been?

Why don't YOU get into the details? All you've done so far is stick your fingers in your ears and pop in 2 or 3 times to say "stars can't have babies so you're wrong" or "the connections are superficial". Get into the details of how I am wrong instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again. How are they superficial? Go ahead, give me the details, go point by point and tell me how each connection I have pointed out is superficial. I want details since you're so big on them.

At least with posters like OpinionatedB and nenothtu I've gotten some effort, but with you all I get is a few words every couple of pages without any references or substance whatsoever. You add nothing to the discussion or debate then claim victory.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


In order for your theory to work, you have to steal stars from other constellations and add stars to them, you have to say a "crown" is no longer ON anything but sorta close in a roundabout way, (when clearly is it being worn ON a head in Revelations) you have to have the moon beside a "foot" rather than under it, you have to have the clothing mean you cannot see the sign (this makes it a non-sign since no one can see it and signs are clearly seen) And the list can go on with all the holes in your theory.

This simply has no basis in fact. You start with Babylonian beliefs, but to support your theory on any biblical relation you then have to leave out altogether what the Babylonians believed. This hopping around is nonsensical.

If this is your choice of belief then enjoy it, but most don't like horseshoes as much as yourself.

A word of advice, when you try to make the literal into a figurative, and make the figurative into a literal, you run into many problems in your theology.

The signs of heaven (the signifier) point to a creator (the signified) Simple, yet explains fully. One need not make this into an allegorical, when you attempt to, you end up messing up your own religion by going against that religion to follow a path the religion quite clearly teaches you against taking.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

So what was this "sign from the heavens" (sky) that dealt with stars?

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” Matthew 16:4

I will leave you to your beliefs, just as I have mine and Christians have theirs, and bid you farewell.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So are you saying the biblical narrative of Mary has her with the moon at her feet and wearing a crown with 12 stars on at some point before giving birth to Jesus? Are you also saying Mary ran into the wilderness for 1,260 days after giving birth to him? If not then you are being hypocritical by not following your own rules.

What the woman with 12 stars represents is an entirely different subject, which I'd be most interested to discuss, of course only with anybody who is into Biblical theology. This thread however is about something else.
YOU claim the woman is "virgo". I showed you why she isn't.

The connections are far from superficial, you just see it that way because if it is true (which it is) then you would be proven wrong and would have to admit that the Bible's story is heavily influenced by astrology and based on myth. You have too much pride to admit you are wrong. You haven't proven anything, you've only shown you are emotionally and psychologically glued to the myth and will not acknowledge anything that goes against it, no matter how logical the argument is. Of course you'll say I'm being illogical, but it is you who is being illogical by not changing your views with new information.

Personal remarks. Not worth my time responding to any of those statements.

The symbolism is clear cut and easy to see for those with eyes to see. You do not have eyes to see, you have been blinded by religious dogma and the threat of eternal punishment if you think any differently.

Even more personal remarks.


I've alerted the mods on your comment.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why don't YOU get into the details?

I have explained in detail as to why a prophets and figures in Israelite tradition are not symbols of the sun, zodiac etc. as claimed by the OP.
See all my posts in this thread

But they have gone unaddressed both by the OP and others.

All you've done so far is stick your fingers in your ears and pop in 2 or 3 times to say "stars can't have babies so you're wrong" or "the connections are superficial"

The fact that the Bible narrative says the woman had a baby disproves your premise that she is actually "virgo".

The connections are superficial because its "X here and X there". If you claim there is more to it, then you need to point out how and why.

So far we have :
Jesus description of being "light" representing the sun, which is also "light".
Jesus 12 disciples standing for the 12 of the Zodiac, ONLY because of the number 12.
Jesus age of 33 representing the 33 degree thing, ONLY because of the number 33.
etc.

Such connections are superficial and nothing else.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


You know, people accuse Christians (and Muslims) of holding to their beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary, however, this thread is proof that it is not just Christians and Muslims doing it.

These people are holding to a belief that is unable to be proven, and are resorting to name calling and insults toward all who disagree based on fact.

It is for this reason, I would like to see this thread and ALL its posts stay up and remain forever as a monument.

Once someone believes something, regardless of logic, it is near to impossible to change that belief, unless their faith was wavering to begin with.

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Jesus age of 33 representing the 33 degree thing, ONLY because of the number 33.
etc.

Each Zodiac is 30 degrees. Not 33. They made up the 33 degree thing to make it the same as Jesus' death in Christianity. It has no basis in the zodiac.

360 divided by 12 is 30. 3 degrees of each constellation overlaps, (1.5 degrees to each side) so only 27 degrees are fully in each constellation without any overlap. That is the astrological Zodiac.

ATTENTION EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!

Discuss the topic.
Not other members.

Please review these links:
We expect civility and decorum within all topics.
and
You are responsible for your own posts.

reply to post by EsotericGod


"so why did Jesus keep referring to the Old Testament religion and its laws, prophets etc.? "

I don't know. Why don't you tell me?..

Jesus was just one of the many figures in Israelite religion. Jesus was prophesied by older prophets and Jesus himself referred to other prophets (Jonah, Noah, Abraham, Isaiah, Moses etc.) as they were all part of the same religious culture that he belonged to. Jesus was part of this larger system of prophets and revelation and that is a fact, not an opinion. Israelite religious culture was centered around absolute Monotheism and stressed on keeping the Laws of God. It was not about astrology/cosmology/zodiac whatever you say.


"why should Jesus be seen in isolation from the religion he was part OF."

In what way was he isolated?..

Isolated from the Israelite religion/culture that Jesus beloned to, as explained above and before.

The "source material" for Jesus aka the Bible, was NOT at all about cosmology/zodiac but an account of a man who lived 2000 years ago. So I find it absurd that some people who are inclined towards the zodiac have made Jesus, of all people, a symbol of something that Jesus was not about.

racasan

By just focusing on the astrology thing you are not seeing the full scope of the problem

The straw man is not mine.

I tried to introduce the actual science of astronomy, and got slapped down, being told that doesn't matter, only the astrological pseudoscience of "the Babylonian zodiac" matters.

Which is it, then?

One cannot both include and exclude astronomy at the same time, or only in the places one sees fit to. It either matters, or it doesn't, as regards the topic.

Even using Babylonian astrology, the goalposts are moved to suit the argument at the time. For example the Babylonian "Furrow" constellation gets transformed to the modern "Virgo" merely for the sake of argument, so that now they can reinterpret a "woman" as a "virgin", and attempt to associate that with a biblical passage. Even astrology itself transforms in their argument to suit the argument at the time, so that they can preserve their belief system. In an discussion over symbolism, the symbolism would seem to be all important, and a "furrow" does not impart the same meaning as a "virgin" - so it gets changed to suit the argument into something other than the Babylonian Zodiac.

No rational discourse is possible with "True Believers", who change their structure to suit the argument of the moment.

@OpinionatedB... These people are holding to a belief that is unable to be proven, and are resorting to name calling and insults toward all who disagree based on fact.

One does not need to believe in Jesus ''religiously'' to logically conclude that Jesus and his disciples were NOT symbols of the sun, zodiac etc. I am not even debating astrology, just the premise that the bible narrative actually pointed to a completely unrelated field of study, i.e astrology. If somebody 2000 years ago really wanted to propagate astrological teachings, they could have comfortably done so without an elaborate cover up story featuring an entire generation or two of Israelites.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

The "source material" for Jesus aka the Bible, was NOT at all about cosmology/zodiac but an account of a man who lived 2000 years ago. So I find it absurd that some people who are inclined towards the zodiac have made Jesus, of all people, a symbol of something that Jesus was not about.

Cosmology was something that was studied for thousands of years and still is to this day. the zodiac had been studied by the Babylonians thousands of years before the arrival of Christ. The "source evidence" for cosmology can be identified by individuals around the entire globe. It is there when we look up at the night sky.

In turn, I find it absurd that people are who are inclined towards Christianity base all their evidence upon a few scriptures without any primary sources of evidence whatsoever. Whos to say that it is not a myth?

The same cannot be said about cosmology as stars can be seen by more or less anyone around the entire globe.

whether or not Christianity is based upon cosmology is the argument.

So far we have :
Jesus description of being "light" representing the sun, which is also "light".
Jesus 12 disciples standing for the 12 of the Zodiac, ONLY because of the number 12.
Jesus age of 33 representing the 33 degree thing, ONLY because of the number 33. etc.

Such connections are superficial and nothing else.

And there are hundreds more but i am not going to waste my time and list them all.

You say the connections are superficial yet you don't seem to indicate that the connections are there and they are evident.

Call them superficial or call them coincidence, the fact of the matter is that they exist.

If there was only three connections then it can of course be dismissed upon the fact that is is superficial but; in regards to the fact that over 90% of the bible and teaching of Jesus can be attributed to cosmology, It makes me think otherwise.

The fact that the Bible narrative says the woman had a baby disproves your premise that she is actually "virgo".

If you wish to take everything for face value then feel free to do so.

Don't you find it strange that cosmology is forbidden in the bible.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Each Zodiac is 30 degrees. Not 33. They made up the 33 degree thing to make it the same as Jesus' death in Christianity. It has no basis in the zodiac. 360 divided by 12 is 30. 3 degrees of each constellation overlaps, (1.5 degrees to each side) so only 27 degrees are fully in each constellation without any overlap. That is the astrological Zodiac.

Yes i understand this but it has been argued that we do not enter a new house simply overnight. the 1.5 degrees is the transitional period through which we change house (zodiac).

"Many astrologers consider the entrance into a new astrological age is not a single moment of time but a process commonly referred to as `the cusp', by which one age initiates its influences in a slowly increasing way before the end of the previous age. For example, Ray Grasse states that an astrological age neither begins at an exact day or year." Age Cusp

Of course, It doesn't have to be 1.5 degrees. It could be 0.2 degrees.

There are many references that can be attributed to Jesus being a metaphoric figure for the sun, therefore the 1.5 degrees for the transitional period is a reference to Jesus' death at the age of 33.