In the movie "Zeitgeist", Peter Joseph has a section about "ages"
He says that the Exodus took place at the beginning of the age of Aries, the Ram, which he says began in 2150 B.C. The problem is that the Exodus probably took place around 1450 B.C., and the earliest I've ever seen anyone date it is around 1600 B.C. He's off by at least half a millenium.
He goes on to say that a new astrological age (the age of Pisces) began in 1 A.D. when Jesus was born. Actually, when one astrological age ends and where another begins depends on the interpretation, since the borders between constellations are, of course, vague. Some put the dawning of the age of Pisces as early as 100 B.C., others as late as 498 A.D. Given a roughly 600-year period in which the age of Pisces can be said to have begun, the fact that Jesus' birth fell somewhere into this isn't as significant as Joseph would make it sound.
The only interpretation placing the beginning of the age of Pisces as 1 A.D. is the Neil Mann interpretation, which is completely modern. Besides, Jesus wasn't born in 1 A.D., but probably in 4 B.C. (and certainly no earlier than 2 B.C., since that is when Herod died, and Herod was alive when Jesus was born).
Joseph says, "At Luke 22:10 when Jesus is asked by his disciples where the next passover will be after he is gone, Jesus replied: "Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water..."
In that passage, Jesus is NOT being asked where the next passover will be after He is gone, as Joseph claims, but where they would be eating that night.
Once again, he is trying very hard to make his data fit. I give him an "A" for effort, but this is something anyone can do in an effort to disprove anything they want.