Was the blood moon experience a disappointment?

[Hammster]

If you choose to see events differently than I do I cant change that nor can I make you believe. The bible is clear that there are signs in the heavens, the evidence of past events that has already been presented shows a strong correlation. The events with Russia and China I find very serious and important, so much that I do see. Others may not and others may pooh pooh it but I take itas a sign and events that portensd of monumental importance

That's a bait and switch. I'm asking for anything from scripture that says the blood moons were a fulfillment of prophecy. And you still haven't provided any. I can use the same argument for being in Red Bud, IL, this morning, waiting for a load.

 

[psalms 91]

That's a bait and switch. I'm asking for anything from scripture that says the blood moons were a fulfillment of prophecy. And you still haven't provided any. I can use the same argument for being in Red Bud, IL, this morning, waiting for a load.

So be it, I expected nothing less. Scripture wioll not point out all things prophetic otherwise no need for signs. I have presented why I believe it now it is up to you to toss it aside which you have done or not, there is nothing further to add

 

[Hammster]

So be it, I expected nothing less. Scripture wioll not point out all things prophetic otherwise no need for signs. I have presented why I believe it now it is up to you to toss it aside which you have done or not, there is nothing further to add

And that's why your view is dangerous and should be avoided. You have absolutely nothing, respect nothing, to support not only the blood moons being prophetic, but what they are supposed to prophesy. You, instead, would rather have someone follow blindly based on vague scripture references. No thanks. I'd rather be Berean

 

[Brighten04]

In our society, we expect instant gratification. The Bible said that the sun will turn to darkness. IMHO that is a solar eclipse. It said also that the moon will turn to blood. IMHO that is a lunar eclipse. We have had both recently. Four lunar eclipse in two years on Jewish high holy days. Is that something to watch? Well I think so. There are things that are worth watching taking place in the world. Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, told Judah that Nebuchadnezzar was going to conquer them and take them into captivity. Did it happen instantly? No, but it did happen eventually.In the case of the blood moons, IMHO we should take a wait and see attitude about their significance. Yes, there are a lot of things happening in the world today. Personally, I have been watching a lot of things that could have something to do with the moons such as the earth changes I mentioned earlier. End of the world? I have no idea. But I am watching and praying. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

 

[tango]

If you choose to see events differently than I do I cant change that nor can I make you believe. The bible is clear that there are signs in the heavens, the evidence of past events that has already been presented shows a strong correlation. The events with Russia and China I find very serious and important, so much that I do see. Others may not and others may pooh pooh it but I take itas a sign and events that portensd of monumental importance

With respect, you're mixing and matching here. The Bible is clear that there are signs in the heavens, but that doesn't mean that this particular lunar eclipse is such a sign. Developments with Russia and China are potentially serious, but that doesn't mean that the most recent lunar eclipse is significant in any way.

It's all well and good to say "well I take it as a sign" but if we start to accept anything as a sign just because someone says that we end up in all sorts of silly places. My neighbor's cat got run over in the road the other day, and I think that was a sign of something bad to come. The developments in Russia and China are serious, and so it's clear that the cat being run over is a sign that we should be watching. The Bible is clear that God gives signs before something happened, and the death of a cat right outside my house is obviously a sign. You may pooh pooh it but I take it as a sign.

Where does it stop? A sign isn't much use as a sign if it's not sufficiently clear that anyone can read it.

 

[psalms 91]

With respect, you're mixing and matching here. The Bible is clear that there are signs in the heavens, but that doesn't mean that this particular lunar eclipse is such a sign. Developments with Russia and China are potentially serious, but that doesn't mean that the most recent lunar eclipse is significant in any way.

It's all well and good to say "well I take it as a sign" but if we start to accept anything as a sign just because someone says that we end up in all sorts of silly places. My neighbor's cat got run over in the road the other day, and I think that was a sign of something bad to come. The developments in Russia and China are serious, and so it's clear that the cat being run over is a sign that we should be watching. The Bible is clear that God gives signs before something happened, and the death of a cat right outside my house is obviously a sign. You may pooh pooh it but I take it as a sign.

Where does it stop? A sign isn't much use as a sign if it's not sufficiently clear that anyone can read it.

Or when the waters are muddied either, to each their own

 

[Hammster]

Let's say the the blood moon apologists are correct. There must be some significance for them to be so passionate. Let's say, also, that the skeptics are correct in wanting scripture to support any true proposition. After all, the Bereans were commended for testing what Paul said.

If theses are true, wouldn't the proponents be morally responsible to provide the scripture that supports their view, and to explain and defend it? While the skeptics may still remain unconvinced, it's still a responsibility.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am quite certain that there is no passage in holy scripture that defines a "blood moon" as John Hagee does.

 

[psalms 91]

Let's say the the blood moon apologists are correct. There must be some significance for them to be so passionate. Let's say, also, that the skeptics are correct in wanting scripture to support any true proposition. After all, the Bereans were commended for testing what Paul said.

If theses are true, wouldn't the proponents be morally responsible to provide the scripture that supports their view, and to explain and defend it? While the skeptics may still remain unconvinced, it's still a responsibility.

Maybe thats why the Old Testament prophets were stoned? No scripture to support wwhat they said?

 

[Hammster]

Maybe thats why the Old Testament prophets were stoned? No scripture to support wwhat they said?

This is either a non sequitur, or you are equating yourself with an OT prophet.

 

[psalms 91]

Not me but all the prophecies that seem to get thrown to the ground

 

[Hammster]

Not me but all the prophecies that seem to get thrown to the ground

They claimed (and proved) to speak from God and for God. Are you claiming that, and that's why you feel you do not need to provide scripture to back your claims?

 

[psalms 91]

I simply said what I believe, never claimed it was given to me by God, I read it and found it credible, you dont

 

[Hammster]

I simply said what I believe, never claimed it was given to me by God, I read it and found it credible, you dont

That's the problem. Nobody on here is actually stating anything specific to verify. The scripture references are vague, and the application is vague.

 

[NewCreation435]

I didn't see the blood moon since our area has had about 11 days of clouds and rain until today. I don't think you need a blood moon to tell you that we are in the end times. With all the turmoil and tragedy in our world, it seems obvious that we are in the end times.

 

[Hammster]

I didn't see the blood moon since our area has had about 11 days of clouds and rain until today. I don't think you need a blood moon to tell you that we are in the end times. With all the turmoil and tragedy in our world, it seems obvious that we are in the end times.

If turmoil was an indication, the first century Christians certainly thought they were in the end times.

 

[psalms 91]

I didn't see the blood moon since our area has had about 11 days of clouds and rain until today. I don't think you need a blood moon to tell you that we are in the end times. With all the turmoil and tragedy in our world, it seems obvious that we are in the end times.

I agree, Israel became a nation after 2000 years and so much else is lining up.

 

[tango]

Or when the waters are muddied either, to each their own

Perhaps, but if you're making a case you need to actually make the case coherently. It doesn't really work to say "this is a fact" and then shy away from being questioned. If people are questioning your claims in a way that muddies the waters the thing to do is to clear the waters to explain why you believe what you do.

"To each their own" sounds good but where does that stop? If one wants to follow Jesus, another Allah, another Vishnu, another Lucifer, where does "to each their own" stop being a useful approach?

 

[psalms 91]

Perhaps, but if you're making a case you need to actually make the case coherently. It doesn't really work to say "this is a fact" and then shy away from being questioned. If people are questioning your claims in a way that muddies the waters the thing to do is to clear the waters to explain why you believe what you do.

"To each their own" sounds good but where does that stop? If one wants to follow Jesus, another Allah, another Vishnu, another Lucifer, where does "to each their own" stop being a useful approach?

When I see adamant opposition to something I agree with then I say leave them to it. As I have said before I do not like debate just for debates sake which is what a lot of it seems like nor do I like wasting my time when I know the other person will not change their minds. I went through years of that on CF and I refuse to do it anymore.

 

[tango]

When I see adamant opposition to something I agree with then I say leave them to it. As I have said before I do not like debate just for debates sake which is what a lot of it seems like nor do I like wasting my time when I know the other person will not change their minds. I went through years of that on CF and I refuse to do it anymore.

I can't help thinking there's a happy medium here.

If you want to present a case for something you really need to be willing to back the case and explain why you believe in it. Some people will disagree, and if all you want to do is make a succession of statements and not back them with anything concrete I'd have to wonder what purpose there is in making the statements in the first place.

Even if the other guy doesn't change his mind a meaningful discussion with questions both ways can fine-tune just what it is you believe and encourage you to consider what it is you believe and why you believe it. If every disagreement between people is just met with "oh well, to each his own" then neither side learns anything. If "iron sharpens iron" it makes little sense for either side to just shrug and figure "oh well, you disagree, that's fine" unless they plan to withdraw from any discussion that might prove contentious. If people want to talk about the weather and their hobbies and what food they feed their dogs and whatever else they can obviously do that, it just seems odd to initiate a discussion on something that may have great significance and then not follow through on it.