Life after the eclipse (sign of Jonah)

[One Bad Pig]

Jonah was the primary sign, but the sky going dark during midday probably helped him make an entrance, don't you think? Wait, didn't the sky go dark during midday for Jesus, too? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Yes, for three HOURS. Thus, not an eclipse.

And your argument from Jonah is a gossamer web spun largely from imagination. The dude who ran from the Lord and whined about a plant would hardly have been motivated to use something likely to move the Assyrians to repent as a prop. He would have been far happier had they ignored his message.

[Darfius]

Yes, for three HOURS. Thus, not an eclipse.

Well it had to be an eclipse, just not by the moon. Wormwood?

And your argument from Jonah is a gossamer web spun largely from imagination. The dude who ran from the Lord and whined about a plant would hardly have been motivated to use something likely to move the Assyrians to repent as a prop. He would have been far happier had they ignored his message.

He was freshly regurgitated from the giant sea creature and was ready to do as the Lord wished. He didn't control when he showed up, God did. And God used the eclipse, civil strife in Nineveh and plagues to provide "context" for Jonah's message.

[One Bad Pig]

Well it had to be an eclipse, just not by the moon. Wormwood?

Anything natural which would cause an eclipse for three hours would seriously mess up the dynamics of the solar system. Astronomically speaking, it's highly unlikely.

He was freshly regurgitated from the giant sea creature and was ready to do as the Lord wished.

...but not willingly, as the aftermath makes clear.

He didn't control when he showed up, God did. And God used the eclipse, civil strife in Nineveh and plagues to provide "context" for Jonah's message.

Funny how none of that is mentioned in the actual account of him providing the message. Looks rather more like speculation than context from here.

[Rayado]

You disagree because you're ignorant. Quit waiting for people to explain things to you and seek the Lord's face for yourself. "There shall be signs in the sun, moon and stars."

What if I believe without the need for signs? What if I believe that the Revelation 12 signs were symbolic and not literal?

What Pharisees (Bible scholars) agreed that Jesus was the Messiah? Experts can be wrong. It's one thing to speak Hebrew. It's quite another to speak righteousness.

It does not follow that because the Pharisees were mostly wrong that therefore most Bible scholars are wrong. You have completely dodged the issue of why they might be wrong. Why should I trust you over them? Why is it just a bunch of crackpots on the internet?

http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/solar-ecl...sign-from-god/

I do not care that the August eclipse was called a sign from God. Signs can be a great many things--natural, unnatural, but this one was, like most others, devoid of theological content. It confirmed no message or messenger that wasn't already divinely authenticated during the time of the Bible. Why should I consider your interpretation if Wikipedia is your expert?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_eclipse

Scripture Verse: 2 Kings 14

25 He [Jeroboam II]was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher.

© Copyright Original Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeroboam_II

Jonah was the primary sign, but the sky going dark during midday probably helped him make an entrance, don't you think? Wait, didn't the sky go dark during midday for Jesus, too?

If there was a Biblical record of it, you might have a case; but you're reading your own beliefs onto the Biblical text and mangling the whole meaning of the Sign of Jonah...all in the service of a theologically dubious interpretation that is utterly novel in the entire history of the church.

Wrong

Oh come on, everybody steps on a rake from time to time. Even me.

Really? You thought the dude who ran from the Lord and whined about a plant was such a powerful orator that he convinced a nation renowned in the ancient world for its cruelty to repent with a sense of urgency? There were a lot of "prophets" preaching a lot of stuff back then, just like today. What set Jonah apart? Maybe the sky going dark during midday helped?

[/cite]

"there shall be signs in the sun, moon and stars" I'm trying to think if Jesus could have been more explicit. Nope. Pay attention.

But it does not necessarily follow that every sign in the sun, moon, and stars is theologically significant. Nor is every chronological symmetry theologically significant. Literally nothing is lost by rejecting the September 23 event as a posssible Biblical sign and attributing it to flights of fancy and presumption.

And how could God have foreseen modern technology or that it would play a role in our lives?

The point of Scripture is to be edifying the church throughout all time since its writing. Not to those at an indeterminate point at a later date. We are not that special.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. A sign is not the event itself, but something pointing symbolically towards it. A "wake up call."

Then why not stick with the original understanding of the text? Why stake everything on a misinterpretation of the Sign of Jonah

"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars" means what to you, exactly?

[/cite]

Jesus himself said the Sign of Jonah was not an eclipse. It is expressly against the unequivocal teaching of Jesus Christ himself and rests on an argument from the silence of Scripture.

You're welcome for doing your homework for you.

I wouldn't be turning it in.

[Obsidian]

The sign referenced in Revelation 12 referred to Jesus's birth. (I've heard that it actually happened on Sept. 11, 3 B.C., which may have been his birthday.) The sign doesn't have any additional significance for future events.

[KingsGambit]

(I've heard that it actually happened on Sept. 11, 3 B.C., which may have been his birthday.)

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

So clearly, 9/11 was a double fulfillment!

[Faber]

The sign referenced in Revelation 12 referred to Jesus's birth. (I've heard that it actually happened on Sept. 11, 3 B.C., which may have been his birthday.) The sign doesn't have any additional significance for future events.

Herod was already dead by then.

[Obsidian]

Debatable

[RumTumTugger]

Nicodemus.

And Joseph of Arimethia(sp)

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, and Joseph of Arimathea. The point is, most didn't. Don't be contrary just to be contrary, Bill

As well as an unspecified number (Acts 15:5) and, according to tradition, Gamaliel.

[eschaton]

I'm a little late on the discussion, but I think it's always valuable to see what the church fathers thought. I'm not saying they were always right, but they were close to the tradition of apostolic teaching. Here is what Hippolytus (170-235 AD) said about Rev 12 in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.

[eschaton]

I'm a little late on the discussion, but I think it's always valuable to see what the church fathers thought. I'm not saying they were always right, but they were close to the tradition of apostolic teaching. Here is what Hippolytus (170-235 AD) said about Rev 12 in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.

[Sparko]

AUGUST 21st & SEPTEMBER 23rd - The Connection between SOLAR ECLIPSE vs END TIMES SIGN [WARNING]

Admit I'm wrong about what?

OMG! Darfius was right!!! The video is gone!! It was raptured!!

[Sparko]

The end-times. You expect it to happen this year right?

If I'm wrong, I say "my bad." If you're wrong, your cowardice leads you and everyone who relies upon you to damnation.

So? are you going to say, "My bad?"

[Darfius]

So? are you going to say, "My bad?"

You said "the end times", not Sept 23. If the end times don't happen, I'll say my bad.