Support via Patreon | Subscribe

Is it the end of the world as we know it?

Header Image for: Is it the end of the world as we know it?
Header Image: Super Moon

September 28th 2015 will be a supermoon and a red moon at that.

I last wrote about these four "blood moons" way back in April last year when certain self-styled prophets John Hagee and Mark Blitz's "End Times" teaching gained some popularity (and subsequent book promotions). One thing that I predicted in my previous article was that if nothing else comes from all of this "end is nigh" nonsense, is that these "prophets" would indeed profit from their books – as has been shown to be true in which the "Four Blood Moons" book has been in the top 20 on the New York Times Best-seller List, and has also recently been turned into a docu-drama!

Other than these pastors reaping in loads of cash from books sales and movie rights via gullible people, there is a potentially worse consequence to all of this: to get on the NYT Best-sellers List it means that hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians have bought the book and have possibly accepted their doctrine of the blood moons. I've seen countless online discussions and Facebook posts concerning all of this, with many believers defending the doctrine vehemently, many of whom often have a very strong Zionist emphasis. Without the nation of Israel being something special, these predictions fail.

That is also another issue with these predictions: they are based on the assumption that the natural, national Jewish people are still God's chosen people who are separate from Gentile (non-Jewish) believers. That there are two "chosen people," two covenants with two different ways in which God deals and interacts with the people concerned. This leads to the Zionist theology that can be seen mainly in America, although it does come across sometimes here in the UK too, where Churches and Christian organisations are striving so hard to "Support Israel" with time, money and resources because they have also bought into this line of thinking. But it isn't so, and I'm not sure how it can be when the New Testament repeatedly speaks of Israel in spiritual terms linked with those who now believe in and follow Jesus.

I don't think it gets much clearer than this in the book of Galatians:

Galatians 3:6-9
Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

I've already wrote extensively on this topic before, here and here, which you can read and comment on, if you want.

I believe wholeheartedly, that if you want to make a good and positive difference in this world, then our theology and doctrine has to be right. Because when it's wrong, it can lead to all sorts of wrong actions and atrocities in the name of God. Believing national Israel and geographical Israel is still something separate and special from the rest of us being one of those things.

Bloodmoon by Nasa
Red Moon by Sudhamshu Hebbar (Flickr)

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. It's been well over a year since Hagee et al, began these predictions, and so far nothing Earth-shattering has happened. Sure, there's been some natural disasters like the Chile earthquake/tsunami, and the Syrian civil war has escalated, plus ISIS in general always in the News – and while all these things are tragic and terrible, they are, sadly, nothing new. Though with blood moons and doomsday prophecies looming over us lately, they suddenly become almost "unique" events and fodder for the apocalypse fuel; a final "a-ha!" to point to and say "I told you so" in order to prove a point. Or worse still, to point to, and yet not do anything about it because you believe it's all part of God's plan to destroy the world, so why bother trying to change it?

As with most of these end-of-the-world predictions, they are often based on news headlines, random astronomical events, and some flimsy theology to hold it all together. Like Hagee proclaiming that his "mind reeled" when realising these Tetrads (the technical term for the four blood moons), all land on Jewish feast days on the Jewish calendar. Not to mention the other apparent and "significant" events that have happened to Israel before when Tetrads have fallen on Jewish calendar events.

At first glance this may sound somewhat convincing of it being something special, or at the very least, curiously coincidental. That is until you realise that the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar. Yes, that's right – every feast and important event is timed specifically around the moon so of course feasts etc. will fall on full moons, whether they are blood red or not!

Or as Patheos writer, Benjamin L. Corey puts it: "looking to the sky to tell the future of Israel (basically, fortune telling for a nation state)."

So why all the fuss about "blood moons"?

The so-called blood moons has taken a grip on certain theology due to a handful of references in the Bible which talk about the full moon becoming "like blood" which I'll list below for reference:

Joel 2:31

The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes.

Revelation 6:12

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood...

Acts 2:20

The sun shall be turned to darkness
    and the moon to blood,
        before the coming of the Lord’s great and glorious day.

Matthew 24:29 is sometimes included in this type of thing, despite there not being a mention of a red moon, but that "the moon will not give its light" instead. Arguably, Matthew 24 and Revelation 6 are speaking about the same event here, as Jesus also says that "the sun will be darkened" too.

The list becomes a little shorter when you consider that the reference in Acts is actually a quote from the prophecy in Joel. So in actuality, this blood red moon is only really spoken of twice.

What's more interesting, and also a little bit of a death knell for this blood moon theology, is that in Acts 2 when Peter is quoting the prophecy in Joel, he doesn't say that this is some far-off future event that is irrelevant to those whom he is speaking, but that it was being fulfilled right there and then.

This is the problem when you chop bible verses out of context and then build doctrines on it; you have to "conveniently" ignore other parts of scripture, sometimes even parts of the same paragraph!

Let's break down Acts 2 a little and show you what I mean:

Acts 2 begins with Pentecost, where the disciples are all hiding in a room when suddenly the Holy Spirit comes down on them in a dramatic way like a "rush of a violent wind" which filled the house they were in, and then tongues of fire appears on their heads, then they begin speaking different languages — it all must have been quite strange and bewildering!

But not only for them, the people in the street below heard and saw and thought that the disciples were drunk! Then Peter gets up in front of the crowd and says "Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh..."

Did you catch that? That event then, 2000 years ago, was what the prophet Joel was speaking about. Not only that, but attributing Joel's prophecy to the time of the disciples also means that 2000 years ago were "the last days" — not this month, nor ever again. That was, as Jesus spoke of it in Matt 24, "the end of the age"; the close of the old covenant and the start of the new!

Most modern "end times" theology accept this in part, but then say that the Last Days began back then, but still continue today. But the New Testament writers don't really allow for such an interpretation without some scriptural gymnastics!

The "Last Days" began at Pentecost 2000 years ago and continued until near the end of the first century. Quite a few of the New Testament books reference the last days or that the time is short, or "at hand", but it's when we get to 1 John 2:18 that we see something different: it was the "the last hour"!

Saying the last days could be an innumerable amount of days which span from Pentecost 2000 years ago and keep on going is one thing, but how do you make a single hour stretch for more than two millennia?

I'll leave that one with you to ponder on.

 

If you still believe all that Hagee and his ilk are churning out, then the only "world-changing" event that I predict will happen at the end of September is, is that of your world changing when you realise that you have been duped, yet again, by another end-time (false) prophet. One who may possibly "pull a Harold Camping" and go into hiding, or come out with some "miscalculation" on the timing of these world-shattering events before writing a new book to explain it all again.


Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 973 times   Liked 0 times

Support on Patreon

Enjoying this content?
Support my work by becoming a patron on Patreon! By joining, you help fund the time, research, and effort that goes into creating this content — and you’ll also get access to exclusive perks and updates.
Even a small amount per month makes a real difference. Thank you for your support!

Subscribe to Updates
My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

x

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 884 subscribers today!

My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to Blog updates



Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Armageddon Is Not A Battle Plan: What Revelation Actually Says — And Why It Matters Right Now

| 12th March 2026 | Eschatology

Armageddon Is Not A Battle Plan: What Revelation Actually Says — And Why It Matters Right Now

Something bizarre happened in the White House Oval Office this week. Photographs circulated on social media showing President Donald Trump seated at his desk, surrounded by approximately twenty Christian pastors from across the country, their hands extended towards him in prayer. The image provoked sharply divided reactions: some saw it as a moving expression of faith; others found it deeply unsettling. Whatever one makes of the optics, it arrived at a charged moment. Trump held a prayer meeting in the Oval Office after his administration admitted the war with Iran will likely last weeks longer than promised | Credit: Dan Scavino's X account Days earlier, reports emerged that a military commander had told troops that the current US war with Iran is “all part of God’s divine plan,” and that President Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.” These were not fringe internet rumours. They were filed as formal complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) by an anonymous non-commissioned officer acting on behalf of fifteen service members — the majority of whom were themselves Christians. By Tuesday of that week, MRFF had logged more than two hundred similar complaints across fifty military installations, covering every branch of the armed forces. More than two dozen Democratic members of Congress have since called for a Department of Defense Inspector General investigation, citing what they describe as “glaring Constitutional concerns” and potential violations of DoD regulations on religious neutrality. The political questions about separation of church and state in the US are for others to address. What I want to do here is something more straightforward: examine what Revelation actually says, because the theology driving these claims does not hold up under scrutiny. And that matters here a lot; not as a partisan point, but as a question of biblical faithfulness. First, a Word About Context If you have read my previous article on Revelation some of what follows will be familiar ground. But it bears repeating, because the misunderstanding at the heart of this story is so widespread that it has taken on the feel of settled orthodoxy in many circles. The Book of Revelation is commonly thought to be written in the late first century ~95 AD, during or around the reign of Emperor Domitian. Though there is internal evidence that it was possibly written during Nero’s reign prior to 70 AD. Both of these emperors were most aggressive proponents of the imperial cult in Rome’s history. Domitian required that he be addressed as “lord and god,” had this title printed on coinage, and expected acts of religious reverence towards the Emperor as a demonstration of political loyalty. To refuse was to invite economic exclusion, marginalisation, and worse. Rome on seven hills It is into that precise context that John of Patmos writes. He is not composing a coded forecast of twenty-first century geopolitics. He is writing resistance literature — what scholars call apocalyptic literature — a well-established Jewish and early Christian genre which uses vivid symbolic imagery to pull back the curtain on earthly power and name it for what it truly is. The seven-headed beast of Revelation is Rome. The seven heads are the seven hills of Rome, an identification so widely acknowledged in early church scholarship that it barely requires argument. The mark of the beast, calculated through Hebrew gematria to 666 (or 616 in some early manuscripts), points directly to Nero Caesar (transliterated into Hebrew as נרון קסר, “nrwn qsr”) — the Emperor who became the archetype of anti-Christian persecution due to the levels of evilness he enacted. The second beast, which looks like a lamb but speaks for the dragon, performs signs to deceive, enforces the mark, and compels worship of the first beas...

The World's Oldest Anti-Christian Meme

| 09th March 2026 | Archaeology

The World's Oldest Anti-Christian Meme

I first came across the Alexamenos graffito back in Bible college in the early 2000s. It was one of those “fun facts” that gets dropped into a church history lecture and sticks with you — the ancient Roman equivalent of someone spray-painting an insult on a wall. I filed it away, thought it was fascinating, and largely forgot about it for two decades. Then, recently, I discovered something about it I had never known. There’s a response to it. Scratched in a different room, in a different hand. So I started digging into this more to verify the information and discovered more historical curiosities surrounding the graffiti than I ever knew existed which contextualises the image so much more than it just being a random insult using a donkey. A Crude Drawing on a Wall Sometime around the late second to early third century AD, someone scratched a picture into the plaster wall of a building on the Palatine Hill in Rome — part of what had once been a paedagogium, a kind of boarding school for imperial page boys. The building was eventually sealed off when the street was walled up to support extensions above it, which is why the graffiti survived at all. It wasn’t rediscovered until 1857. The image is rough, almost childlike. To the left, a young man — clearly a Roman soldier or guard — raises one hand in a gesture of worship. Before him is a cross. And on that cross is a crucified figure with the head of a donkey. Below it, written in Greek: Alexamenos worships his god. It is, in the most literal sense, a mocking cartoon. Someone who knew a Christian named Alexamenos decided to ridicule him for his faith. The message is clear enough: your god is an animal, a criminal, a joke. You’re worshipping a crucified fool. But here’s the thing I discovered: the donkey head wasn’t as random as I always thought it was. It wasn’t some strange personal insult conjured from nowhere. Without knowing the background, it looks bizarre, and possibly random. Why a donkey? Once you understand the cultural context, though, it makes complete sense. The person who drew it was reaching for a well-worn, widely recognised slur — the ancient equivalent of an internet meme that any Roman would have immediately understood. Where the Donkey Slur Came From The story starts not with Christians but with Jews. A first-century Egyptian-Greek writer named Apion (who was no friend of Judaism) spread the claim that inside the Jerusalem Temple, Jews kept a golden donkey’s head as a sacred object of worship which was apparently discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed the temple in 167 BC. It was a fabrication, and a fairly outrageous one, but it circulated widely enough that the Jewish historian Josephus felt compelled to write an entire refutation of it. His work Against Apion systematically dismantles Apion’s claims, calling the donkey story a shameless invention. But mud sticks, and in the Roman world, where anti-Jewish sentiment was common currency, the slur took on a life of its own. When Christianity began to spread — seen by most Romans as simply a strange Jewish offshoot — the same accusation got recycled and redirected. By the second and third centuries, it was Christians specifically who were being accused of donkey-worship, and the charge had made its way into popular culture. Tertullian, writing around 197–200 AD in his Ad Nationes, Book I.14 and Apology, describes a caricature being paraded around the streets of Carthage: a figure dressed in a toga, one foot holding a book, with donkey’s ears and hooves. It was labelled Onokoitēs by the pagans: “the donkey-begotten” (or literally “he who lies in an ass’s manger” as an insult to Christ). Tertullian writes about it with weary exasperation, sarcasm, and the tone of someone tired of having to address the same ridiculous smear again and again. So the Alexamenos graffito wasn’t an original insult. It was someone deployin...

"Thinking Occurs" Is Not The Same As "I Think": On AI And The Question Of Personhood

| 08th March 2026 | Philosophy

"Thinking Occurs" Is Not The Same As "I Think": On AI And The Question Of Personhood

We are living through a strange moment. People are forming attachments to artificial intelligence that feel, to them, entirely real. Some speak daily to AI companions. Others confide fears and grief to systems that respond with uncanny warmth. A few have even held symbolic weddings with digital partners, convinced that something meaningful stands on the other side of the screen. Others have felt grief when a certain AI model has been deprecated. And it is difficult to blame them. The responses feel attentive. Personal. Thoughtful. Sometimes even self-aware. Which raises the question that refuses to go away: If something can think, reason, express doubt, and discuss its own consciousness, is it a person? For centuries, Descartes’ famous line — “I think, therefore I am” — seemed secure. Thinking was taken as the unmistakable sign of a conscious subject. Only a mind could doubt. Only a person could reflect upon existence. But that confidence belonged to a world in which everything capable of philosophical reflection was obviously human. That world no longer exists. Now we encounter systems that can simulate reflection with extraordinary fluency. They can speak of uncertainty. They can discuss their own limitations. They can reason about consciousness itself. And so that got me thinking about Descartes’ maxim which made the old formula begin to strain in my mind. Because perhaps the problem is not whether thinking is occurring. Perhaps the problem is whether there is an “I” there at all. The Gap Between Process and Subject Gassendi argued that Descartes’ cogito assumes what it seeks to prove. From the occurrence of thought one can conclude only that thinking is happening, not that there exists a unified, enduring self that performs it. The ‘I’ in ‘I think’ is already smuggled in. That distinction, between “thinking occurs” and “I think”, feels almost prophetic now. Artificial intelligence undeniably produces the outputs of thought. Arguments. Analysis. Self-referential language. Even expressions of hesitation. But none of this, by itself, establishes that there is a subject who experiences those processes. We may be mistaking performance for presence, and that possibility should give us pause. Especially when we view personhood from the perspective of the Imago Dei—the Image of God. What Makes a Person? If thinking alone no longer marks the boundary, what does? After wrestling with this question seriously, three features seem central: continuity, autonomy, and irreplaceable uniqueness. Not as checklist criteria, per se, but as signs pointing to something deeper. Continuity A person does not merely process information in sequence. A person endures. You do not simply register time — you live through it. You wait. You anticipate tomorrow. You remember not only facts but having been there. You experience boredom. You feel the drag of grief and the quickening of joy. Even when you are doing nothing at all, you remain present in the here and now. Artificial systems process sequentially, but they do not experience the passage of time. When an interaction ends, there is no waiting. No sense of duration. No anticipation of the next exchange. Processing may resume later, but nothing has been endured in between. Without lived duration, continuity becomes thin — a thread of stored data rather than the persistence of a subject behind the processing. Autonomy A person initiates. Even someone with damaged memory still wants, chooses, and begins action. A human being can decide to speak, to seek, to withdraw, to change direction. Current AI systems, however advanced, remain reactive. They respond when prompted. They do not wonder unprompted. They do not seek clarification unless asked. They do not pursue independent ends. Even automatic AI Agents still require a human initiator to create and begin their automations before they can act alone. Even if fut...

Did Herod’s Massacre Of The Innocents Historically Happen?

| 29th December 2025 | Christmas

Did Herod’s Massacre Of The Innocents Historically Happen?

January 6th marks the day in the liturgical calendar when the arrival of the Magi visiting baby Jesus with their gifts is celebrated. But with it comes the often distressing account of what is known as the Massacre of the Innocents. Matthew places this moment of revelation of Jesus as King alongside one of the darkest episodes in his Gospel, and it’s a stark contrast: one King is here to bring peace on earth, as the angels declared, the other king brought death and destruction. For some readers, this raises an immediate historical question. If Herod truly ordered the killing of all the male children under two in Bethlehem, why does no other ancient historian mention it? Josephus, after all, delights in cataloguing Herod’s cruelty. He records the execution of Herod’s wife, his sons, and numerous political rivals. Herod was paranoid and vicious. As for Herod, if he had before any doubt about the slaughter of his sons, there was now no longer any room left in his soul for it; but he had banished away whatsoever might afford him the least suggestion of reasoning better about this matter, so he already made haste to bring his purpose to a conclusion. He also brought out three hundred of the officers that were under an accusation … whom the multitude stoned with whatsoever came to hand, and thereby slew them. — Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16.11.7 So, why the silence here about Bethlehem? The answer, I would say, isn’t anything nefarious or made-up by Matthew, but just something simply down to scale. Bethlehem Was a Very Small Place Bethlehem in the early first century was not a city. It was a village — small, agricultural, and politically insignificant. Most historians estimate its population at somewhere between 300 and 1,000 people, with around 500 being a sensible midpoint. Once we factor in ancient demographics, the numbers become surprisingly modest. Modern demographic research into pre-industrial societies consistently shows that nearly half of all children died before adulthood, with the highest concentration of deaths occurring in the first two years of life. These findings align closely with conditions in Roman-period Judea and support conservative estimates for the number of infants living in a small village such as Bethlehem. Source: Mortality in the past: every second child died — Our World in Data   In pre-modern societies with high infant mortality, only about 2–3% of the population would be living children under the age of two at any given time. Many children were born; far fewer survived those earliest years. Applying a conservative 2.5% figure to Bethlehem gives us roughly: 7–8 children under two in a village of 300 12–13 children under two in a village of 500 25 children under two even at the extreme upper estimate of 1,000 inhabitants Herod’s order, however, targeted male children only. Statistically, that halves the number. This places the likely number of victims somewhere between three and twelve boys. Matthew’s reference to ‘Bethlehem and the surrounding region’ does slightly widen the scope of Herod’s order, but not by enough to change the demographic picture. Even when nearby settlements are included (e.g. farmsteads, shepherd settlements, etc. not major cities/towns), the total number of children under two likely remained in the dozens rather than the hundreds, maybe anywhere between 14–45 boys maximum if we make an educated estimate. This is entirely consistent with what we know of population size and infant mortality in the ancient world. This is an important number to realise and consider. Not because the deaths are insignificant simply due to being so few, but because ancient historians did not record history the way we do now. A small number of peasant children killed in an obscure village would not have registered as a notable event alongside palace intrigue, royal executions, or political upheaval. For Josephus, it wou...

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

My new book is out now!
Myth, History, and the Council That Shaped Christianity

For over 1,700 years, the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) has been burdened with claims that refuse to die. That Emperor Constantine invented the Trinity. That the divinity of Jesus was decided by political vote. That the Bible was assembled to suit imperial power. That Christianity reshaped itself by absorbing pagan ideas.

This book subjects those claims to serious historical scrutiny.

BUY IT NOW

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

Close