Tribulation Force! January or so book reading or something

[dizzle]

Oh boy, reading Left Behind was just soooo cheesy, that I had to move on to Tribulation Force. I am wondering if any suckers out there ever got a Tribulation Force tatoo.

Okay I am listening to it now..... (yes the audio book), and it was said that Rayford, Barnes, Chloe, and Buck were the only four people in the whole world who had figured out that Nicolae was the antichrist. Sheesh. Did only the morons get Left Behind? I mean come on.... there would be enough marginal Churchians that would have gotten left behind that would be able to at least figure that out.

[Stephen]

I can participate in this discussion because I just read Trib Force a month or 2 ago. When we get to the next book, Nicolae, I'll have to go to the library though. I have no shame.

I could never use audio books. I have a low attention span.

[dizzle]

I love audio books, I just don't have the time otherwise, and I have 'read' some great books that way.

[Stephen]

Only time I can really listen to an audo book or sermon is on my mp3 player while I'm running or riding my bike. I can't just sit down and listen.

[dizzle]

Ugh! shoooooottttt meeeee!!!!!


This book is just awful. And the smarmy - "and Bruce taught the Bible literally - is just too much to bear - the cheap shots taken at opposing views......

But ironically enough, right before taking a cheap shot at saying wow who could believe this passage was not "merely symbolic" (a HORRIBLE back-handed cheapening of the power and majesty of Biblical symbolism) either a character or the narrator said, "and the four horsemen are representative of..."

EGAD MAN! YOU MEAN THE FOUR HORSEMAN ARE NOT <GASP> LITERAL!!!!!!!!! ARE THEY "MERELY SYMBOLS" OF SOMETHING THEY REPRESENT!

Sigh. Breathe Dee Dee breathe.

[Stephen]

I knew you'd like it :teeth:

[Stephen]

But yeah, they love mudslinging the other side, it seems like. Then again, it is a fiction, and if the rapture had really happened, all those people who thought it was symbolic would look like total idiots, so in one sense even just having the rapture our is enough to make other's look foolish.

Bear through it, and you'll get to a face-to-face chat with the two wittnesses with buck. It gets weird.

[dizzle]

Egad!!!

And the love story is making me want to :barf:

[Stephen]

You know it makes you feel all tingly, knowing theres some 30-something who fell in love with a college girl. There'll be punk songs singing about that one for years.

[dizzle]

And the games they played!!!! Man, maybe it is because I settled down quickly, but I don't remember ever being idiotic like that.

[Stephen]

Does she think he's cheating on her yet? That was so funny.

[Xavier]

Just finished the AudioBook...

And all I can say is:

YOU CALL THIS LITERATURE?????

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Yours,
Xavier

[Patroclus]

We call it literature simply because it was written down and blah blah blah.

I think DD is masochistic.

Don't worry DD. just let me know, and I can tell you how to find out when one of your "favorite" characters dies in the latest book. That is a cheesy piece of drama right there. I was in a Christian bookstore, and just happened to flip it open to that page. IT makes a great spoiler.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 04:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360043#post360043)
Stephen:

Does she think he's cheating on her yet? That was so funny.

:eek:

Crap you spoilt it for me.

[Xavier]

You mean you didn't see it coming...

It gets really funny when he SCUBA dives to find out if she was cheating on him or not... (That might be in a later book)

Yours,
Xavier

[dizzle]

Okay now I am mad..... get this quote:

Clearly Bruce had been in tune with what God was showing him. He had said over and over that this was not new truth, that the commentaries he cited were decades old, and that the doctrine of the end times was much, much, older than that. But those who had relegated this kind of teaching to the literalists, the fundamentalists, the closed-minded evangelicals, had been left behind (Dee Dee's editorial note - is this kind of futurism all of a sudden a salvational issue!!!!!). All of a sudden it was alright to take Scripture at its word (Dee Dee's editorial note - except for the timing passages of course).

[dizzle]

AARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Poor Rayford. Should he encourage the relationship between Chloe and Buck - to think that his daughter might fall in love with somone on speaking terms with the antichrist - oh my, what's a dad to do????

[Xavier]

Pardon me whilst I laugh hysterically....

:lol: :rofl: :lol:

[mossrose]

What a whiner. DeeDee sounds like when my kids were little and had to do stuff they didn't want to do.

:nanner:

[Lizard]

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360982#post360982)
mossrose:

What a whiner. DeeDee sounds like when my kids were little and had to do stuff they didn't want to do.

:nanner:

:mossrose:

This is far worse than eating brocoli.

I actually had "Left Behind" on my reading list (before I became a preterist). By the time they had come out I was very skeptical of the finer details of futurism, (but I still believed the "main points" ie pre trib rapture, 7 year trib). But I thought it would be good to find out what all the commotion was all about.

Never got around to it. Oh well.

[Stephen]

Faramir, you missed out.

And X, the scuba diving part is in the...4th book I think, and its when Rayford's 2nd wife, I conveniently forgot her name for DD's sake, dies in a plane, and he needs to find out if she was a christian. It's all so sad and melodramatic, because every true christian will get a mark that is visible for other christians but not non-christians, so he needs to scuba to find the woman he loves, and see if she has the christian mark on her forehead.

I swear, I only read the series once, I just remember some of these stupid plot twists.

Oh and DD, just to get you ready, one of the main characters will die in this book. Be ready with your hankerchief.

[Xavier]

I thought the death was rather Anti-Climatic... They never bothered to give that character any depth...

Xavier

[Stephen]

yeah. They shoulda given Carpathia more character development before killing him.

Whoops, I gave it away :doh:

[Xavier]

Mean, Stephen, Mean... :teeth:

[suzana717]

I am really disappointed. I registered at TheologyWeb because I thought it was a genuinely Christ-oriented website devoted to following Jesus' teachings and example. I am 45, a Christian for 35 yrs, and have been in church leadership roles for 25 years. I have taught all ages of Sunday school classes, have led Bible Studies, substituted for the past 4 pastors when they were unable to be present on Sunday morning, and filled in wherever the Lord called me to serve...
I was truly astonished when I found that what I thought was a legitimate and mature Christian website is in reality a forum for what appears to be a group of immature kids who get their jollies by making fun of ideas that they either don't agree with or aren't interested in discussing. After reading only your postings about Tribulation Force, I know that I will NEVER recommend your site to anyone.
Think very carefully about this question, people:
What would Jesus say about the way you are behaving in public? You might say, "This is MY website", but it is in public view, no less, and you are taking potshots at a series of books that have inspired many people to read the Bible & become interested in the things of God. These books have even been credited with providing a "wake-up call" to people who have been living their lives with the belief that they can always accept Christ later.
Are any of you even truly followers of Jesus? Or are you trying to show the world how much better you are than everyone else?

Please grow up and act more like Christ would want you to act. Paul said "I am all things to all people" - God is using these books to make people think about Him - Why are you ridiculing God's witnessing tools?

[Stephen]

Hey,
There are plenty of deep Christ oriented threads here on Theologyweb, suzana. Don't judge the whole board by this, this is basically just a fun thread.

DeeDee, a strong preterist, got a dare that if a certain number of people became paying members in one month, she would read and do a discussion on the Left Behind series. Almost all of this thread is one big joke, because as a preterist, she is trying to find plot holes in it, etc. We're ridiculing the books because, we're in a Christian disussion, and, at least the preterists believe it to be fiction. If it's a great wittnessing tool, then so be it, but many things are great wittnessing tools that are still downright cheesy; take Chic tracts for example. If God can use them to wittness, great, but thjose of us who are already Christians find them cheesy. We're not laughing at the authors to their faces, and if anyone got saved through the series, then great! Praise the Lord. Whether you got saved through books or a billy graham sermon , the God we worship is not the object of jest here.

If you'd like some mature Christian discussions on the Bible and whatnot, I'd suggest going into the theology, christianity, christology, eschatology, biblical languages, cosmogony, apologetics, and often in the political science, family psych, and philosophy forms.

[$cirisme]

Dee Dee Warren:

But ironically enough, right before taking a cheap shot at saying wow who could believe this passage was not "merely symbolic" (a HORRIBLE back-handed cheapening of the power and majesty of Biblical symbolism)

:ahem: Would it be a "HORRIBLE back-handed cheapening of the power and majesty of Biblical symbolism" to saythat it is silly to think that the 6 days in Genesis are symbolic?

You don't have to bash futurism or LB simply for the sake of bashing it :ddwbeam:

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361253#post361253)
cirisme:



:ahem: Would it be a &quot;HORRIBLE back-handed cheapening of the power and majesty of Biblical symbolism&quot; to saythat it is silly to think that the 6 days in Genesis are symbolic?

I am not sure if I get your point. There was a blanket dismissal of "symbolism" that is what was cheap by it. I do not do a blanket dismisall of literalism which would be the equivalent, in fact I take statements very literally. It was the idea that "symbolism" was painted in a braod-brushed negative light while the narrator then went on to say how the horsemen were symbolic.



You don't have to bash futurism or LB simply for the sake of bashing it :ddwbeam:

Generally futurism is much better than LB. I am only picking out the real bad parts, such as the insinuation that those who did not buy that theology were "left behind." Now that is insulting.

[Stephen]

Cir, only because Genesis is written as a past narrative; whereas Revelation is prophesy, and futurists and preterists alike agree that a lot of it is figurative, and shouldn't be just taken as a straightforward narrative, as Genesis is.

[$cirisme]

Relax, DDW.

And provide context or you look... silly. In the part I took issue with you said: "a cheap shot at saying wow who could believe this passage was not "merely symbolic" (a HORRIBLE back-handed cheapening of the power and majesty of Biblical symbolism)" You provided no indication what you were taking issue at was something more than related to just one passage.

[$cirisme]

Stephen:

Cir, only because Genesis is written as a past narrative; whereas Revelation is prophesy, and futurists and preterists alike agree that a lot of it is figurative, and shouldn't be just taken as a straightforward narrative, as Genesis is.

I direct you to my response to DDW.

Saying that a paticular part in the book that says "taking this passgep symbolically" cheapens all Biblical symbolism is silly.

[$cirisme]

Stupid keyboard :argh:

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361261#post361261)
cirisme:

Relax, DDW.

And provide context or you look... silly. In the part I took issue with you said: &quot;a cheap shot at saying wow who could believe this passage was not &quot;merely symbolic&quot; (a HORRIBLE back-handed cheapening of the power and majesty of Biblical symbolism)&quot; You provided no indication what you were taking issue at was something more than related to just one passage.

Of course it would have to be because it was worded as "merely symbolic" as if that would make the passage worth less. Of course the comment in the book was about one passage, but its comment about its interpretation saying "merely symbolic" is what I was getting at, that broadens it beyond the one passage, to say that if an interpretation is indeed symbolic, it is "merely" so. It was a snide remark to a symbolic interpretatoin which of course cannot be taken in isolation, though admittedly when I made hta tpost I was not aware of the further words that would be said about how those who took things symbolically were "left behind" and were by implication not evangelicals.

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361185#post361185)
suzana717:

First no personal offense was intended, and if any was taken you have my apologies.

you are taking potshots at a series of books that have inspired many people to read the Bible &amp; become interested in the things of God.

Now though wait a minute. I firmly believe that there is some bad theology in those books that is not honoring to God for it is not accurate. I know of people who have read these books and become disillusioned in faith when they figured out that this is not what the Bible actually teaches. I also know that because of the popularity of these books this kind of stuff is now taken for granted that this is what Christians as a whole beleive. It is not. I frankly find it a cartoonish view of Christianity (not futurism in general - I was an ardent and sincere futurist, most of my good friends are futurists) at times that I wish to distance myself from. This is not to say this is a salvational issue etc. Not at all. These are my brethren, but like The Door magazine, I satirize that which I find ridiculous in our faith.


These books have even been credited with providing a &quot;wake-up call&quot; to people who have been living their lives with the belief that they can always accept Christ later.

Later than what? The Rapture? I don't believe in the Rapture as portrayed by these books, and I think it is a scare tactic at times. In fact I went to witness to a Jewish couple who's Christian convert daughter gave them these books to witness and it was backlash to work against the damage these ideas had wrought.


Are any of you even truly followers of Jesus? Or are you trying to show the world how much better you are than everyone else?

Sorry Suzanna, but you seem to be doing right there what you are denouncing. Yes we are truly Christians. Do you know enough about us to even say such a thing? Are you trying to show us that you are a better Christian than us? That is said rhetorically, I don't doubt you are being sincere. And again, I have apologized for any personal offense.

Please grow up and act more like Christ would want you to act.

I think Christ wants us to expose bad theology. I don't find satire to be unChristian.

Paul said &quot;I am all things to all people&quot; - God is using these books to make people think about Him - Why are you ridiculing God's witnessing tools?

Should I then be silent about Benny HInn or TBN? You do realize that LaHaye and Jenkins are vocal against my point of view too don't you? They are my brothers and we can disagree.

[Xavier]

Amen DDW...

Suz, please note that if you're looking for in-depth coverage of Theology and Theological Issues, be sure to check out those forums.

I, for one, have NEVER found a better source for in-depth discussion anywhere on the Internet.

I hope you give TWeb a better look, but if you don't, that's fine too.

God bless you on your journey.

Yours,
Xavier

[OneFollowingHim]

I hope you hang around a while, suzana717.

Soon after joining TWeb and reading more than one thread, I found a lot of good discusssion here. Yes, you'll find a lot of the kind of sillyness going on here in this thread, but I've read enough of the other postings by people in this thread to realize that they do take theology seriously.

Dee Dee Warren can hold her own. She takes this and other christian websites serously in a very fair way. See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13894&highlight=why+didnt+formerfundy).

I did make a post to give my support while realizing it is a little silly at times. See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355922&highlight=tagline#post355922).

Hope to see you more.

OneFollowingHim

[dizzle]

Hey OneFollowingHim, thank you!

And I will try to be nicer. The biggest criticism I have is against bad writing. The secondary one is the few incidents I have pointed out of what I perceive to be bad theology,a nd again the quote where it was said that those of different interpretations were "left behind" or somehow were not conservative evangelicals was not right.

[OneFollowingHim]

Hey Dee Dee, you're welcome. Keep up the good work.

I've read all 11 of the books in the series so far. Don't ask me why because it gets worse.

The authors are obsessed with cell phone technology and Gulf Stream jets. Zipping around the world mostly undetected and Trib Force members manipulating top secret information from the inside without anyone being able to find the source. Come on!

All the main characters die in the last 3 pages of the book 11. Of course this is setting up for the Glorious Appearing that is described in Titus 2, Matthew 25 and elsewhere. That one was so obvious. The authors talk excessively about the Glorious Appearing. I expect that there will be a Trib Force reunion accompanying Jesus at the Glorious Appearing in book 12 (the last book).

We should all remember that the book series is fiction. No one should base any of his or her doctrines on what we read in the books.

I've talked to a lot of people who have put the books on a pedestal because they are purported to represent scripture. Heck, I don't even believe in a pre-trib rapture. But that's a different subject.

Anyway, I'm glad to be a regular poster and a guy who just hangs around for now. Chat with you later.

OneFollowingHim

[Stephen]

Onefollowinghim, I've read books 1-10.
You're telling me Buck, Chloe, and that Asian dude all die?

I need to read 11, it sounds good :teeth:

[$cirisme]

The audio books are really really bad. The love scenes are especially corny... and they skipped some of the funniest parts :hrm:

[$cirisme]

Oh, and they're starting(started?) two other series based on this since the cash cow is almost up. *sigh*

[OneFollowingHim]

Yeah, Stephen. They all die, Rayford and Ben Judah too. And, since you've read the first 10, the plot is all really predictable. There are really no suprises. They tried to add some suspense with Cloe's death, but that failed miserably, IMHO.

Read it if you want to, but you've been warned.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 04:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=362269#post362269)
OneFollowingHim:

Hey Dee Dee, you're welcome. Keep up the good work.

I've read all 11 of the books in the series so far. Don't ask me why because it gets worse.

I will probably keep going with the audio series as long as I don't offend too many people on the way.


We should all remember that the book series is fiction. No one should base any of his or her doctrines on what we read in the books.

True, true, but like the DaVinci Code people are taking it for truth. And in the few quotes I put above, it is represneted in some places as what the Bible teaches - which of course some believe, but that one quote (if you cannot tell) really got under skin.

I've talked to a lot of people who have put the books on a pedestal because they are purported to represent scripture.

Yes, and while fiction - the fact is that it is the Biblical interpretation that hte authors believe - it is only the characters and specific situations that are fictional - the Biblical framework is the view of the authors - so I don't think we can simply say it is simply fiction.


Anyway, I'm glad to be a regular poster and a guy who just hangs around for now. Chat with you later.

OneFollowingHim

We sure hope you stay an active regular.

[Stephen]

OneFollowingHim, the whole series was predictable enough. I mean, they're preaching Carpathia will be killed and rise again, then he dies at the end of Assasin's, and everyone is supposed to go "wow, is he gonna stay dead?" Then, in the Mark he rises again and it's a shock to everyone, I'm sure.

I take it Moses survives, by the way?

But back to the normal flow of things. What's happened in the plot so far, DD?

[Xavier]

Did he arise in the "Indwelling"

[Patroclus]

Yes, He arose in The Indwelling. I began to get annoyed with that book. They stretched 24 horus into one book (which isn;t necessarily bad), but the whole thing was so uneccesarily busy.

[OneFollowingHim]

Stephen:

OneFollowingHim, the whole series was predictable enough.

True. But I mean some of the plot lines become predictable.

I take it Moses survives, by the way?

Moses? I don't know who you are talking about.

Do you mean Dr. Rosenzweig? He's about the only one that survives in book 11. He's left behind by Tsion Ben Judah to sheperd the remnant while Ben Judah goes and makes a very public appearance and gets killed.

[OneFollowingHim]

Hi Dee Dee:

You make good points. The authors are making their theological views known with the books. If that one part got under your skin, prepare yourself.

Going off topic…

As far as hanging around, I hope to stay, but I've found that things tend to stagnate on issues and then no further discussion is productive. Some are so stuck on their views that counter-arguments are seemingly disregarded. By hanging around, I hope to get a deeper understanding of the scripture and get more equipped to reach the lost for Jesus.

Going farther off topic…

This preterism thing is new for me. I learnt the 70th week of Daniel was still in the future. If I’m understanding correctly, preterism teaches that all 70 weeks of Daniel prophesied are fulfilled and we are…well, I’m not sure what comes after that. The 70th week is supposed to be the Great Tribulation. Right?

Anyway, I’ll leave it there and a new topic will have to be started.

Chat with you later.

[TCapp]

The isms in a nutshell:

[Lizard]

Today @ 06:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=363586#post363586)
OneFollowingHim:

Going farther off topic…

This preterism thing is new for me. I learnt the 70th week of Daniel was still in the future. If I’m understanding correctly, preterism teaches that all 70 weeks of Daniel prophesied are fulfilled and we are…well, I’m not sure what comes after that. The 70th week is supposed to be the Great Tribulation. Right?

Anyway, I’ll leave it there and a new topic will have to be started.

Chat with you later.

/ot

Hi OneFollowingHim

I or Dee Dee or any of the other preterist on the board would be more than happy to give you the scoop on preterism. (And Bill the Cat would be more than happy to tell you why preterism is wrong).

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

If you want an informal introduction to preterism, please visit the eschatology forum.

As to the 70th week and the trib....

There are different views within preterism, but IMHO the most consistent interpretation of that passage is that the "tribulation" came after the 70th week. It was a result of events that took place in the 70th week not the 70th week itself.

IOW. During the 70th week Christ conducted his ministry, was rejected executed by the Jewish people, was resurrected, and the Jewish people continued to reject him. As a result, the "tribulation" of AD 70 occurred.

Hope that helps.

Now back to your regularly scheduled book review.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 11:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=363837#post363837)
Faramir:



/ot

Hi OneFollowingHim

And Bill the Cat would be more than happy to tell you why preterism is wrong


Couldn't pass it up huh Owen?

[Lizard]

Today @ 11:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=363843#post363843)
Bill the Cat:



Couldn't pass it up huh Owen?

I knew if I didn't you would. Your just mad cause I beat you to it. :fight:

[OneFollowingHim]

Thanks for those replies. Now fight nice.:popcorn:

[dizzle]

TCapp, that chart is incorrect. No orthodox preterist believes that Revelation was completely fulfilled yet. It is not.

[dizzle]

Okay back to the book. I am at the part where Chloe accidently runs into the secretary dropping off Buck's office things at his apartment, then hears she was meeting her fiance, and assumes that Buck is engaged. I will reserve my smart alecky comment. Of course another jab was gotten in at "symbolic" interpretations, this time at Messianic prophecy, and the Hyam's previous symbolic view. This is another piece of bad theology. I often hear the argument that all of the prophecies about Christ's first ocmng were literally fulfilled so all of the future kingdom ones must be as well. That is blatantly untrue. Out of all the cited fulfillments in the NT, very true are "literal" by today's standards. I think I heard the figure of thirty percent or lower. Most of them were typological or symbolic. So if we apply then that argument....... oh no, don't want to do that!

And Chloe called her a skinny spike-headed girl. That's not very nice.

[TCapp]

Thanks for the correction, Dee Dee. :teeth: Perhaps I'll point that out to the folks who made the chart.

I never did really like Chloe. She needs to grow up!

[dizzle]

Chloe is really catty. Meeeoooowww!

[Xavier]

Batty is more like it... :lol:

[dizzle]

Tcapp and Xavier you are confusing me with those avatars!

[Xavier]

:lol:... Funny you should say something about that... I stole TCapp's last Avatar... :teeth:

[dizzle]

Chloe is a piece of work. What a petty trip she laid on Buck!!! And now she think Bruce is getting all bothered over her?

[Xavier]

:doh: ... Chloe ... :haha:

[Stephen]

That whole Bruce liking her thing cracked me up. :lmbo:

[Stephen]

Is it just me, or does Tribulation Force read like a soap opera?

[Xavier]

Yes, it does... :lol:

[dizzle]

I hate soap operas!

[Xavier]

Ahh... Well, you add that to the list of reasons why I hate TWeb subscribers for putting me through this torture.... :lol:

[Stephen]

:eek:

[dizzle]

Ugh!!!! Rayford just wondered about the wisdom of witnessing to the Antichrist.

[Xavier]

Gee.... I wonder... Can you witness to someone who will be shorty POSSESSED BY SATAN???? :doh:

[Stephen]

Rayford must not believe the Bible. First, he starts wondering about witnessing to the antichrist who he obviously believes is the one spoken of in revelation, and then he even tries to kill the guy in book 7, despite how he knew the antichrist would return. :doh:

[Xavier]

Stephen:

Rayford must not believe the Bible. First, he starts wondering about witnessing to the antichrist who he obviously believes is the one spoken of in revelation, and then he even tries to kill the guy in book 7, despite how he knew the antichrist would return. :doh:

Yeah, but Stephen, Rayford KNEW that Carpathia was going to rise when he decided to try to kill him. Ray talked about God using him as the vessel... Of course, We know who REALLY did it... :wink:

Yours,
Xavier

:xav:

[Stephen]

Yeah, but Stephen, Rayford KNEW that Carpathia was going to rise when he decided to try to kill him. Ray talked about God using him as the vessel... Of course, We know who REALLY did it...

Musta been some crazy preterist in denial.

[Xavier]

I didn't think he COULD be a preterist... :hrm:

[Stephen]

:lol: I just imagined DD standing on the street corner yelling something about timing verses while the false prophet is hurling fireballs at everyone.

[Xavier]

I'd give :ddw: the benefit of the doubt that if the witnesses appeared she'd admit fault and go on... (Of course, she would be raptured with the rest of the Christians anyway.)

Yours,
Xavier

[Stephen]

Today @ 08:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=376957#post376957)
Xavier:

I'd give :ddw: the benefit of the doubt that if the witnesses appeared she'd admit fault and go on... (Of course, she would be raptured with the rest of the Christians anyway.)

Yours,
Xavier

Don't some believe in a post-trib rapture?

And yeah, of course DD wouldn't really do that, but its fun to imagine. Kind of like imagining theologians debating in heaven.

[Xavier]

Stephen:

Don't some believe in a post-trib rapture?

Yes, but not in the Left Behind paradigm.

And yeah, of course DD wouldn't really do that, but its fun to imagine. Kind of like imagining a theologian debating theology in heaven.

:lol:

[dizzle]

Now here is what is so - contradictory.

Rayford believe that the Bible should be taken hyperliterally (well not the timing verses of course, no sireee) but the rest and stuff.

Then why does he think that others would have to "read between the lines" to figure out Carpathia is the antichrist? Come on!

Methinks Ray has been reading the study notes in his Scofield and thinking it was the text.

Also...... (resisting urge to use bad smilie)

Enigma Bablyon!!!!!!


Ughhhkoanfoa;hg.aebg.;aebgrerkbjg

[Xavier]

I'm still wondering where the 214 comes from... :shifty:

[TCapp]

214? Isn't it 216? I can't remember. I know that 216 = 6x6x6.

[Xavier]

Oh... I bet that's it... :doh:

[dizzle]

ijh;goharg;ober;gbs;rgb

[Stephen]

ohhh, I never understood that

[dizzle]

The love stories are making me :barf:

And wait a minute... Hattie is preggers with his baby? I thought a lot of futurists thought the antichrist was homosexual?

[Xavier]

Dee Dee Warren:

And wait a minute... Hattie is preggers with his baby? I thought a lot of futurists thought the antichrist was homosexual?

:huh: Never heard THAT one before... :hrm:

[dizzle]

Really???? There is a verse in Daniel that says that this guy that the futurists think is the antichrist will not favor the love of women. So I have heard it tuaght this means he will be homosexual.

[Xavier]

<Fetches Daniel...>

[Xavier]

I came up empty on "love", "favor", and "women"...

[Stephen]

What version?

[dizzle]

Losers. Daniel 11:37.

[Xavier]

Okay... I'm not trusting the search command on this thing anymore... :doh:

[$cirisme]

Xavier:

I'm still wondering where the 214 comes from... :shifty:

it's 216 :whack:

and 6x6x6....

[Xavier]

Tcapp filled us in, but thanks Cir... :thumb:

[Stephen]

6x6x6 is kinda cheesy...

[Xavier]

:yes:

[TCapp]

Well.... that pretty much sums the whole thing up, doesn't it?

[dizzle]

Well I am done. And I am such a big sap I did cry when Bruce died.

Moving on....

[Xavier]

Well I am done. And I am such a big sap I did cry when Bruce died.

Moving on....
Not so fast... Cried when Bruce died...

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Relishing the agony.

Okay, now we can carry on... :teeth:

Yours,
Xavier

[dizzle]

Not so fast... Cried when Bruce died...

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Relishing the agony.

Okay, now we can carry on... :teeth:

Yours,
Xavier

Pathetic aren't I? I am a cryer. I cry in movies, at commercials, if someone tells me a sad story.

[Xavier]

So is my Dad... :teeth:

The only movie I've ever cried my way though was Schindler's Lists... From about the time the girl in red got shot to the end of the movie was about a no-stop crying event.