Does Harriet Durham really get pregnant with the child of the Antichrist?

m423156 said:

I just read this on the Left Behind wiki. I never knew that. I fell asleep during part one and never made it this far.

What is their biblical basis for such an assertion? Where does it ever say in the Bible that a flight attendant would become the mother of the child of the Antichrist?

Harriet Durham - Left Behind Wiki

Click to expand...

There isn't any.

m423156 said:

I just read this on the Left Behind wiki. I never knew that. I fell asleep during part one and never made it this far.

What is their biblical basis for such an assertion? Where does it ever say in the Bible that a flight attendant would become the mother of the child of the Antichrist?

Harriet Durham - Left Behind Wiki

Click to expand...

No, no, its Mia Farrow, you silly, and her name is Rosemary - look it up, its true

m423156 said:

I just read this on the Left Behind wiki. I never knew that. I fell asleep during part one and never made it this far.

What is their biblical basis for such an assertion? Where does it ever say in the Bible that a flight attendant would become the mother of the child of the Antichrist?

Harriet Durham - Left Behind Wiki

Click to expand...

I think that was just creative license. It is a fictional series.

Even if it was truth, I don't see why the Antichrist couldn't father a child. He will be a man.

Bumble Bee said:

I think that was just creative license. It is a fictional series.

Click to expand...

How safe do you think 'just creative license' is in light of 22:18-19? Jesus doesn't appear to give license to 'creative lesence'.

revelation2217 said:

How safe do you think 'just creative license' is in light of 22:18-19? Jesus doesn't appear to give license to 'creative lesence'.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.​

Click to expand...

Yes, except that Lahaye and Jenkins weren't prophesying. They were writing about what they imagined it might be like to live during those times.

Bumble Bee said:

Yes, except that Lahaye and Jenkins weren't prophesying. They were writing about what they imagined it might be like to live during those times.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say you have to be prophesying. It just says if 'anyone adds too... or takes away from'.

I'm not seeing any dramatic license here. I'm seeing a sober and everlasting solemn warning and promise to any would-be dramatists, flakes, or profiteers who would dare meddle with eternal matters they don't comprehend.

That's what I see.

I do not believe that they were meddling with eternal matters. They were not attempting to change what is written in Revelation in any way.

Bumble Bee said:

I do not believe that they were meddling with eternal matters. They were not attempting to change what is written in Revelation in any way.

Click to expand...

Really? So adding the United Nations, Nicolae Carpathia, and Harriet Durham, mother of the child of Satan incarnate is not adding to the Revelation and meddling with eternal matters?

Writing an entire series of trash novel after the next that does nothing but add to what is never written is not adding to the words of the prophecy of Revelation?

If that isn't adding to the word of the prophecy, what is adding to the word of the prophecy?

When you teach people that the word of the prophecy is going to happen according to the story line of Left Behind, including some poor wretch of a female giving birth to the spawn of the devil, how is that not adding to the word of the prophecy by a lunatical fable?

revelation2217 said:

Really? So adding the United Nations, Nicolae Carpathia, and Harriet Durham, mother of the child of Satan incarnate is not adding to the Revelation and meddling with eternal matters?

Writing an entire series of trash novel after the next that does nothing but add to what is never written is not adding to the words of the prophecy of Revelation?

If that isn't adding to the word of the prophecy, what is adding to the word of the prophecy?

When you teach people that the word of the prophecy is going to happen according to the story line of Left Behind, including some poor wretch of a female giving birth to the spawn of the devil, how is that not adding to the word of the prophecy by a lunatical fable?

Click to expand...

They are not teaching that everything is going to happen according to their story line. It is purely a work of fiction based on passages they have read.

As for a woman giving birth to the spawn of the devil, the Antichrist will be a completely human man. How do you know that he won't have children?

Bumble Bee said:

They are not teaching that everything is going to happen according to their story line. It is purely a work of fiction based on passages they have read.

As for a woman giving birth to the spawn of the devil, the Antichrist will be a completely human man. How do you know that he won't have children?

Click to expand...

It's the 'fiction' part that is disturbing.

And how do you know that this 'Antichrist' will even be a family man?

I'm saying that the entire thing is contrived from beginning to end adding things in that may or may not even be implied and are definitely additions.

If that doesn't scare you, may I suggest that it should?

The common answer would probably be 'don't take it so seriously'. Yet, the very thing that the many would not take seriously is the very thing I believe we have failed to take seriously at all and is the most important thing we ever could take seriously.

The Bible never says that Jesus didn't marry and have children either. But to add that to the text would be to add to what is written. And that is the explicit command of Jesus Christ of what not to do.

I believe that Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, along with all their ardent fans are going to answer and suffer for what they have done. I mean that. And I mean it to the degree to which Christ promises it to anyone who adds to or takes away from the prophecy of Revelation. I believe that Tim LaHaye is plague borne and hell bound. I believe the man is a Judas who has sold his soul for Left Behind.

revelation2217 said:

It's the 'fiction' part that is disturbing.

And how do you know that this 'Antichrist' will even be a family man?

I'm saying that the entire thing is contrived from beginning to end adding things in that may or may not even be implied and are definitely additions.

If that doesn't scare you, may I suggest that it should?

The common answer would probably be 'don't take it so seriously'. Yet, the very thing that the many would not take seriously is the very thing I believe we have failed to take seriously at all and is the most important thing we ever could take seriously.

The Bible never says that Jesus didn't marry and have children either. But to add that to the text would be to add to what is written. And that is the explicit command of Jesus Christ of what not to do.

I believe that Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, along with all their ardent fans are going to answer and suffer for what they have done. I mean that. And I mean it to the degree to which Christ promises it to anyone who adds to or takes away from the prophecy of Revelation. I believe that Tim LaHaye is plague borne and hell bound. I believe the man is a Judas who has sold his soul for Left Behind.

Click to expand...

Leave it to the "figurative" school to be overly literal when the figurative is applied to illustrate a literal.

The Bible narrative cannot be filmed without avoiding what filming cause to become necessary. Even a simple scene like the Lord in front of the "little ones" relating that "of such is the kingdom of heaven" will require all sorts of necessary "inventions" to pull the scene off.

The expression of those "little one's" faces in their reaction to Him are not mentioned in the Scriptural narrative, for example, and will have to be "fictionalized."

Where He stood, where others were, ad infinitum...

In this, "fictionalizing" whether the Ant-Christ's mom earthly father is funnyman the late Leslie Nielson, from the comic film "Airplane" or Alan Hale Jr., as the Skipper on "a three hour tour" [Gilligan's Island] is not the point.

The point is getting the point across.

Yours having been all along, "well, I don't believe it anyway, so let me nitpick those things towards making my holier than thou case."

That is all you are doing - the warning - under the Law and its Wrath - against adding or taking from Scripture does not even apply to this age of Grace, this side of the Cross - Acts 17:

30. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31. Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

2 Cor. 5:

19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation,
20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Those films, as goofy as they are, are attempting said ambassadorship now, while that day in which He will speak again - in - His - wrath - yet awaits this the future of this planet.

Put up or shut up - make one yourself - all figurative of, course, as that is your school.

Yeah, you and yours are one to talk about fictionalizing Scripture - good one.

there are many antiChrists, and we are fully into the end times folks...
infact its's going to be over sooner than you think...and most of you don't even know you are in it.

FOR YEARS i refused to believe that any US president or individual royalty was going to be the antiChrist or is the antiChrist...

BUT, we've all been looking at it wrong.
it's not going to be an individual...
it's a mass evil consciousness that's been in play for a long time.

We see it in politics and religion, we see it in media and entertainment
It's a collective that has leadership.
Trying to define ONE person as THE antiChrist is not practicle as there are MANY involved,
and you've probably never even heard of most of the players involved.

You only see the one in the mainstream
and we all argue about who it is and why,
but he is a legion

those in the spotlight have puppet masters, and no one see's them
so it's easy to see the evil in Bush(s) or Obama etc,
and thus when people point out them as the AC, or the Pope, or the British Royals
YOU ARE ALL RIGHT

STOP ARGUING

It is a SYSTEM that is placed above God,
and it has been in existence for some time now,
and the pictures in the money is just one way of them proving it,
showing it, rubbing it in our faces, virtually casting spells on the money.

there are some interesting youtube presentations
that explain how they use money and secret symbols hidden in them to represent the 666,
there's much more printed on currency than what is visible to the naked eye, especially the untrained one.

this former illuminati member is a born again Christian now,
and exposes many of the secrets hidden in the money, in plain sight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNOGR-tAzSI
something I had not considered before but seems to have some truth to it.

m423156 said:

I just read this on the Left Behind wiki. I never knew that. I fell asleep during part one and never made it this far.

What is their biblical basis for such an assertion? Where does it ever say in the Bible that a flight attendant would become the mother of the child of the Antichrist?

Harriet Durham - Left Behind Wiki

Click to expand...

How you people get this evil boogeyman who will exist in our future is beyond me. There is no single ENTITY called ANTICHRIST. All you have to do is read the epistles of John and he repeatedly states that Antichrist is a term he uses for the Gnostics that were a part of the Church who were teaching that Christ had not come in the flesh. He also makes it clear that they were once a part of the Church and were now departed- they were not of us. This is the prime doctrinal pillar of Christianity. Without it there is no New Covenant.

Codger said:

How you people get this evil boogeyman who will exist in our future is beyond me. There is no single ENTITY called ANTICHRIST. All you have to do is read the epistles of John and he repeatedly states that Antichrist is a term he uses for the Gnostics that were a part of the Church who were teaching that Christ had not come in the flesh. He also makes it clear that they were once a part of the Church and were now departed- they were not of us. This is the prime doctrinal pillar of Christianity. Without it there is no New Covenant.

Click to expand...

You people?

I think you mean 'Them people'. I don't believe in Nicolae Carpathia comics. I just make fun of them.