BibleForums Christian Message Board

The RCC requirement is that one be 'baptized' in the Catholic faith before partaking in their sacred ordinances. Mass attendance is actually allowed but not communion, which is the core sacrament (Eucharist) of that faith, and the true essence of "Mass."

This was my understanding as well.

There's also other Bible Scripture, even in The New Testament, that mentions the idea of being with child in the positive sense, meant literally, like Matthew 1:18 about Mary pregnant with baby Jesus. Does mean that metaphor of Isaiah 54:1 applies? God forbid! of course not! And I think you well know this. So what is the problem? You well know it's about the CONTEXT of the subject.

I'm not understanding your take on "context". The whole of chapter 54 seems to be a consolation for the barren city of Jerusalem, with the promise that her people will be returned. "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you... For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you..." and ends with the heritage of the servants of the Lord. You're turning it into some vision of doom and gloom, of punishment for nonbelievers or whatever, things that the chapter never states, explicitly or otherwise.

To Whom It May Concern:
I do not like to argue for argument's sake, as some here do. I don't have time for silly arguments just because someone doesn't like what is being taught from God's Word as written.

Are you here to have a discussion? Or to lecture us?

Therefore, I have begun my IGNORE LIST.
And so far, Fenis is added to it, so I refuse any further communications with Fenis.

It's "Fenris", if you're going to put me on your "IGNORE LIST" you could at least spell my user name correctly.

It's the same SUBJECT AND IDEA. That is what the word 'relevant' means you know.

Psalm 113
1 Praise the Lord.

Praise the Lord, you his servants;
    praise the name of the Lord.
2 Let the name of the Lord be praised,
    both now and forevermore.
3 From the rising of the sun to the place where it sets,
    the name of the Lord is to be praised.

4 The Lord is exalted over all the nations,
    his glory above the heavens.
5 Who is like the Lord our God,
    the One who sits enthroned on high,
6 who stoops down to look
    on the heavens and the earth?

7 He raises the poor from the dust
    and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
8 he seats them with princes,
    with the princes of his people.
9 He settles the childless woman in her home
    as a happy mother of children.

Praise the Lord.

Now for the punchline, so to speak, about the Woe to those with child warning for the end of this world during the coming "great tribulation".

When all the relevant Bible Scripture is put together that I covered in my above posts, then a major question should come to mind about those who are found with child, and do not remain as "a chaste virgin", and thus represent the married wife when Jesus comes.

The Isaiah 54 metaphor is about the idea of a virgin bride who remains barren vs. the married wife who was betrothed to Jesus, but is found already married and with child when Jesus comes. That means the married wife played the Harlot.

And this Isaiah 54 metaphor is given about BOTH God's people, and the city of Jerusalem.

Per the Book of Revelation about the Babylon Harlot of Chapter 17, it reveals that Babylon Harlot is a "great city". And in Revelation 11:8 which reveals the "great city" is where our Lord was crucified, that is pointing directly to Jerusalem as that "great city" for the end of this world.

Thus in Revelation 18, the Babylon Harlot woman says she sits a queen, and is no widow. In the Book of Lamentations, after Jerusalem was destroyed by the king of Babylon in Israel's history, Jerusalem is then referred to as being a symbolic "widow". But in Revelation 18 for the end of this world, she claims she is no widow, meaning she is saying she is married.

So who... is she married to at the end? Who will Jerusalem at the end of this world prior to Christ's return be married to? for she represents the married wife in the Isaiah 54 barren metaphor, as also those in Jerusalem who will be deceived during the coming "great tribulation".

 Do you recall Revelation 21 that speaks of new Jerusalem being Christ's Bride at His future coming? In Ezekiel 16 God revealed that He married Jerusalem, put His skirt over her, which is an Old Testament metaphor for marriage consumation. But then she played the harlot against Him.

So in reality, this Book of Revelation idea about the Babylon Harlot being the "great city" as Jerusalem for the end when IDOL worship will be setup there by the coming false-Messiah placing the "abomination of desolation" idol at a newly built Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem, it shouldn't be any wonder how that Ezekiel 16 chapter about Jerusalem playing the harlot in past history as being the harlot woman of the Book of Revelation for the end of this world, just prior to Christ's return.

Oh but yes Jesus is... quoting from Isaiah 54:1.

You're not one of those who deny relevant Bible Scripture in another Book that may not use the 'exact' same wording as the other Book, are you? Those who do that just are making excuses to not heed the Scripture.

Let's see...

Luke 23:29
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.'
KJV

Isa 54:1
54 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
KJV

Same idea, little bit different wording between the two verses.

First you say it's the same exact wording, then you say it's different words but it means the same thing, when it clearly doesn't.