I just must ask

[Nicea325]

Are you saying that if it quaifies as food its ok to bow down to it. IOW the 2nd commandment does not apply.

That’s just it. I don’t believe Christ would teach us to violate one of His commandments

And just because you do not believe it does not mean you are correct. Many do not believe in Hell,does it mean it does not exist?

More important,who are you as a mere creature to say what God can and cannot do? Explain to me why Jesus(God) would NOT and could NOT give us His Body and Blood in two simple outward appearances: bread and wine?

 

[Church_Militant]

Tzafun: What is the afikoman and what is it for? This was a Passover meal.

Paul tells us what the bread represents:

1 Cor 5:8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

1 Cor 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Shows it’s still bread and wine after the blessing.

The two passages are not relevant to other in te way you wish they were. In the first Paul is instructing them about the proper condition of their hearts to insure that they receive it worthily, something he points out that they already have a problem with.

Even if it were as you try to suggest, that would still invalidate most of the n-C communions because it plainly says that it should be unleavened bread…

“Do this in remembrance of me.”

Barech: What about the cup? The third cup of the Passover is the Cup of Redemption. Red wine was used.

** Most likely it was unfermented**.

Too bad there was that 4th cup huh? Unfermented? There is no evidence that even remotely suggests that and even St. Paul instructs the Corinthians to insure they are not drunken at communion, so that is completely

After supper, Jews bless it and drink it.

 

[Church_Militant]

Are you saying that if it quaifies as food its ok to bow down to it. IOW the 2nd commandment does not apply.

Try to stay in the game Richard, there is nothing anywhere in any authentic Catholic documents that would ever even imply that the 2nd commandment doesn’t apply.

That’s just it. I don’t believe Christ would teach us to violate one of His commandments

Gee whiz then…that must mean that since Jesus taught it that it’s not idolatry.

 

[rev_kevin]

Gee, “Rev”…so you figure that Jesus intended that we should cut off our hands and rip out our eyes? C’mon, there’s nothing that even remotely indicates a symbolism in John 6 and it’s very clear that St. Paul didn’t take it that way. (The Eucharist IS Scriptural)

It’s not the fault of the Catholic Church that so many of the communities of modern post reformation step children fail (http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png) to properly interpret the Word of God. St Ignatius of Antioch was one of the very earliest Church fathers to write about what they taught about this from the apostles themselves.

Look at what he said.

Come on, get for real. I just went by what you wrote about raining cats and dogs and you come back with cutting off hands and ripping out our eyes?
Where do you see in John 6 that Jesus’ real presents is in the Eucharist? Jesus said he is the bread of life. See people eat bread to satisfy physical hunger and to sustain physical life. By Jesus saying I am the bread of life he was refering to the spiritual side not the physical side. He is the bread [spiritual] that sustains our spiritual body, our spiritual hunger. His flesh, the bread is what will be nailed to the cross and the blood is the blood he sheds for us. I see no real presents in John 6. Show me where I’m wrong and don’t give me that is my own interpretation stuff.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You mean Jesus cannot or would not change any OT law?

No, He would not change one of the ten commandments.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

And just because you do not believe it does not mean you are correct. Many do not believe in Hell,does it mean it does not exist?

Are you saying that Jesus taught us to sin?
1Jn.3: 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

More important,who are you as a mere creature to say what God can and cannot do? Explain to me why Jesus(God) would NOT and could NOT give us His Body and Blood in two simple outward appearances: bread and wine?

Because that would be bowing down to a graven image. A violation of the second commandment.

 

[Third_Day]

=Richard Kastner;6654107]Why would I assume this. The fact is that God told us not to bow down before graven images (things made with our hands like bread) I just don’t believe He would command us not to do this in the ten commandments and then turn around and tell us to do it.

In Numbers 21:8 God told Moses to make a brazen serpent and put it on a pole and the people were to look at it and they would be healed. Isn’t that a graven image? The Ten Commandments also command us to keep holy the sabbath. Do you observe the sabbath or Sunday?

So you are saying that one part of the bible has no relation to other parts. Is this an official infallible teaching

As St. Augustine said the New Testament is found in the Old and the Old is found in the New. We need to take all of the bible but the context of a particular passage should be taken first before you look elsewhere for additional meaning

Well, I hate to go against your arbitrary rule that we can’t use the rest of the bible (not so much) but Peter most likely was talking about **all **of Jesus words such as Jn.14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You need to know when to use it and when it doesn’t apply. How do you know you are using scripture interpretation correctly?

You made the statement that we do not have the priesthood. As far as I know this statement is not from Jn.6 . So even according to your arbitrary rule this would be open to answeres from anywhere.

OK. You got me

I

decided to answer you with a scripture from the man you consider to be the first pope of your church and he still disagrees with you.
1Peter2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

THis is what I mean by private interpretation. It leads you into error. In the Old Testament the people of God were called a priesthood but there was another priesthhod, the Levitical priesthhod. The two are not the same. That is also the case in the New Covenenat. we are all priests, we are all mediators. But there is a ministerial priesthood that is different.

At the Council of Trent a coucil of the CC and held as binding on all Catholics is
Cannon X1 which states: CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not **required the intention **at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
The intention of the priest is required for any sacrament to be valide. This includes I’m assuming, the sacrament of communion. So If the priest goes through the external motions of consecrating the host and his intention to do it is not there, **it doesn’t happen ** So I guess according to the Council of Trent **it is **the priest who creates God.

It would be very difficult for the priest not to have the intention of the Church to consecration. But if that were to happen there would be no consecration. But the priests authority to consecrate does not come from him, it comes from Christ through His Church. A priest that wanted to “fake” a consecration would lose his authority to do so because he must be united with the Church from which his authority to consecrate comes.

 

[Third_Day]

No, He would not change one of the ten commandments.

Are you a Seventh-Day-Adventist? Do you still observe the Sabbath?

 

[Nicea325]

Are you saying that Jesus taught us to sin?
1Jn.3: 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Because that would be bowing down to a graven image. A violation of the second commandment.

When did I even remotley mention anything about Jesus teaching us to sin? Either Jesus fulfilled the OT or he did not? You seem like a SDA and I am sorry but they cherry pick what suits them. You cannot have it both ways.

A violation? Then why did God tell Moses about the serpent on a pole? What about the two cherubims (angels of the first choir and highest angelic hierarchy) on top of the Ark of the Convenant? Those are TWO graven images from ABOVE! Is God (Jesus) contradicting themselves? Sorry,but your interpretation is flawed.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

In Numbers 21:8 God told Moses to make a brazen serpent and put it on a pole and the people were to look at it and they would be healed. Isn’t that a graven image? The Ten Commandments also command us to keep holy the sabbath. Do you observe the sabbath or Sunday?

Are you saying that God told Moses to violate the second commandment.
Yes I do keep the Sabbath

As St. Augustine said the New Testament is found in the Old and the Old is found in the New. We need to take all of the bible but the context of a particular passage should be taken first before you look elsewhere for additional meaning

So, you are allowing me to use the whole bible now.:extrahappy:

I wrote:

:
Well, I hate to go against your arbitrary rule that we can’t use the rest of the bible (not so much) but Peter most likely was talking about all of Jesus words such as Jn.14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

To which you replied:

You need to know when to use it and when it doesn’t apply. How do you know you are using scripture interpretation correctly?

So, what does “it” refer to? I’m not quite sure what you mean by “scripture interpretation”
Are you talking in relation to Jn. 14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. I don’t think I gave an interpretation. What do you think it means?

Ok, I included my post here

:
decided to answer you with a scripture from the man you consider to be the first pope of your church and he still disagrees with you.
1Peter2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

THis is what I mean by private interpretation. It leads you into error. In the Old Testament the people of God were called a priesthood but there was another priesthhod, the Levitical priesthhod. The two are not the same. That is also the case in the New Covenenat. we are all priests, we are all mediators. But there is a ministerial priesthood that is different.

Now you are saying here that my interpretation leads me into error. Which means that you think your interpretation is correct and mine is flawed. Then when you continue you make exactly the same point that I made with the completely unbiblical adendum, “But there is a ministerial priesthood that is different.” Two questions. How is my interpretation flawed and yours isn’t when we both said exactly the same thing? and where do you find this “ministerial priesthood” spelled out?

It would be very difficult for the priest not to have the intention of the Church to consecration. But if that were to happen there would be no consecration. But the priests authority to consecrate does not come from him, it comes from Christ through His Church. A priest that wanted to “fake” a consecration would lose his authority to do so because he must be united with the Church from which his authority to consecrate comes.

Ok, let’s examine this a minute. The Council of Trent says in session V11 CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema. This means that the intention of the priest must be present “at least of doing what the Church does”

Now you say “But the priests authority to consecrate does not come from him, it comes from Christ through His Church.” This seems to be in direct conflict with CANON XI
of The Council of Trent What this cannon is saying is that the authority to consecrate the elements does **not **come from Christ rather it comes from the intention of the priest.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

When did I even remotley mention anything about Jesus teaching us to sin? Either Jesus fulfilled the OT or he did not? You seem like a SDA and I am sorry but they cherry pick what suits them. You cannot have it both ways.

I wrote in a post. That’s just it. I don’t believe Christ would teach us to violate one of His commandments. To which you replied “And just because you do not believe it does not mean you are correct. Many do not believe in Hell,does it mean it does not exist?” To which I replied “Are you saying that Jesus taught us to sin?” So let me ask again Are you saying that Jesus taught us to sin?

A violation? Then why did God tell Moses about the serpent on a pole?

I’m not sure what your point is here Nic Are you saying that the second commandment doesn’t matter and it’s ok for us to bow down to graven images and again are you saying that God told Moses to sin?

What about the two cherubims (angels of the first choir and highest angelic hierarchy) on top of the Ark of the Convenant? Those are TWO graven images from ABOVE! Is God (Jesus) contradicting themselves?

What about the Cherubim? Again do you think God is telling the children of Israel to sin?

Sorry,but your interpretation is flawed.

My interpretation of what is flawed?

 

[BILL_PICK53]

Why do you make sweeping statements like this Bill? You don’t know. You can’t know whether or not all non-Catholics take almost all of the bible literally and I’m pretty sure that it just is not true. I know it’s not true for this non-Catholic.

Rickard Did you not see the word A LMOST,do you read your post as you read the Bible and post what you THINK it said

 

[BILL_PICK53]

Why do you make sweeping statements like this Bill? You don’t know. You can’t know whether or not all non-Catholics take almost all of the bible literally and I’m pretty sure that it just is not true. I know it’s not true for this non-Catholic.

Richard, Sorry but you need to read the question B4 answering,and then you may understand what the Bible is saying…It is the Aosple of Jesus not what you think

 

[Third_Day]

=Richard Kastner;6657948]Are you saying that God told Moses to violate the second commandment.
Yes I do keep the Sabbath

Are you a Jehovah Witness, a Seventh-Day Adventist or a Sevent-Day Baptist? I would like to know exactly where you are coming from.

So, you are allowing me to use the whole bible now.:extrahappy:

There is a correct way to use the bible and an incorrect way. DIdn’t Peter say that the “untrained and unestablished” twist the scriptures to their own destruction.?

So, what does “it” refer to? I’m not quite sure what you mean by “scripture interpretation”
Are you talking in relation to Jn. 14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. I don’t think I gave an interpretation. What do you think it means?

You can’t take scripture out of context
Example: Protestants (maybe not you since I really don’t know what faith you are) will take Isaiah 64:6 which says “we have all become like one who is unclean and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” and say that means that we are all depraved, we are nothing but **filthy rags **and we are all full of sin.
If you stay in context you can see that verse is about Israel at that one moment in time. It doesn’t refer to all humanity. That verse leads Protestants into the error that we are simply declared righteous but remain cowdung.

Now you are saying here that my interpretation leads me into error. Which means that you think your interpretation is correct and mine is flawed

.
My interpretation comes from the Church. Yours doesn’t

Then when you continue you make exactly the same point that I made with the completely unbiblical adendum, “But there is a ministerial priesthood that is different.” Two questions. How is my interpretation flawed and yours isn’t when we both said exactly the same thing? and where do you find this “ministerial priesthood” spelled out?

Why does Paul say “because of the grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God.” Romans 15:15
WHy does Hebrews 13:10 say “we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernalce have no right to eat” Only ministerial priests can use an altar.

Ok, let’s examine this a minute. The Council of Trent says in session V11 CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema. This means that the intention of the priest must be present “at least of doing what the Church does”

OK

Now you say “But the priests authority to consecrate does not come from him, it comes from Christ through His Church.” This seems to be in direct conflict with CANON XI of The Council of Trent What this cannon is saying is that the authority to consecrate the elements does **not **come from Christ rather it comes from the intention of the priest.

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers explains it much better that I can:

“In order for a minister to lack valid intention, while outwardly performing the rites of the Mass and the Eucharistic prayer, he virtually would have to say to himself, “What I am doing is not the Eucharist. I’m only play acting and fooling all of these people into thinking I’m performing a sacrament, when really I’m not.” Needless to say, a priest is almost never going to have such an intention.”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Are you a Jehovah Witness, a Seventh-Day Adventist or a Sevent-Day Baptist? I would like to know exactly where you are coming from.

I’m SDA. I answered your question. How about mine. Are you saying that God told Moses to violate the second commandment?

There is a correct way to use the bible and an incorrect way. DIdn’t Peter say that the “untrained and unestablished” twist the scriptures to their own destruction.?

So, are you saying that I use the bible in an incorrect way? And if so could you give me an example. If you see I am “untrained and unestablished” and twisting scriptures to my own destruction. Shouldn’t you train and establish me so I don’t self destruct?

You can’t take scripture out of context
Example: Protestants (maybe not you since I really don’t know what faith you are) will take Isaiah 64:6 which says “we have all become like one who is unclean and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” and say that means that we are all depraved, we are nothing but **filthy rags **and we are all full of sin.
If you stay in context you can see that verse is about Israel at that one moment in time. It doesn’t refer to all humanity.

Isaiah64:4For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

This certainly is not talking specifically of Israel. Because Israel has not been in existance
since the beginning of the world. It’s talking about all mankind. Isaiah latter uses Israel to show that these things are true for everyone.

5Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.

From my commentary on v.5
5. Thou meetest him. Heaven is not far away from earth. God meets with those who are willing to meet with Him. Since God is a righteous and a holy God, and since wickedness constitutes rebellion against Him and against the principles of His kingdom, He walks in closeness of fellowship only with those who seek after righteousness.
Remember. Not only do they keep God in their conscious memory; they do that which a knowledge of God and of the divine way should lead men to do. The Hebrew word here translated “remember” allows such an extension of meaning.
In those is continuance. The Hebrew here is brief and obscure. Many reconstructions have been attempted. Some think that the reference is to a continuance of God’s mercy and saving grace to the penitent. Others believe that the pronoun “those” refers to Israel’s rebellion against God. With the latter sense the passage may be interpreted, “Behold, thou art wroth, for we have sinned and we have continued in our ways of sin, and can we thus hope to be saved?”

6But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

And on v.6
Filthy rags. Literally, “as a menstruous garment.” Man’s best efforts produce, not righteousness, but imperfection. Only the robe of righteousness that Christ has provided will fit man to appear in the presence of God (see Gal. 2:16)
Fade as a leaf. A leaf separated from a tree soon withers and dies. The same is true of a man without Christ. The effect of sin is death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23; James 1:15).
Like the wind. As the wind tears a leaf from a branch and carries it farther and farther from the parent tree, and thus from its source of life, so sin sweeps man farther and farther away from God and hurries him on toward death and destruction.

That verse leads Protestants into the error that we are simply declared righteous but remain cowdung.

These vs. don’t say anything about being declared anything or about cowdung. What they do say is that when we seek Christ and His righteousness, that He will meet us. The implication being that our self righteousness is as filthy rags before a holy God and will lead us to destruction. But when we accept the pure garment of the righteousness that Christ purchased for us on the cross, we will live.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

My interpretation comes from the Church. Yours doesn’t

So this

Protestants (maybe not you since I really don’t know what faith you are) will take Isaiah 64:6 which says “we have all become like one who is unclean and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” and say that means that we are all depraved, we are nothing but **filthy rags **and we are all full of sin.
If you stay in context you can see that verse is about Israel at that one moment in time. It doesn’t refer to all humanity. That verse leads Protestants into the error that we are simply declared righteous but remain cowdung.

Comes from your church and is infallible teaching and my exegesis given above is wresting scripture and will lead to my destruction? Did I get that right?

Why does Paul say “because of the grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God.” Romans 15:15
WHy does Hebrews 13:10 say “we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernalce have no right to eat” Only ministerial priests can use an altar.

OK, You are attempting to answer my questions with questions. If you answer my questions first. I will attempt to answer yours. Here they are again.

Then when you continue you make exactly the same point that I made with the completely unbiblical adendum, “But there is a ministerial priesthood that is different.” Two questions. How is my interpretation flawed and yours isn’t when we both said exactly the same thing? and where do you find this “ministerial priesthood” spelled out?

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers explains it much better that I can:

“In order for a minister to lack valid intention, while outwardly performing the rites of the Mass and the Eucharistic prayer, he virtually would have to say to himself, “What I am doing is not the Eucharist. I’m only play acting and fooling all of these people into thinking I’m performing a sacrament, when really I’m not.” Needless to say, a priest is almost never going to have such an intention.”

This is all well and good, but it doesn’t address my point. You said that the power to consecrate the elements came from Christ. What I showed you in cannon X1 of the V11 session of the Council of Trent. A council the results of which are binding on all Catholics under pain of being anethema (cursed) is that that power according to them does **not **come from Christ, but from the intention of the priest. In other words the CC quite literally says that the priest creates God. Don’t you see how utterly ludicrous that is?

 

[Church_Militant]

Come on, get for real. I just went by what you wrote about raining cats and dogs and you come back with cutting off hands and ripping out our eyes?
Where do you see in John 6 that Jesus’ real presents is in the Eucharist? Jesus said he is the bread of life. See people eat bread to satisfy physical hunger and to sustain physical life. By Jesus saying I am the bread of life he was refering to the spiritual side not the physical side. He is the bread [spiritual] that sustains our spiritual body, our spiritual hunger. His flesh, the bread is what will be nailed to the cross and the blood is the blood he sheds for us. I see no real presents in John 6. Show me where I’m wrong and don’t give me that is my own interpretation stuff.

Really Kevin? Where specifically does Jesus say that in John 6?

If that were true, then why does St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, plainly tell us that we become guilty of the body and blood of Our Lord if we receive the Eucharist unworthily. That wouldn’t be possible if communion was just symbolic because one can’t be guilty of a body and blood if it wasn’t actually present.

 

[SteveVH]

Literalism–1] Adherence to the explicit sence of a given text or doctrine.
2] Literal portrayal; realism.

Literal–1 a] According to the letter of the scripture.
b] Adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or
expression.
c] Free from exageration or embellishment.
d] Charicterized by a concern mainly with facts.
2] of, relating to or expressed in letters.
3] Reproduced word for word.

So you are saying that Catholics take the scripture as symbolic according to your “raining cats and dogs” by saying it really don’t mean cats and dogs are coming down but it is a symbol of it raining hard.
So when Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood, he really means it as a symbol of his body and blood and not his real body and blood. So according to what you wrote, that would be the literal meaning. Or would it be a Literalism meaning that it is his real body and real blood. But it couldn’t mean that because that is, according to you, a non-Catholic meaning.

Catholics must consider Sacred Scripture from several perspectives, some of which require certain expertise in order to arrive at a valid interpretation which is why we must rely on the Church in the end.

“In order to discover the sacred author’s intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.” (CCC par. 110)

“Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture. Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Jesus Christ is the center and heart, open since his Passover.”
(CCC par. 112)

“Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church. According to the sayings of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spritual interpretation of the Scripture (according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church.” (CCC par. 113)

“Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.”
(CCC Par. 114)

We must also look at the different senses of Scripture:

“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC par. 116)

We also have the “spiritual sense” which is comprised of the following:

“The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.”

“The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, ‘they were written for our instruction’.”

“The anagogical sense. We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.” (CCC par. 117)

What I am trying to demostrate here is that the Scriptures cannot be interpreted correctly with a casual reading by someone with no background in ancient culture and no training in the various types of writing that make up the books of the Bible. It requires a certain amount of expertise which the average person does not possess.

 

[Third_Day]

=Richard Kastner;6660222]I’m SDA. I answered your question.

Richard, thank you for answering. Now I understand why you are so concerned about the Sabbath Commandment.

How about mine. Are you saying that God told Moses to violate the second commandment?

God would have never told Moses to violate the second commandment but God did tell Moses to make an image of a snake and put it on a pole and all who looked upon it were healed. God also gave us what you would call the Lord’s Supper. You believe it is a “symbol” and it is made by human hands and you do it as a ritual. Are you violating the second commandment?

So, are you saying that I use the bible in an incorrect way? And if so could you give me an example. If you see I am “untrained and unestablished” and twisting scriptures to my own destruction. Shouldn’t you train and establish me so I don’t self destruct?

As a Catholic I would agree with you that works are an important part of our salvation. Faith and works of grace have always been believed by the Church. But Catholics would disagree with you on soul sleep. That has never been believed. If I were a SDA I would want to test my beliefs with what was always believed throughout the centuries.

Isaiah64:4For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

This certainly is not talking specifically of Israel. Because Israel has not been in existance
since the beginning of the world. It’s talking about all mankind. Isaiah latter uses Israel to show that these things are true for everyone.

When Isaiah was written it was not divided into chapters. It is all one thought. Isaiah 1 says this “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz which he says concerning Judah and Jerusalem” Isaiah is all about Israel and the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom

5Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.

From my commentary on v.5
5. Thou meetest him. Heaven is not far away from earth. God meets with those who are willing to meet with Him. Since God is a righteous and a holy God, and since wickedness constitutes rebellion against Him and against the principles of His kingdom, He walks in closeness of fellowship only with those who seek after righteousness.
Remember. Not only do they keep God in their conscious memory; they do that which a knowledge of God and of the divine way should lead men to do. The Hebrew word here translated “remember” allows such an extension of meaning.
In those is continuance. The Hebrew here is brief and obscure. Many reconstructions have been attempted. Some think that the reference is to a continuance of God’s mercy and saving grace to the penitent. Others believe that the pronoun “those” refers to Israel’s rebellion against God. With the latter sense the passage may be interpreted, “Behold, thou art wroth, for we have sinned and we have continued in our ways of sin, and can we thus hope to be saved?”

I don’t have a problem with that.

6But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

And on v.6
Filthy rags. Literally, “as a menstruous garment.” Man’s best efforts produce, not righteousness, but imperfection. Only the robe of righteousness that Christ has provided will fit man to appear in the presence of God (see Gal. 2:16)

I somewhat agree with you. We are not filthy rags. Paul tells us in 2 Cor. 2:15 “For we are the aroma of Christ” and in 2 Cor. 5:17 “therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation”

Fade as a leaf. A leaf separated from a tree soon withers and dies. The same is true of a man without Christ. The effect of sin is death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23; James 1:15).
Like the wind. As the wind tears a leaf from a branch and carries it farther and farther from the parent tree, and thus from its source of life, so sin sweeps man farther and farther away from God and hurries him on toward death and destruction.

I agree. Catholics do not believe in the heresy of Once Saved Always Saved. Grave sin can separate us from God.

These vs. don’t say anything about being declared anything or about cowdung

. I agree but there are those who interprete it that way.

What they do say is that when we seek Christ and His righteousness, that He will meet us. The implication being that our self righteousness is as filthy rags before a holy God and will lead us to destruction. But when we accept the pure garment of the righteousness that Christ purchased for us on the cross, we will live.

I’m with you. But I would add that it is necesary for us to cooperate with God’s grace and do the works that He has made for us to do.

 

[Third_Day]

=Richard Kastner;6660240]So this Comes from your church and is infallible teaching and my exegesis given above is wresting scripture and will lead to my destruction? Did I get that right?

No. The Church would agree with you. Sin can lead to death

OK, You are attempting to answer my questions with questions. If you answer my questions first. I will attempt to answer yours.This is all well and good, but it doesn’t address my point. You said that the power to consecrate the elements came from Christ. What I showed you in cannon X1 of the V11 session of the Council of Trent. A council the results of which are binding on all Catholics under pain of being anethema (cursed) is that that power according to them does **not **come from Christ, but from the intention of the priest. In other words the CC quite literally says that the priest creates God. Don’t you see how utterly ludicrous that is?

The Church doesn’t say that the priest creates God.
God makes HImself present when the priest says the words given to the Church by Christ “This is my body…This is my blood”.

The intention of the priest is the intention of the Church.