Dear Moses,

 

first I would like to ask a few questions to you about your message.  After that I will try to explain a little bit about Sacred Tradition and why we find it so important.

 

My first question is: 

 

If after reading scripture and coming to the true interpretation of a certain text or portion of the text, a person might write out the interpretation for others.  Now if this was actually the real and true understanding of the Bible, would be wrong to consider handing down that teaching to future generations?

 

Again let me ask this in a different way.  Let us say that you were a pastor of a church.  Now it just so happens that God says to you that He wants you to spread your interpretation of scripture to all the world so that it might be saved.  But you cannot do that in your lifetime.  So what you do is write out the interpretation that was given you by the inspiration of the holy Spirit.  This to preserve it for future generations and so that all might hear the true gospel message handed down by God.

 

Now of course you do not intend to add anything to the Bible.  But you do write out what was taught to you by the holy Spirit.  This what you write would be considered sacred tradition.  Maybe a better word for it would be the true understanding of the scriptures.  This message would need to be handed down because of the simple fact that many others might mis-interpret the scriptures and thereby spread a less than true understanding of them. 

 

So my question is this:  Doesn't scripture itself create the need of a true interpretation?  If this must be (especially in light of the thousands upon thousands of different interpretations of the bible) then How can anyone ever know who really is the one who has the true understanding.  They all claim to be the true interpreters.  That just shows us that just because someone sincerely feels he has the true understanding of the bible does not ensure that he does.  It only shows the immense pride of humans against others.

 

My second question is two-fold:

 

If scripture contains all that is needed to attain eternal life, what happens when books are taken out of the scriptures?  At that point, would the scripture still contain enough? 

 

Let me give you an example.  What would be if we only had one gospel - the gospel of Mark?

 

Now at the beginning of the gospel of Mark, it could be argued that it is all that you need to know the gospel of Jesus.

 

for it says:

 

Chapter 1   "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."    Mk 1, 1

 

So for what reason does the Gospel of Mark not contain the full gospel of Jesus Christ?

 

Secondly,  Who decided what else should be included in the new testament (the gospel)?  If the people who decided what else should be included besides the book of Mark put in false books along with it, how would we know which wre true and which were false?

 

If scripture has the form of all that is needed, isn't it a strange argument to call it infallible in itself, since it did not put itself together.  It seems that the infallibility of it lies not solely upon itself but also upon those who decided what books belong to it.  So both the scripture itself is infallible (because worded by God through his true apostles and prophets) and also the decision of what books that it should contain was also infallible (because chosen by God through his true apostles and prophets).

 

Now with regard to 2 Tim 16-17:

 

It seems that it can only refer to the Old testament.  This is based on the statement that Timothy knew from infancy the sacred scriptures.  Timothy knew the sacred scriptures since He was a child.  All that existed when Timothy was a child (depending on how old he is at this point) and even at the time when Paul writes this letter to him, was the Old Testament and possibly the gospel of Mark.  Also there are the letters that Paul himself wrote, although I doubt that he would be referring to his own letters as sacred scripture. 

 

Now I would like to explain who the Word of God is.

 

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. 

 

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."   Jn 1, 1

 

Of course the bible is not God. 

 

And also "The advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name - he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you."   Jn 14, 26

 

So in this sense, the holy Spirit must help the apostles and believers (the Church) to learn what Jesus wants them to know and also to remind them of what He already taught. 

 

For along with this is:

 

"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.  But when he comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth."    Jn 16, 12 -13

 

And so as I began to explain in my first letter to you Moses,  without the holy Spirit and his Fullness within a Church, not everything that Jesus wants us to know can be known.  this is because it is only the holy Spirit who can enlighten the minds of believers.  He guides into all truth.  He is with the Church and wonderfully so because he is the Spirit of Jesus.

 

"teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."   Mt 28, 20

 

So for anyone to claim that the holy Spirit left the church or stopped guiding the church or is no longer with the church would contradict Jesus' promises for the apostles, believers and future believers brought into that same communion. 

 

The holy Spirit must still help the church for Jesus also promised that:

 

"...upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

Mt 16, 18

 

So to say that the gates of hell did actually corrupt the church would be very contradictory to Jesus promise also.  Otherwise, if you are not saying that the church has become corrupted, what are you claiming that the same church is not true?

 

Well this is all for now as I have to go,

Ben