He Was an Evangelical Christian Until He Read Aquinas

Rob Evans has taught millions of Christians that “Life without Jesus is like a doughnut: There’s a hole in the middle of your heart.”

Evans, 53, was hugely popular as an Evangelical Christian performer, selling more than 6 million CDs and DVDs, and appearing at more than 2,500 church concerts and conferences. His Donut Repair Club has been a mainstay of EWTN’s programming for the past 10 years.

Evans, his wife of 33 years, Shelley, and one of his children — daughter Tonya, 14 — were received into the Catholic Church this past Easter.

Evans spoke with Register correspondent Tom Wehner about what he called his “discovery” of the Catholic faith.

I grew up in the Presbyterian church. And when my parents divorced when I was 6, the church in Paoli (Pa.) told [my mother] that divorce might be the best thing for her in this situation because she found “true love” with another man and that she had her whole life ahead of her. The church did not fight for the unity of our family. … So we stopped going to church.

When I was at Rutgers, I read everything. I read Nietzsche, I read Sartre, Plato. … I was reading about Western civilization, but nobody was talking about Jesus. I saw an ad in The Daily Targum (campus newspaper) advertising a study on the philosophy of Christ one evening. And I went to a room that held a thousand people, and I was the only one there. … I was thirsting for something. I was considering Christ, but I wasn’t seeing him.

When I was 19 and Shelley was 17, we were “born again” in a charismatic Pentecostal group. It made inroads into the local high school; that’s how Shelley came in. My mother was going through her third divorce, and a woman at the local swimming club, her best friend, told her all about Jesus; she was from Latvia, and she pronounced it “Cheesus.” My mom had hope in her heart that Jesus would heal her marriage. My mother visited her friend’s pastor — Dennis Corrigan, who was a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary.

I went to talk to Dennis … and he ended up leading me to Jesus Christ. I said to him, “Nietzsche, Sartre, Plato — what about all these philosophies?” He said, “They’re dead. Jesus Christ is alive.”

I said, “What about Adam and Eve? What about the Bible? Do you really believe these things?” Right in the middle of this conversation, his wife comes up with a plate of cookies and coffee and their two little preschoolers come up to get a big kiss goodnight, and there was joy and peace and order and beauty in that home. I wanted that. They brought Christ to me philosophically and biblically in their lives.

Dennis was the one who baptized me. Their next door neighbor was a teenage girl who brought her friend — whom I fell in love with — to church. It was love at first sight. So Shelley Tait came in, and we were engaged four months later and were married that very year.

What happened to cause your church to splinter, and how did you maintain your faith throughout this ordeal?

The church split over discipleship. By this time, 1978, I had 12 men working for me; I had been married for five years. I had three kids and another one on the way. All of my friends, my whole company, moved to Florida from Philadelphia. My company was devastated.

After two more splits, we ended up being in a church of about five or 10 people, and it once had been thousands. What I thought was my forever family was gone, gone and gone again. We kept our focus on Jesus in heaven — the celestial church. Obviously, there was no earthly church that had any true unity.

Because Shelley and I are both children of divorce, when the church fell apart it brought terrific stress to our marriage. We know of a number of couples that then divorced after this meltdown.

During this period of time, we kept telling our children about Jesus and I kept singing them daddy’s songs. So the emotion, the joy and the assurance that the Holy Spirit gave us was what I sang about. God continued to hold us together and kept blessing us with children. We had five in seven years.

In the middle of that crucible, I maintained a habit of tucking the kids in every night with a Bible story and then I would go to my office and write a song.

So I wrote dozens and dozens and dozens of songs from tucking my kids in, and then my wife observed that my children were singing daddy’s songs, so she surprised me with $1,250 that she had saved for us to go on a second honeymoon.

She said, “I think you should make a recording with these songs so we can bless some other people.” So we prayed about it, and I did. And I went into my friend’s recording studio and recorded daddy’s songs. And one of those songs was, “Life without Jesus is like a doughnut; there’s a hole in the middle of your heart.”

My brother-in-law took a picture of me peeking through a doughnut for my first cover, and it was called “Musical Donuts.”

I didn’t convert to Catholicism, I discovered Catholicism. The word “converted” I wear reluctantly only because it communicates, and it’s an accepted part of Catholic culture.

When I used to drive by a Catholic church, I would pray a blessing on that church: “Lord, save those poor Catholics. Pour your Spirit out on that church. Amen.” Little did I know that I was praying for myself.

In 1991, we moved to Nashville to be closer to Integrity Music, which was based in Mobile, Ala. We went to a Baptist church, but that underwent a split. And then in 2001 we moved back home to Ocean County, N.J., and joined a church there.

We were home. But within six months, we were kicked out over a theological dispute over alcohol.

As I went through the last meltdown, I said to my wife, “You know, the Catholic Church has a unity.” And we started going to Mass in our local parish that we would drive by every day — St. Francis of Assisi. This was in February of 2005. And we would kneel down in the quiet and, you know what? Catholics read the Bible every Mass. And when I saw the way they revered the Host, I was really touched. … And all of the priests — Father Steve, Father Kevin, Father Tom and Father John — revered Christ in the Eucharist, I could see it. I could feel it, too.

Back when I was in my 20s, I read How Then Shall We Live by Francis Schaeffer. He lays the blame for the fires of the Reformation at the feet of Thomas Aquinas. I had also been taught that to include Mary in the equation any more than two weeks around Christmas was idolatrous.

Right around February and March of 2005 as we were starting to “nibble” at Mass, I went to a Border’s bookstore in the Hamilton mall near Atlantic City. And I love photography.

Well, right next to P for Photography is R for Religion. I saw a book of sermonettes by Thomas Aquinas from Sophia Press. I pulled it out, popped it open to his teaching on “Hail Mary, full of grace.” And he asked the question, “How full of grace would the mother of Jesus Christ be?” This is the only time an angel has accorded a human being this kind of honor. I found it such a poignant, thoughtful question, beautifully stated and in no way idolatrous.

It was completely, profoundly Christ-centered. And it made me consider Mary as the singularly most Christ-centered person who has ever lived. Not just in her head and in her heart, but literally, in her womb.

I just grabbed the book, I bought it, and went out and read it to my wife in the car, and we both looked at each other … We had just gone to Mass a couple times … and now this was Aquinas, the guy who was to blame for the Reformation … I find out that he’s not an idolater. This guy is truly a Church father. And what he had to say about Mary, well, I devoured it.

We sat there in the parking lot of Border’s and I read it to Shelley, and in unison we said to each other, “We’re Catholic.”

At the same time we were considering these things, my daughter Sarah and her husband, Pete Johnson, did convert to Catholicism.

Were there other realizations that opened your mind and heart to Catholicism and the sacraments?

As the Donut Man, I was looking for an authoritative way to teach the children. I color-coded all of my videos for children who couldn’t read. I have the “yellow video,” the “green video,” the “red video” — matching the coveralls that I wore in the videos. And then I went to Mass and I saw the different colors that were keyed to the liturgical calendar, which gives you historicity.

I was never taught my baptism was symbolic. If my baptism circumcised my heart, crucified, buried and resurrected me with Christ in the waters of baptism, that ain’t symbolic. That’s sacramental.

My approach to communion was never symbolic. It was always sacramental. My approach to my wife was sacramental. And I knew that confession isn’t just to God. Through the Promise Keepers movement, with covenant groups in the evangelical realm, they were called accountability groups. Hello! That’s confessing, that’s invoking Jesus’ initiative with Peter: “I give you the keys. What you bind on earth is bound in heaven, what you loose on earth is forgiven in heaven.” … That’s sacramental.

The Catholic Church maintains this pattern in the Eucharist that Christ himself comes to us in the bread and the cup. Why would Protestants break that pattern and accept a communion that, at best, is a sweet meditation and a reverencing of Jesus Christ. … The Catholic Church has a fuller view of Communion. It’s not a question of right and wrong. It’s a question of good vs. miraculous.

My kids tell me, “Dad you were a great Protestant evangelist and you’re going to be a great Catholic evangelist.” Well, we’re going to find out. I’m not going to bite the hand that fed me for 33 years. So I’m still going to reach out to my separated brothers and sisters. I am focusing on a new kid’s album right now with “The Eucharist Song,” “Holy Water on My Face,” and “All for the Love of Mary.”

I was saying that Luke himself says that he ... put everything in it he could find credible

Luke never says that.

And if Mary is to be used as a go-between for us to God, why is it not mentioned anywhere in the Gospels or Epistles?

Your very question assumes 'sola scriptura'.

So the scripture does not describe all that is required for salvation? Is this where the RCC gnosticism comes in, you must have the knowledge that only the Magisterium can provide? Ware the Scriptures! It can lead the unenlightened into heresy, for you must have the proper gnosis to fully understand! I say Ware the church that demands the scriptures be guarded against! For many other cults lurk out there that make the same claim, and the Mormons do not need the company...

The sophistry and mockery is unnecessary and unhelpful. Relying on an oral tradition handed down from the Apostles through the bishops is the very antithesis of gnosticism. It is very earthy, just as apostolic succession by the laying on of hands is very earthy. The gnostic hates what is earthy; he wants a direct pipeline to the divine throneroom in heaven, without any physical or material vehicle or intermediary. (That is why gnostics hate the sacraments. If you want to see how anti-gnostic Catholicism is, re-read NYer's post #2 in this thread.) The fullest expression of contemporary Christian gnosticism is found in charismatic churches. But gnosticism is already nascently present in all forms of Protestantism, since each person is there his own ultimate Scripture interpreter, and thereby has his own direct pipeline to the mind of God. (Unfortunately for this methodology, God apparently has thousands and thousands of minds, since in actuality it is each man enthroning himself.)

You may have noticed earlier today that when Dr. Eckleburg told spunkets that one of his claims was a heresy, spunkets replied, "On what grounds?". But Dr. Eckleburg cannot answer spunkets's question: "On what grounds?" Dr. Eckleburg has no more authority (to say what is heresy and what is not) than does spunkets. Dr. Eckleburg can say, "Well the Scripture says X, and since you are saying ~X, your position is heresy." And spunkets can reply, "Well that's your interpretation of Scripture; according to *my* interpretation, Scripture says ~X, and since you are saying X, your position is heresy." Who is to say who is the heretic and who is not? Who has the right interpretation and who does not? Every man has equal authority, and in that case there is no longer any such thing as orthodoxy or heresy; each man determines for himself what is orthodoxy and heresy. That is the fruit of gnosticism. Radical individualism. Each man becomes his own 'God'. And we are thereby fragmented into as many sects as persons, no longer a unified organic body.

If you have ever seen the Lord of the Rings movies, you might recall that the Ring of Power causes division wherever it goes. You see that occur when Smeagol murders Deagol when the ring is first rediscovered. Then we see its divisiveness again at the council at Rivendell when those invited to the council start quarelling with one another over what should be done with the ring. Galadriel later tells Frodo that the ring is already working to destroy the fellowship and will break it apart. This happens when Boromir tries to take the ring. Then the ring even brings division between Frodo and Sam. The "ring of power" represents unlawfully obtained power. It is this power that Protestants have taken to themselves in usurping to themselves that which belongs rightfully to the Magisterium appointed by Christ through His Apostles. This usurpation of the papal seat mimics the original attempt by the "Angel of Light" to usurp the divine throne. (Isaiah 14:12-14) The fruit of this rebellion is division upon division, just as the "ring of power" brought division between all who were drawn to it. And as in the story, the "ring of power" must be destroyed, and we must return in allegiance to our rightful shepherd and king, the true 'heir' from Peter in apostolic succession. Those are our only choices: the ring of power, or the rightful king and heir. The former is the way of pursuing unlawful power; the latter is the way of submission to rightful authority.

-A8

Luke, when writing all the truth that he could find in his Gospel to Theophilus did not mention that Mary's pain at the foot of the Cross was somehow redemptive. Nor did he mention that she was born immaculately. Nor did he make much mention of this special status that she is now held by the RCC, and perhaps held that way since way early in the church. Yes, she is known to be blessed beyond all other women for being the mother of Jesus, but nothing else.

Unfortunately, YOU are WRONG:

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. (Luke 1:41)

We need to pay attention to what Elizabeth says here. She DOES NOT say "Blessed art thou among women, and EVEN MORE BLESSED is the fruit of thy womb." She declares that the blessing that exists in the Holy Mother is they SAME BLESSING that exists for Christ. And because we know that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not divine, and we know that she is not the Savior, we have to look for the highest common denominator that can exist possibly between our Lord and His Mother. And the only possibility is that Mary is and always has been protected from the stain of original sin. We can deduce this because man WAS NOT created in a state of sin, man chose this state. And God CHOSE to protect His Mother from this stain at the moment of her conception. When the Blessed Mother responds to Elizabeth, she says, "My soul doth magnify the Lord." (Luke 1:46) Now then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a soul that bears the stain of sin to MAGNIFY the Lord, a stained soul can only OBSCURE the Lord.

And that is why the RCC is considered heretical by the Protestants, and no matter how you make Mary the selling point, at least this Reformed believer will never think to fall to the RCC's heresy.

Yet, the problem is that the history of the Reformation has been that Protestants cannot even agree with each other for very long.

I believe that the Apostle Peter showed incredible forsight when he wrote:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

This usurpation of the papal seat mimics the original attempt by the "Angel of Light" to usurp the divine throne. (Isaiah 14:12-14) The fruit of this rebellion is division upon division, just as the "ring of power" brought division between all who were drawn to it.

Great analogy!

And if Mary is to be used as a go-between for us to God, why is it not mentioned anywhere in the Gospels or Epistles?

Mary's intercession is entirely dependent on Jesus' role as the great Mediator (I Timothy 2:5). He is the One Way to the Father (John 14:6), all prayers to the Father must go through Him. Mary's prayers are no exception; she, too, prays to the Father in Jesus' Name.

Belief that the saints in heaven intercede for us is biblical! The Book of Revelation portrays the twenty-four elders as offering our prayers to God like incense (Revelation 5:8). Those who sleep in Christ are still members of His Body, as are we. So we can ask them to pray for us the same way we would ask a fellow Christian on earth to pray for us.

I want you to answer the question of Luke 1. If you cannot, please speak not to me of conceit.

Here is the definition of "conceit":

Main Entry: 1con·ceit
Pronunciation: k&n-'sEt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from conceivre
1 a (1) : a result of mental activity : THOUGHT (2) : individual opinion b : favorable opinion; especially : excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue
2 : a fancy item or trifle
3 a : a fanciful idea b : an elaborate or strained metaphor c : use or presence of such conceits in poetry d : an organizing theme or concept

The same RCC that allows the enemy to continue to kill our unborn, much as Herod and Pharoah did.

Let's see, the Catholic church is the number one pro-life voice on the planet.

The Protestants are divided.

The Catholic church alone adheres to the traditional Christian teaching that contraception is a grave moral evil.

The Protestants have mostly abandoned that truth, and in fact it was the Anglicans who started the ball rolling in 1930.

A person who procures, performs, or helps someone else to procure an abortion is automatically excommunicated according to Canon law.

The prefect of the congregation for the liturgy is already on record saying that pro-abortion Catholic politicians should refrain from receiving the Eucharist.

Has the Pope excommunicated the pro-abortion Catholics yet?

Do you think it would help? Do you think "abortion is always a grave moral evil" isn't clear enough?

So the scripture does not describe all that is required for salvation?

Why do you add the works of John Calvin to Scripture?

"Who is to say who is the heretic and who is not? Who has the right interpretation and who does not? Every man has equal authority, and in that case there is no longer any such thing as orthodoxy or heresy; each man determines for himself what is orthodoxy and heresy."

Logic applies, authority does not. Every man has the equal right to use their mind to determine what is being said and pass judgment. That is what God bases His judgment on. Matt 12:32, " Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." The 4 Gospels contain quotes from God Himself. Those words must be the foundation for everything.

It should be noted that I call no one a heretic. I simply state my position and provide the evidence used for any conclusion, or proposition presented. That facts and logic stand on their own. That is the way God works too.

"The gnostic hates what is earthy; he wants a direct pipeline to the divine throneroom in heaven, without any physical or material vehicle or intermediary."

Matt 7:7, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." Notice God's invitation is given to all and is an invitation to seek Him directly. It's not a directive to seek an intermediary. The Church was given directives. The significant directive was to "feed my sheep". The sheep will be starved if you treat God's invitation to all as a gnostic heresy. It is not. Gnosticism is a philosophy that God keeps secrets that are only available to certain wise men that crack the code and have direct open channels to Him. That is the position you've claimed the Magesterium holds. If you're going to counter someone's claim, or conclusion, present a rational argument. An appeal to authority is not a rational argument. It should also be noted that no authority can stand in the way of God's direct invitation to all, to seek Him directly.

"The "ring of power" represents unlawfully obtained power."

LOL! The ring of power represents power itself in the raw, lawfulness notwithstanding!

"This usurpation of the papal seat mimics the original attempt by the "Angel of Light" to usurp the divine throne."

Perhaps the creation of the Papal seat was an attempt to deny the invitation given in Matt 7:7. I notice that historically, the Orthodox were cut off, because of that action. It wasn't a good thing for the well being of God's sheep. It was a grab for the ring, for the cause of the institution. I don't find that Peter Himself made a grab for the ring in scripture and I don't find that God gave Him one. God had 12 disciples, not 11 and an infallible club president. No one can claim that the invitation given by God to all was to them alone, which is what the invention of the Papal seat has as it's foundation.

--Unfortunately, YOU are WRONG:

--And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. (Luke 1:41)

Yup, clearly states that Mary was imacculate upon birth.

--"My soul doth magnify the Lord." (Luke 1:46) Now then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a soul that bears the stain of sin to MAGNIFY the Lord, a stained soul can only OBSCURE the Lord.

Oh, I was wrong. HERE it says she is pure and thus our intercessor! Put clearly in the text to show Theophilus the exact truth. Um. Maybe if you read it with the Magesterial interpretation put into it. But without such prejudice, it is clear as mud. And magnify is a KJV and ESV translation. Somewhat different in others:

NAS Luke 1:46And Mary said:
"My soul exalts the Lord,
47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

Luke 1:46-47 (NIV)
46And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

Where exalting and glorifying can have a different connotation than magnifying in modern terms, my dictionary gives this definition of-

Magnify :2 archaic extol; glorify : praise the Lord and magnify Him.

Does not mean add to, but to glorify and add praise to. You must agree that King James would have used this archaic definition. A more modern English definition gets in the way of the idea behind the statement, and unfortunately adds to the confusion.

--Yet, the problem is that the history of the Reformation has been that Protestants cannot even agree with each other for very long.

--I believe that the Apostle Peter showed incredible forsight when he wrote:

--As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

Unfortunately I agree that once a sect steps away from the solid unchanging Scripture, that sect tends to wander. That is why we all need to keep our eyes on what most agree is the Inspired Word and not a claim of infallible interpretation of ideas of the Early Church Fathers, when conflicting interpretations of these lead to such schisms as between the OC and the RCC, and they agree about much more than they do not!

The RCC cannot claim to be a solid rock of doctrines. The Pope is constantly trying to keep married priests out of the bishoprics, pro-abortion Catholics in the church, and liberals from taking over, which is highlighted out by the LA archdiocese as well as other places.

So, no, I do not see how I am WRONG, but perhaps you would like to amend your statement?

Hey, brother, Merry Christmas to you.

Here's the thing. Five of the Apostles wrote parts of the NT, either Gosepls or Epistles: Matthew, John, Peter, James, and Jude. But all 12 (with Matthias the successor of Judas) went far and wide teaching about Jesus; and those who didn't leave written gospels or letters, did leave disciples and successors in the churches they planted.

These disciples and successors preached what they had been taught, and a lot of this Apostolic doctrine then was written down: as sermons, hymns, liturgical texts, etc.

And you know what? All these ancient Churches believe all those Catholic/Orthodox doctrines about the "spotless" Virgin who was hailed by an angel, not as "sinner-woman" but as "Full of Grace."

To read more about the million Assyrian and Chaldeans in Iraq --- many of them Aramaic-speaking-- who have been Christians since the preaching of St. Thomas in the First Century AD, read THIS FreeRepublic post.

And don't wait too long to get acquainted with them, because they're being exiled, tortured and killed as we speak.

(Warning: Do not read if you have delicate sensitivities and are prone to yell "ANTI-CATHOLIC" at any challenge to your faith. Victimhood is too costly a card to be played when salvation is at stake!)

Here, I will simply restate the question, without the term 'conceit' which you brought to bear, so that you do not wander off the topic:
--I want you to answer the question of Luke 1.

This is something you, and a few others here in FR Catholic Apologetic circles, have not answered and I have had to repeat the question often. Do you have an answer to it? I can accept a 'no' as an answer. Ignorance is not an excuse, but as long as I have studied the Scripture I can see that there is no possible way it can be truly known in its entirety as there is simply too much there. A 'no' simply gives you a 'he's going to work on it' pass. I DO want to know the Catholic answer if there is one.

--Let's see, the Catholic church is the number one pro-life voice on the planet.
--A person who procures, performs, or helps someone else to procure an abortion is automatically excommunicated according to Canon law.

(I am going to assume that this excommunication is figurative, not actual, or tons of East Coast Catholics are getting ritualized grace fraudulently. Any priest that gives confession, the Mass etc. to pro-abortion types would also face excommunication and then there is a domino effect that would flatten much of the RCC in the USA. That hasn't happened, so it must be figurative or the excommunication is ineffective, thus nullifying the authority of the RCC.)

And when is this going to go into effect? When is the authority of the Pope going to force Jawn Cary to renounce his stance on abortion or face excommunication? I heard with expectation that THIS Pope was going to do it, but as we wait thousands of unborn are slaughtered. If the Pope is waiting does this mean he consents to the abortions until he acts? Is he teaching his church ex cathedra by his inaction?

I agree with those of you that just said "Heaven Forbid!". Then why has he, why didn't Pope John Paul, why didn't any Pope since Roe V. Wade step in? Does he not have the Keys, and can bind and unbind? A cornerstone that allows such abomination is no cornerstone but a worm ridden log, eaten from within.

I can only guess that he must remain silent on this issue to continue the illusion of his faux authority, that once was a temporal power to be feared and is now just window dressing for a failing church.

---So the scripture does not describe all that is required for salvation?

If this is a discussion, do not ask a question to answer a question, especially when it has nothing to do with the original question.

--Why do you add the works of John Calvin to Scripture?

But I will still wander further off topic to answer your question. I do not say that John Calvin is infallible. I do not hold to many of his teachings, much like I enjoy the writings of Augustine but do not agree with all. I can claim just as much as to hold to Augustinianism than Calvinism. Calvinism is just a modern term putting too much weight on poor Johns back. Which is why I prefer the term Reformed. BUT the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura -which I assume you are pointing to in your pointed question- teaches to follow the Word of God, not John Calvin in his writings, and THAT is getting back to Luke 1, which is getting us back to topic.

Luke is again, writing to Theophilus to give him the EXACT TRUTH. If anything is outside this closed set of his Gospel, it must not be EXACT TRUTH, no? Something that is not true is false, thus all teaching that does not harmonize with Luke's Gospel is FALSE. And any church that does not teach the truth of the Scriptures is then...? False.

--Hey, brother, Merry Christmas to you.

Thank you! And a blessed Christmas to you and yours.

--Here's the thing. Five of the Apostles wrote parts of the NT, either Gosepls or Epistles: Matthew, John, Peter, James, and Jude. But all 12 (with Matthias the successor of Judas) went far and wide teaching about Jesus; and those who didn't leave written gospels or letters, did leave disciples and successors in the churches they planted. These disciples and successors preached what they had been taught, and a lot of this Apostolic doctrine then was written down: as sermons, hymns, liturgical texts, etc....

All true. I agree that there is much tradition brought down from the time of the Apostles. But what I do not agree with is that ALL this tradition is the exact truth that Luke taught. Much is added that is not mentioned in the Gospel, or any other Gospel, Epistle or Revelation. And if there is anything outside Luke, and Luke himself makes the claim that he has written the EXACT TRUTH, then the whole tradition structure is in doubt, not a foundation to build a church on.

What is not in doubt is the Scripture itself. With this as a starting point we must judge these additional traditions.

Can it be seen that Mary is for some reason unblemished by the same sin that all others but Christ carried? Blessed, yes. Immaculate? Not found in the Scripture. I can perhaps admit that her status is not clearly defined, but unsinning? No, not even suggested. Paul would have mentioned her in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians; SOMEWHERE. But not one word of her immaculateness.

Something like that is something which should stand out and underlined in Scripture like the divinity of Christ Jesus! Two perfect beings, one mother, the other the Son of God! But instead it is not brought to clarity by anything other than traditions and giving meaning to Scripture that is simply not there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.