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.
--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.