--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.
I think that's a bit short-sighted, to say the least. Look, an angel comes to Isaiah (who was a pretty devout guy and, some say, the greatest of the Prophets)--- the angel comes and puts a burning coal in his mouth to purify his sinful lips. OK: an angel comes to Mary and tells her "scrub up?" No: greets her with this unprecedented homage: "the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women." Wow.
Example two: when a person gets a new name in Scripture, it's supposed to mean something big is afoot: God is revealing something about their part in the Divine Plan. Abram---> Abraham (father of many). Jacob---> Israel (wrestles with God). Simon ---> Peter (the Rock). And Mary is addressed by the angel, not by her name, but by a new name or title: Mary ---> Full of Grace.
Now this is remarkable in itself, but even more remarkable is that ALL the ancient Churches unanimously agreed that this meant that Mary was saved ("my spirit rejoices in God my Savior") before she was even born, by being preserved from the blight which was otherwise inherited by all of the progeny of Adam and Eve. Her human nature was unblemished. This does not make her super-human. It makes her ....human. It makes her as clean as Eve was when Eve was first created, on her first lovely day in Eden.
Make sense? Well, 3/4 of all Christians--- Catholic Orthodox, and the ancient Churches of the East (Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc.) ---they ALL say it makes sense, and have for the last 2000 years.
So for you, an American who is 21 centuries removed from the Biblical scenes we're talking about, and who (I'm guessing) is not a native speaker of either Aramaic or Greek, to say to the the people who were part of the culture and who spoke the language that they don't understand their own Scriptures...
Whew.
Merry Christmas, again! To you and yours. Rejoice!