There's plenty of history in this world that is not recorded in Scripture. But in dealing with issues concerning Christianity, it is THE standard by which truth claims are to be measured.
And to demand that something be taken as dogma or doctrine, as a truth that must believed by the faithful else they risk their salvation, there must be more substantiation than hearsay.
Surely if the Holy Spirit thought that the doctrine was necessary for us to know pertaining to salvation, then He would have seen fit to put it in there Himself.
But He didn't, so I don't see where anyone else, no matter who they claim to be, has any authority to make it binding on believers for salvation.
Ok; you're wrong.
...you doubt something happened...
...was NOT what she said.
The NECESSITY of believing that it DID 'happened' is what was questioned.
Believing it or not has ZERO to do with a person's salvation.
The bible doesn't tell us that there would be no prophet named Joseph Smith nor does it tell us there wouldn't be a prophet named Mohammed who would turn out to be God's main prophet to mankind, just as God didn't tell us Mary would go to heaven and sit next to God as the queen of heaven...
You could just as easily have been born into a muzlim or Mormon family and used the argument you use now that since God didn't say that it couldn't be that it could be...
As long as the bible is not the sole authority for all three of those religions, one is no more legitimate than the other...You have all added to (and taken away) the words of God and made those words equally authoritative with God's words to the point of making the words of God of 'none effect'...
Although God 'does not say' that Mary was assumed to heaven and became the queen, He says many other things that make that scenario impossible for a Christian to believe...
And as the church father Tertullian stresses:
Tertullian dealt with similar reasoning from certain men in his own day who sought to bolster heretical teachings with the logic that nothing was impossible with God. His words stand as a much needed rebuke to the Roman Church of our day in its misguided teachings about Mary:
But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it ... It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Vol. III, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI, p. 605).