Actually at least a dozen. But that wasn't my point. You recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity is only implicit in Scripture ("it's there if you know where to look"). Some of our passages (Lk 11:27-28, Lk 1) are close to explicit but we always recognize that even explicit passages involve interpretation.
Again, your attempts to read Mary into the Ark are pure eisegesis
You came back and want to argue interpretation with me (poor Greek--of course I think your interpretation that our reading of the Greek is "eisegesis" (I assume the passage you have in mind here is "full of grace/highly favored" in Lk 1) is, how shall I say it, a case of "interpretation." One man's eisegesis is another man's exegesis. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words like eisegesis are interpretation claims, not empirical facts.
If one lined up all the implicit, nearly-explicit passages regarding veneration of Mary on one side of sheet of paper and all the passages implying the Trinity on the other side, I do think the Mary side of the sheet would be more impressive. But that's just my interpretation. Your interpretation is that the Trinity side wins hands down.
But that's your interpretation. Which was my point. You conceded that the Scripturality of the doctrine of the Trinity is a matter of "knowing where to look," a matter of how to interpret passages A, B, and C. That's exactly what we claim about Mary--it's a matter of knowing where to look, how to interpret passages X, Y, and Z.
And to this you respond that it's so clear (to you) that our exegesis is eisegesis. Now, what would happen if I responded by saying that your interpretation of our Mary passages is pure eisegesis? Doesn't get us very far, does it? So put a sock in it with the "pure eisegesis" stuff. It's not a very helpful argument.
Go for it, then. I'm leaving this thread, but if you ping me back to such a list, I'll be happy to respond.