You have not answered my question.
Show me the Scripture that teaches that ONLY Scripture contains revelation about Christ (and other truths relating to Christ).
You might also answer this: Would it be reasonable for the Jewish faith, which had a priesthood, and liturgy, and sacraments, to be “fulfilled” by a religion without any priesthood, liturgy, or sacraments? Why would God spend 3000 years forming his people through liturgy and sacraments, and then abruptly switch to a religion totally dependent on the written word, and NOTHING ELSE. Especially at a time when the dissemination of writings was fantastically expensive, and would remain so for 1500 years?
Christ’s death and resurrection and the total failure of those Jewish people to recognize Jesus as the Messiah because they were so stuck on their “tradition” as Jesus showed and excoriated them for.
Don't add to the Gospel which was originally preached. How's that?
I would give chapter and verse, and a whole lot more -- but why should I bother?
Show me where in the scripture, or in the earliest writings of church notables, any mention of "the immaculate heart of Mary", or why anything should be "dedicated" or "consecrated" to her?
This "hyper-dulia" of Mary is so far out of the Judeo portion of the Judeo-Christian construct, it's not funny at all.
Did the Lord's revelations to the Jews include both the Law, and the promises? Or was He short-changing them, all along?
Christ Himself was "The Word" made flesh, according to the apostle John. Christ did not tell us to hyper-venerate his own earthly mother, but instead, clearly pointed away from anyone doing so.
Did any of the Apostles demonstrate "hyper-veneration" of Mary?
Not even the Apostle John, whom did indeed outlive her, in worldly existence.
The woman in Revelation, seen travailing in childbirth --- Mary can be seen to have lived that role in human form, but the deeper meaning of that image carries far beyond the personage of Mary, herself, to the heart of the church which was from most primitive times, first those longing for God among the Jews, then later, the wider church itself (which church has at all times been much larger than as Rome once defined it to be herself [the RCC proper] at exclusion of all else, yet now, if there be the tiniest squeak of "spirit" of God anywhere, has extended her singular [RCC] grasp of claim to include that to be also "subject to" her and her own singular bishop, above all else, regardless if the bishop is a creep -- or not.
That was not the original template of "the church", but it IS the Romanist template.
At the same time, as to anything that could be seen to embarrass or contradict that claim of being the be-all-to-end-all, well then, it's just "people" then, and not the [RC] "church" at all.
Stick with the original Gospel. If there be question of what that is -- compare the first couple of generations of the church, with the perspective of the original Apostles, taking care to weigh the words of Christ from Hebrew religious perspective, foremost. The Apostle Paul was a great help in that effort of perspective. Then, once one examines the OT and the NT through lens of Paul, try to turn that around and interpret Paul from lens of OT.
Can anything like the semi-deification of Mary be found in that process? Since it can not, what is found in that wider examination, what wider sense does one get that precludes the hyper-veneration of Mary?
Do you not know the Word of God? Hear Oh Israel, our God is One.
Is that not enough? Was the fulfillment of the law, along with the illumination of what the law actually meant -- not enough?
Marian expert Tim Tindal-Robertson, can go pound sand. This entire thread is just another of a long line of cunningly diversionary Cult of Mary codswallop, minus the dollops of Mary's breastmilk.
Please take a look at 2 Timothy 3:14-17; and Revelation 22.