[RobbyS]

because then you'd have to admit that the RCC is just making this stuff up. You really have a simplistic view of things. Try to trace an historical development and you will find as you go back that origins are often lost in the tangle of the past. Suppose you have to answer the question: Why does Mark make no mention of the Virgin Birth, or even name Mary? Does that means that Matthew and Luke made up the stories? and Why does John say nothing explicit? What IS the theological significance of the Virgin Birth? Is it really a crucial part of the Gospel, or just an aside, that can be minimalized, or if we have a certain naturalistic way of looking at it, a story that CAN be read in such a way that Joseph or some other man can be seen as the natural father. You say that the doctrines of perpetual virginity of Mary etc. add nothing to the story of the Virgin Birth? Think about it. Is role of Mary just incidental? Is she then any more important than one of Zeus' girls? Is Jesus anything more than Heracles?

[hopefulpilgrim]

What IS your point?

[OLD REGGIE]

Think about it. Is role of Mary just incidental?

Why is it necessary for Mary to be considered "incidental" or a "Perpetual Virgin", "Bodily Assumed", or "Co-Redeemer"? No Protestant denies the Virgin Birth or the Blessedness of Mary. They just don't elevate her to an artificially higher status.

Why do you suppose the name of Mary disappears from Scripture after the accension of Jesus? Is it because her role has been accomplished? Certainly John was alive when Mary died. Why didn't he make note of it or of her Bodily Assumption. Why no NT recognition of her death, let alone her Bodily Assumption?