[DungeonMaster]

Directly, and indirectly: he did press a cloth to His face, creating an image of himself--very much a direct action--and King Abgar was cured--indirect I suppose. Neither action, direct or indirect, is recorded in the Gospels, and the Gospel of John states that there are more deeds Christ did than can be accounted for by the Scriptures (even allowing St. John's 'I suppose' to indicate a bit of hyperbole in his estimate of the volume of books needed to record them)--a good fat, handwritten codex of the entire canon of Scripture will fit quite conveniently on my dining room table, hardly a volume anywhere near filling the world to overflowing.

Wait a minute! You can't have it both ways. The bible said the world couldn't contain the books which means He did almost infinite things. You can't call that hyperbole when you just said "Either there are not enough deeds of Christ not recorded in the Scriptures so that (on the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John's estimate) the world could not contain the books recording them, and we have a false passage in Scripture,"

[The_Reader_David]

I'm not having it both ways. I'm cutting off the objection you could raise on behalf of the completeness of Scripture, that St. John was engaging in hyperbole, and we should know this from his 'I suppose'.

St. John's conclusion shows that as a record of Our Lord's deeds, Scripture is incomplete. (Unless one hold that verse to be false, or open up a big problem for sola scriptura hermeneutics by allowing rhetorical devices like hyperbole into the text.)

So which is it? Does Scripture contain a falsehood, or is it not a complete record? If the latter, and I trust you prefer the latter--to return to the original point of this thread--if incomplete in its record of Our Lord's doings, which are its main focus, why should there be an objection to it being incomplete as regards the details of the life of the Virgin Mary?