Roman Catholic apologists often rewrite other people's comments to say something that was never said or written.
There is no Scriptural support for Mary's continuing virginity after Christ was born; for her sinless life; for her bodily assumption into heaven; for her repeated reappearances on earth; for her "intact hymen after childbirth;" nor for her blasphemous titles of "co-mediator" and "co-redeemer."
Christ's virgin birth was documented in the Bible. It is true. Sadly, Christ's virgin birth is not sufficient for Rome. Rome requires magic to supplement the glorious supernatural truth of Christ's birth by a simple Jewish virgin and the Holy Spirit.
And magic lies.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.." -- Rev. 22:13-15"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Well guess what, it was.
There is no Scriptural support for Mary's continuing virginity after Christ was born; for her sinless life; for her bodily assumption into heaven; for her repeated reappearances on earth; for her "intact hymen after childbirth;" nor for her blasphemous titles of "co-mediator" and "co-redeemer."
Don't confuse Scriptural support with personal beliefs. As I pointed out earlier, from the viewpoint of a Jew there is no Scriptural support for Christianity.
The major contradiction that you epitomize is that on one hand you state that all proof must be scriptural leaving no room for Tradition and then on the other hand you offer up the interpretations and confabulations of Calvin and Spurgeon and try to pretend that they are something other than a Reformist tradition.