I'm a fair-minded guy, imho, and I'm not convinced that those arguments are any better than those on the other side. And they are not proof. (Locked and shut case.) As far as being an apprentice...I said I was a pastor. I've been at this a number of years. I wouldn't call me an apprentice. Now, answer me this: would you rather have a written Constitution of the United States of America? Or would you rather have a Congress that had not written document but could govern merely by majority rule? Or a president who could govern by consensus of counselors?
Depends, now doesn't it? If I were still a fetus, I would rather be governed by a majority in Congress. My chances of making it out alive would be better. Only the Constitution demands abortion; anytime, anywhere, for whatever reason.
I am talking about you too, and I am wondering why you do not recognize that the exegetical methods you have internalized from your Protestant tradition has implications for whether you find any scriptural proofs concering Marian doctrines convincing. Have you read this book:
Catholic for a Reason II: Scripture and the Mystery of the Mother of God by Leon Suprenant Jr. (Editor), Beth Hart (Illustrator).
It is available through amazon.com
Could you tell me what you do not find convincing about these particular arguments? This book in particular should be of interest to you, because most if not all of the contributors are minister-converts of the sort discussed in the article posted on this thread. What exactly is unconvincing about, say, Revelation 12? All I am asking is for you to identify the source of the unconvincingness of the arguments that have been presented to you. I really would like to know for future reference.
As for the questions about the consitution, Congress, and majority rule, you have already drawn a false analogy. As I pointed out earlier, many Protestants have this image of the Catholic Church such that Scripture is not a chief part of the life of the Chruch Like the bible fell out of the sky in the sixteenth century and people first began reading it--and only Protestants began reading it of course. This is just a false analogy . The Catholic Church is not living without Scripture, not forming its doctrines without Scripture, not lacking in a an army of people who are reading reflecting, and contemplating Scripture. That you would even draw such an analogy shows that you imagine the Church to be a Scriptureless entity. Do you have any idea how deeply Scriputre figures into the Church's teachings? Just look at any systematic textbook on Catholic dogma. Better yet, look at the Catechism. It is saturated with Scripture from the first paragraph to the last. To even draw the analogy that you have drawn makes it look like we do not care for Scripture, we have nothing but arbitrary human judgment to go on, that the Bishops are not beholden to the Scripture, and that is just plain false.