Um, do you know what is being referred to when I and others say "the Incarnation"?
Whatever graces she received, Our Lady remained fully human; only that, and nothing more. As such, she needed a savior. Our Lord was her savior the same as He was anybody else's
This is a peculiarity which seems unique to Protestantism. I find many Protestants, whether they would admit it or not, seem to view Mariology as a bizarre zero-sum game. Honoring Our Lady somehow subtracts something from the worship of God. Apart from being factually untrue, it is rather illogical in that a full understanding of Our Lady's role in bringing about salvation can logically only lead someone to fall down on his knees in worship of God.
Catholics (and likely other traditional Christians too) don't view the matter as either/or. It isn't a zero-sum game where honoring Our Lady (or the saints or whoever) somehow takes anything away from God. Our view is more like multiplication. It expands the pie rather than "taking focus away", whatever that means.
"Ik"?? What does that mean??
You're right, that is the simplest way. And if we presume those people are Our Lord's literal brothers in the sense that most people understand that word today, Our Lady would've had to gotten married to at least three different men in her life because they each are listed as having different fathers. The alternative explanation is that she was a virgin her entire life and the "brothers" referred to in those passages (none of which you've cited) aren't referring to brothers by the same definition we use today.
For further, more specific information about why it's improbably that those people are His brothers...
St. Jude and the “Brothers” of Jesus – Shameless Popery
Did Mary Have Other Children? – Shameless Popery
The sources used in those links come from the scriptures so I assume you'd find them trustworthy.
Not really. "Mary, ever virgin". That concept consists of three words.
But "Our Lord had brothers and sisters" consists of six words so I'd say your explanation is twice as complicated.
I agree, they didn't believe in Sola Scriptura, you're right about that.
Alrightsy...
Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
- 1 Corinthians 7:1-2
With respect, how you can read that as anything other than a clear preference on St. Paul's part, I cannot understand. Even so, he makes his preference clear. Having said that, he goes on to list reasons why it's better for somebody to get married (paraphrasing "Better married than burning hell because you couldn't contain your lust").
That's not to say there's anything wrong with getting married. Clearly there isn't. But his preference on the matter is made clear in that passage.
I don't think I ever said it "adds to" doctrine of the Incarnation. What I said was, based on the way many Protestants view Our Lady, I can't help but suspect they don't have the same depth of appreciation for the Incarnation that I do... an assertion I would've assumed stood for itself. But since it seemingly doesn't, here goes.
Catholics view Our Lady as a special vessel set aside for the express purpose of carrying, giving birth to and raising Our Lord; many Protestants view her as a housewife with a very special son. That says something about how seriously God views the matter. Not just anybody would do. God was very choosy in selecting Our Lady. When she's greeted by the title "Full of Grace", that's not idle chit-chat. It means something.
Many Catholics view Our Lady's womb as a fulfillment of the Jewish Temple. As the Jewish Temple was God's dwelling place among men, so was Our Lady's womb. Many Protestants view her womb as the temporary gestation portal for quite a few people with nothing intrinsically important about it.
In relation to that, the Temple was understood to be a sacred space. It would've been profane in the extreme for people (even married people) to have had sex in the Temple. And yet that is basically what Protestants are advocating when they say that Our Lady wasn't perpetually virgin.
Now, there's a subjective element at play here where one might say "Well, that's just not how I see things". Fine and dandy...
but that is how the ancients saw things. The doctrine of Our Lady's perpetual virginity was an easy thing for much of the Early Church to believe in. So again one might ask why they found it so easy to believe in, being closer in time to the events described than we are. Their testimony in this matter isn't easily dismissed. So either the Early Church was made up by a bunch of ignorant rubes who didn't know what they were talking about or else they had very clear reason to believe Our Lady stayed a virgin her entire life which, for some reason, many Protestants today seem to think they're at liberty to disregard.
