Can all of your beliefs be substantiated by teaching from scripture? Mine can.
>>I’m happy to discuss what the Church Fathers teach on the Assumption of Mary, but only if you’re willing to concede that what they teach is valid.<<
Is it taught in scripture? If it’s not its myth or made up.
>>Since you’re following Barnes, I don’t see why this should be a problem.<<
I don’t “follow Barnes”. I only used quotes from him because they agreed with scripture and he put it in succinct terms and I didn’t have to type it all out. I may not even agree with him on all things. That was just one thing that I used. I was supported by scripture and agreed with scripture in all aspects.
>>Now, are you willing to concede that the Church Fathers are also authoritative?<<
Only if what they teach is also taught in scripture. I have no issues with using their explanation if it is taught in scripture. The bodily assumption of Mary is not found in scripture and is not supported by scripture. It is therefore a “doctrine of men”.
“Can all of your beliefs be substantiated by teaching from scripture? Mine can.”
If this were true you would not be citing Barnes.
“I only used quotes from him because they agreed with scripture and he put it in succinct terms and I didn’t have to type it all out.”
So why should I find his interpretation to be authoritative?
“That was just one thing that I used. I was supported by scripture and agreed with scripture in all aspects.”
I hear you, but before I can accept anything written by Barnes as being authoritative, I would need your concession that the things written by the Church Fathers would also be acceptable.
“Only if what they teach is also taught in scripture.”
So how would you go about proving that abortion was wrong?
“The bodily assumption of Mary is not found in scripture”
Neither is the teaching that Christ and God and the Holy spirit are of the same substance. That Christ has a divine nature and a human nature. There are plenty of things that are understood to be core teachings that are not found in scripture. We can infer it from texts that support them, but that is not the same as saying they are contained in scripture.
As for Mary’s bodily assumption, well what does Kacharatomene mean?
“and is not supported by scripture.”
It is a consequence of scriptural teachings. If A and B are true than C must be also.
“It is therefore a “doctrine of men”. “
So is what Barnes writes. That does not make what he teaches contrary to scripture. You say that he is in accord with scripture and so is the bodily assumption of Mary.
“Can all of your beliefs be substantiated by teaching from scripture? Mine can.”
No, and I’ll prove it.
Show me where Scripture provides a list of books which are authoritative.
That's the problem with citing someone outside of Scripture. Catholics are so conditioned to follow the teachings of man that it is obviously beyond their comprehension that Christians do not.
Quoting something that is more clearly expressed than I could say it is NOT *following* that person. It's at most, agreeing with them.
But no, when you reference someone else's work, Catholics are all over you like white on rice that you are one of their *followers*.