It is not apparent; except to this strawman that you are attempting to create.
It is not apparent; except to this strawman that you are attempting to create.
Why would I attempt to create a straw man? I haven't any axe to grind on this. I merely responded to something you did say about me and Catholics, and pointed out that it reflects a rather peculiar notion about the relationship between Church and Scripture. I am not trying to be defensive, or contentious, but simply pointed out that the way we appear to view these concepts and their connections creates something of a divide between how we can understand each other.
And, as for your quote above, why do you take offense at it? In my experience Evangelicals see the Bible as something standing alone, and to be interpreted generally only by other verses within its own pages. They see the historic Christian Church's perspectives and traditional understandings of that book as extra-biblical, and therefore not applicable as a matter of faith. This very conversation is proof of that. The "community's historic perspective" on the Bible is that brothers of the Lord is not to be seen as children of Mary. Evangelicals, in my experience, "entirely reject" this idea, and any like it, and insist on only biblical proofs or interpretations. So, how is it not true when I say that Evangelicals "entirely reject any of that community's (i.e. the Church's) historic perspective (i.e. traditional understanding and interpretation) of its own scripture"? I really don't think this is either a straw man or even confrontational. It certainly wasn't mean that way, but merely as an observation of how it is hard for people coming from two such very different views on the Bible to really understand each other. Nothing more.