So, in opposition to what the Gospel writer John actually, explicitly did say in this passage, which you deem “heretical”, you would have us accept as “orthodox” and even “historical” your own interpretations of “proof texts” which never actually say what you claim.
***Nope. Once again you lie. I said it was wonderful that you consider it historically reliable. No doubt the other parts of scripture that you like to label “proof texts” you will consider historically unrreliable, because they directly contradict the heretical beliefs you are pushing.
FRiend, again I challenge you to quote where I have denied anything the Bible actually says about Jesus.
What I have challenged is your interpretations, interpretations which fall into the category of "orthodoxy".
But "orthodoxy" is a very broad category, and today's liberal/progressive "orthodoxy" makes all of us here is some sense "heretics".
Even amongst Christians, "orthodoxy" is very hard to define in hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations.
For many years, the Roman Catholic Church labeled all Protestants as "heretics" and supported wars to murder them.
Today the Church looks more kindly on most Protestants, especially since Catholicism competes so well religiously against Protestants in many areas of the world.
Today I couldn't say where, exactly, the Church draws its lines, but I am certain they don't make as big a fuss over "heresy" as they used to.
I mean, seriously, FRiends, think of this: if Nancy Pelosi (or for that matter Adolf Hitler) is not an official "heretic", then how could somebody as innocent as yours truly, BroJoeK, meet any criteria for "Damnable Heretic"?