First of all, if you really read what I said, you would realize I was not referring to you alone. I said, “you and some others” and “you and yours”. But I will grant that I may have overstated things somewhat in that there have been dissenters down throught the years.
But I do think that you will have to grant that folks like Andrew are pushing their hermenuetic as a much more accurate way to understand things. And in the process, isn’t it very much implied that all the other ways are greatly leaving something to be desired? And as far as I can tell from reading what you are saying here, you are agreeing with that. Technically I suppose, saying that you are pushing your hermeneutic as THE way may be somewhat of an exxageration. But that is the certainly the way it comes across to me.
But, and here is where the rubber meets the road–you say that our understanding of who Jesus is a “fabrication” without any textual merit and has been imposed on us by a tradition that we have swallowed. I strongly object to that charge. Just because you disagree with something does not make it a “fabrication.” Even Andrew hasn’t gone that far as he said he believes the doctrine of the Trinity was a necessary theological conclusion come to in the fourth century.