They saw him as an extension of God that had existed before the world was made, and who came to earth on a divine mission to bring salvation to humankind.
Like I said, he was divine, I suppose "extension of God" is orthodox enough. You are right that there were quibbles about the details.
And here we could also include the degree to which Jesus was a unique being rather than a model for others to follow.
Again, you're implying more than you say. If Jesus was a model that makes him unique by definition. The quibble is over the type of uniqueness, which you're not defining or defending.
The divine is not located somewhere else. And that includes Jesus himself. The divine is accessible where you are.
The divine is both Self and Other. To say I'm divine in a way Jesus isn't would contradict everything taught by every historical source, except a couple megalomaniacs. The fact that I'm divine logically entails that my model is divine in the same way. Plus, I am one with him. If you get around to stating the specifics you object to about Jesus's uniqueness, that would help.
Of course I could try to help you by guessing. You probably object to the formula "Jesus is God" because, while often usable, it's so simplified that it omits important doctrine that can get imbalanced by the omission. Now it's my belief that any attribute of deity is shared by Yahweh-Jehovah and Yeshua-Jesus, either as the same attribute in unity or as poles of a spectrum in duality. Would you object to that more technical definition? Is there something of the Father that is not of the Son, other than the Father-Son polarities themselves?
Bart Ehrman says, "I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian." I spoke of Christians.
1 Corinthians 15 is generally taken by scholars as evidence that a fixed oral creedal statement about Jesus's death, burial and resurrection, was "received" and circulating by 35-38 AD. Further, Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin, which kept records, and those records were inferably used in compiling the Talmudic passage on the subject, Sanhedrin 43a; so that passage is evidence that documents were written immediately about Jesus's trial and death and were later expanded into the Talmudic form. Further, Pilate's notice was definitely written while Jesus was alive: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." That should probably be upheld as the most straightforward datable written document on the subject, quoted by all four evangelists, citing the original legal inscription.
We do know why Rome crucified Jesus, as Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud agree: as a rebel against Caesar. The accused were executed with a public sign of their crimes, for the illiterate: thieves were crucified with empty moneybags, and rebels with crowns of thorns. The inscription further informed the literate. There's no doubt among the records. But the gospels add a further element of tension, which by its nuance indicates a mark of reliable history: namely that Pilate was afraid to convict Jesus formally (partly fearful for his wife's threats against him) but committed the quasilegal display of washing his hands to abdicate his authority and to devolve it to the crowd's wishes. Pilate technically agreed to the crucifixion by silence; he engaged the positive action of delivering Jesus to the soldiers, who knew what the crowd wanted and knew what Pilate was implying by his silence, namely that it was on them rather than on him.
There is no contemporary narrative where Jesus wasn't crucified. However, Muhammad had a vision 600 years later (since we're talking dates) that Jesus wasn't crucified, and convinced people of that (even though I'm told Islam permits Muslims who believe he was crucified). If one wants to take that approach, one is no longer learning from history but from spirit visions in a cave (almost Plato's) by a guy who took full advantage of lax child-marriage laws. His coalition is not held together by logic and reason but by force and fear. If you're interested in pleasing that group because of some ambiguous promise (such as the one about virgins, or maybe raisins), I would submit it's not the fullest, most rational approach to take, as there's much evidence that it will turn on you. But accepting Jesus for who he says he is, neither more nor less, is what unites you with him and protects you from all threats of all institutions (Rome included). Since you seem to be a truth pursuer, I trust you will see that creating a storyline about Jesus not being crucified is not pursuit of truth but merely upholding yet another narrative created to defend a group of people going their own way: the real pursuit of truth, like Jesus, affirms reality and rejects althist, because truth is greater than group cohesion and is in fact the only source of group cohesion.
If Jesus was a model that makes him unique by definition
Yeah, we have totally different definitions of "model" in this context. To me Jesus identified himself as the representative of humanity, the fully realized human being, the prototype of what humanity can become. Let me explain, I think I mentioned this before, but anyway... Jesus frequently uses a word to refer to himself in Aramaic as "Bar Nasha" or "bar enash". And this also appears throughout the canonical gospels. This has been translated as son of man. In English, it sounds like a claim to humanity, perhaps a humble counterpoint to son of God. Scholars have debated its meaning for centuries, spinning elaborate theological explanations. But in Aramaic, Jesus called himself Barnasha. And Barnasha doesn't mean son of man in the genealogical sense. It's an idiom that means the human being. Or more accurately, the human one, the representative of humanity, the fully realized human being, the prototype of what humanity can become. My point, Jesus wasn't claiming to be uniquely divine in a way that separated him from the rest of humanity. He was claiming to be fully human in a way that revealed what all humans could become. He was the pattern, the template, the demonstration model. When he said the barna has authority to forgive sins, he wasn't claiming exclusive divine power. He was demonstrating human potential when fully aligned with the divine. This understanding transforms the entire gospel message. Every time Jesus said Barnasha, he was pointing to human potential, not divine exclusivity.
You probably object to the formula "Jesus is God" because
Now it's my belief that any attribute of deity is shared by Yahweh-Jehovah and Yeshua-Jesus
It's your belief and that's fine. It's not mine.
Bart Ehrman says, "I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian."
That's exactly my experience and I didn't even know of Bart Ehrman when I decided to stop going to church. Today Bart Ehrman calls himself a historian of early Christianity. That's one of the main reasons I decided to look into his work.
We do know why Rome crucified Jesus, as Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud agree: as a rebel against Caesar
Rome saw Jesus as someone who was threatening their power, their authority, their control over the region. Whether Jesus actually was trying to start a rebellion or whether the Romans just perceived him that way, we don't know.
But accepting Jesus for who he says he is, neither more nor less, is what unites you with him and protects you from all threats of all institutions (Rome included).
This sounds like a statement from Hebron Los Angeles Christian Mission. Their Mission Statement: “To share Jesus’s call and true path with all people willing to follow him.”. This church has placed its mission statement on its website’s home page next to its welcome message. Visitors don’t struggle to find the church’s purpose and get a feel for the organization immediately. Language like “Jesus is calling us to walk closer to him” is beautiful. It probably works on some people.
Like I said, he was divine, I suppose "extension of God" is orthodox enough. You are right that there were quibbles about the details.
Again, you're implying more than you say. If Jesus was a model that makes him unique by definition. The quibble is over the type of uniqueness, which you're not defining or defending.
The divine is both Self and Other. To say I'm divine in a way Jesus isn't would contradict everything taught by every historical source, except a couple megalomaniacs. The fact that I'm divine logically entails that my model is divine in the same way. Plus, I am one with him. If you get around to stating the specifics you object to about Jesus's uniqueness, that would help.
Of course I could try to help you by guessing. You probably object to the formula "Jesus is God" because, while often usable, it's so simplified that it omits important doctrine that can get imbalanced by the omission. Now it's my belief that any attribute of deity is shared by Yahweh-Jehovah and Yeshua-Jesus, either as the same attribute in unity or as poles of a spectrum in duality. Would you object to that more technical definition? Is there something of the Father that is not of the Son, other than the Father-Son polarities themselves?
Bart Ehrman says, "I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian." I spoke of Christians.
1 Corinthians 15 is generally taken by scholars as evidence that a fixed oral creedal statement about Jesus's death, burial and resurrection, was "received" and circulating by 35-38 AD. Further, Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin, which kept records, and those records were inferably used in compiling the Talmudic passage on the subject, Sanhedrin 43a; so that passage is evidence that documents were written immediately about Jesus's trial and death and were later expanded into the Talmudic form. Further, Pilate's notice was definitely written while Jesus was alive: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." That should probably be upheld as the most straightforward datable written document on the subject, quoted by all four evangelists, citing the original legal inscription.
We do know why Rome crucified Jesus, as Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud agree: as a rebel against Caesar. The accused were executed with a public sign of their crimes, for the illiterate: thieves were crucified with empty moneybags, and rebels with crowns of thorns. The inscription further informed the literate. There's no doubt among the records. But the gospels add a further element of tension, which by its nuance indicates a mark of reliable history: namely that Pilate was afraid to convict Jesus formally (partly fearful for his wife's threats against him) but committed the quasilegal display of washing his hands to abdicate his authority and to devolve it to the crowd's wishes. Pilate technically agreed to the crucifixion by silence; he engaged the positive action of delivering Jesus to the soldiers, who knew what the crowd wanted and knew what Pilate was implying by his silence, namely that it was on them rather than on him.
There is no contemporary narrative where Jesus wasn't crucified. However, Muhammad had a vision 600 years later (since we're talking dates) that Jesus wasn't crucified, and convinced people of that (even though I'm told Islam permits Muslims who believe he was crucified). If one wants to take that approach, one is no longer learning from history but from spirit visions in a cave (almost Plato's) by a guy who took full advantage of lax child-marriage laws. His coalition is not held together by logic and reason but by force and fear. If you're interested in pleasing that group because of some ambiguous promise (such as the one about virgins, or maybe raisins), I would submit it's not the fullest, most rational approach to take, as there's much evidence that it will turn on you. But accepting Jesus for who he says he is, neither more nor less, is what unites you with him and protects you from all threats of all institutions (Rome included). Since you seem to be a truth pursuer, I trust you will see that creating a storyline about Jesus not being crucified is not pursuit of truth but merely upholding yet another narrative created to defend a group of people going their own way: the real pursuit of truth, like Jesus, affirms reality and rejects althist, because truth is greater than group cohesion and is in fact the only source of group cohesion.
Yeah, we have totally different definitions of "model" in this context. To me Jesus identified himself as the representative of humanity, the fully realized human being, the prototype of what humanity can become. Let me explain, I think I mentioned this before, but anyway... Jesus frequently uses a word to refer to himself in Aramaic as "Bar Nasha" or "bar enash". And this also appears throughout the canonical gospels. This has been translated as son of man. In English, it sounds like a claim to humanity, perhaps a humble counterpoint to son of God. Scholars have debated its meaning for centuries, spinning elaborate theological explanations. But in Aramaic, Jesus called himself Barnasha. And Barnasha doesn't mean son of man in the genealogical sense. It's an idiom that means the human being. Or more accurately, the human one, the representative of humanity, the fully realized human being, the prototype of what humanity can become. My point, Jesus wasn't claiming to be uniquely divine in a way that separated him from the rest of humanity. He was claiming to be fully human in a way that revealed what all humans could become. He was the pattern, the template, the demonstration model. When he said the barna has authority to forgive sins, he wasn't claiming exclusive divine power. He was demonstrating human potential when fully aligned with the divine. This understanding transforms the entire gospel message. Every time Jesus said Barnasha, he was pointing to human potential, not divine exclusivity.
No, I object to the understanding of this within the Christian communities. Jesus never said he was God. Bart Ehrman explains this in his book: "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee".
It's your belief and that's fine. It's not mine.
That's exactly my experience and I didn't even know of Bart Ehrman when I decided to stop going to church. Today Bart Ehrman calls himself a historian of early Christianity. That's one of the main reasons I decided to look into his work.
Rome saw Jesus as someone who was threatening their power, their authority, their control over the region. Whether Jesus actually was trying to start a rebellion or whether the Romans just perceived him that way, we don't know.
This sounds like a statement from Hebron Los Angeles Christian Mission. Their Mission Statement: “To share Jesus’s call and true path with all people willing to follow him.”. This church has placed its mission statement on its website’s home page next to its welcome message. Visitors don’t struggle to find the church’s purpose and get a feel for the organization immediately. Language like “Jesus is calling us to walk closer to him” is beautiful. It probably works on some people.