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.
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.