Narcissos
I really like that analogy of the bridge since it stresses what shouldn't be lost sight of, that Jesus is "the Way" as G.John puts it. I think the Atonement doctrine plays a large part in the emphasis being put on natures. But without that element, I think Jesus could serve that function of a bridge by being just divine enough and just human enough to close the gap between the two. In my tangential way of thinking, I'm reminded of the Buddhist Path of Transformation and how that leads to one's enlightenment.
glenster
Seeing the early Christians beyond the Bible as witnesses in a court case, the
mainstream view has the stronger case, too. When it's clear which view of the
two the writer had, very early ones had the mainstream view and with better
connections (taught by John, knew Peter and Paul). The Arian view shows up in
the late 200's and it only referred back to Lucien of Antioch as the founder.
Yeah, some of today's mainstream views on the nature of Jesus can be seen in some early christian writings. Especially the 2nd and 3rd century christian writings. But I wouldn't say that the Arian stance was necesarily later. The Ebionites viewed Jesus as being wholely human and its very likely that these Jewish Christians are among the earliest branches of christianity.
Lovelylil
I can see how you interpret the elevation of Jesus especially if one refers to the idea of the Kenosis of Christ beforehand. I'm sure you too can see Phil's interpretation of Hebrews. Without any other Pauline material, this one strikes me as saying that Jesus was elevated in status, overall. Adoptionist teachings were held by a fair chunk of christians.