The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors Part 41

7. Upon the axiomatical principles of philosophy it is an utter and absolute impossibility to unite in repletion the divine and the human in the same being.

8. And then Christ had a human birth.

9. He was const.i.tuted in part, like human beings, of flesh and blood.

10. He became, on certain occasions, "an hungered," like finite beings.

11. He also became thirsty (John xix. 28), like perishable mortals.

12. He often slept, like mortals, and thus became "to dumb forgetfulness a prey."

13. He sometimes became weary, like human beings. (See John iv. 6.)

14. He was occasionally tempted, like fallible mortals. (Matt. iv. 1.)

15. His "soul became exceeding sorrowful," as a frail, finite being.

(Matt. xxvi. 38.)

16. He disclosed the weakness of human pa.s.sion by weeping. (John xi.

35.)

17. He was originally an imperfect being, "made perfect through suffering." (Heb. ii. 10.)

18. He "increased in wisdom and stature" (Luke ii. 52); therefore he must have possessed finite, changeable, mortal attributes.

19. And he finally died and was buried, like all perishable mortals. He could not possibly, from these considerations, have been a G.o.d. It is utterly impracticable to a.s.sociate with or comprehend, in a G.o.d of infinite powers and infinite attributes, all or any of these finite human qualities.

20. Dark, intellectually dark, indeed, must be that mind, and sunk, sorrowfully sunk in superst.i.tion, that can wors.h.i.+p a being as the great omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "I AM," who possessed all those qualities which were const.i.tutionally characteristic of the pious, the n.o.ble, the devout, the G.o.dlike, yet finite and fallible Jesus, according to his own admissions and the representations of his own interested biographers.

21. The only step which the disciples of the Christian faith have made toward disproving or setting aside these arguments, objections, and difficulties, is that of a.s.signing the incarnate Jesus a double or twofold nature--the amalgamation of the human and divine; a postulate and a groundless a.s.sumption, which we have proved and demonstrated by thirteen arguments, which we believe to be unanswerable, is not only absurd, illogical, and impossible, but foolish and ludicrous in the highest degree. (See vol. ii.)

22. This senseless hypothesis, and every other a.s.sumption and argument made use of by the professors of the Christian faith to vindicate their favorite dogma of the divinity of Jesus, we have shown to be equally applicable to the demiG.o.ds of the ancient heathen, more than twenty of whom were invested with the same combination of human and divine qualities which the followers and wors.h.i.+ppers of Jesus claim for him.

23. Testimony of the Father against the divinity of the Son. The Father utterly precludes the Son from any partic.i.p.ation in the divine essence, or any claim in the G.o.dhead, by such declarations as the following: "I am Jehovah, and beside me there is no Savior." (Isaiah xliii. 11.) How, then, we would ask, can Jesus Christ be the Savior? "I, Jehovah, am thy Savior and thy Redeemer." Then Christ can be neither the Savior nor Redeemer. "There is no G.o.d else beside me, a just G.o.d and a Savior; there is none beside me." (Isaiah xiv. 21.) So the Father virtually declares, according to "the inspired prophet Isaiah," that the Son, in a divine sense, cannot be either G.o.d, Savior, or Redeemer. Again, "I am Jehovah, thy G.o.d, and thou shalt not acknowledge a G.o.d beside me."

(Hosea xiii. 4.) Here Christ is not only by implication cut off from the G.o.dhead, but positively prohibited from being wors.h.i.+pped as G.o.d. And thus the testimony of the Father disproves and sets aside the divinity of the Son.

24. Testimony of the mother. When Mary found, after a long search, her son Jesus in the temple, disputing with the doctors, and chided or reproved him for staying from home without the consent of his parents, and declared, "thy father and I sought thee, sorrowing" (Luke ii. 48), she proclaimed a twofold denial of his divinity. In the first place it cannot be possible that she regarded her son Jesus as "that awful Being, before whom e'en the devout saints bow in trembling fear," when she used such language and evinced such a spirit as she did. "Why hast thou thus dealt with us?" (Luke ii. 48) is her chiding language. And then, when she speaks of Joseph as his father, "thy father and I," she issues a declaration against his divinity which ought to be regarded as settling the question forever. For who could know better than the mother, or rather, who could know but the mother, who the father of the child Jesus was? And as she acknowledges it was Joseph, she thus repudiates the story of the immaculate conception, which const.i.tutes the whole basis for the claim of his divinity. Hence the testimony of the mother, also, disproves his t.i.tle to the G.o.dhead.

25. Testimony or disclaimer of the Son. We will show by a specific citation of twenty-five texts that there is not one attribute comprehended in or peculiar to a divine and infinite Being, but that Christ rejects as applicable to himself--that he most conclusively disclaims every attribute of a divine Being, both by precept and practice, and often in the most explicit language.

26. By declaring, "The Son can do nothing of himself" (John v. 19), he most emphatically disclaims the attribute of omnipotence. For an omnipotent Being can need no aid, and can accept of none.

27. When he acknowledged and avowed his ignorance of the day of judgment, which must be presumed to be the most important event in the world's history, he disclaimed the attribute of omniscience. "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only."

(Matt. xxiv. 36.) Now, as an omniscient Being must possess all knowledge, his avowed ignorance in this case is a confession he was not omniscient, and hence not a G.o.d.

28. And when he declares, "I am glad for your sakes I was not there" (at the grave of Lazarus), he most distinctly disavows being omnipresent, and thus denies to himself another essential attribute of an infinite G.o.d.

29. And the emphatic declaration, "I live by the Father" (John vi. 57), is a direct disclaimer of the attributes of self-existence; as a being who lives by another cannot be self-existent, and, per consequence, not the infinite G.o.d.

30 He disclaims possessing infinite goodness, another essential attribute of a supreme divine Being. "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is G.o.d." (Mark x. 18.)

31. He disclaim divine honors, and directed them to the father. "I honor my Father." (John viii. 49.) "I receive not honor from men." (John v.

41.)

32. He recommended supreme wors.h.i.+p to the Father, and not to himself.

"The true wors.h.i.+ppers shall wors.h.i.+p the Father in spirit and in truth."

(John iv. 21.)

33. He ascribed supreme dominion to the Father. "Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever." (Matt. vi. 13.)

34. It will be seen, from the foregoing text, that Christ also acknowledges that the kingdom is the Father's. A G.o.d without a kingdom would be a ludicrous state of things.

35. He conceded supreme authority to the Father.

"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John vii. 16.)

36. He considered the Father as the supreme protector and preserver of even his own disciples. "I pray that thou shouldst keep them from the evil." (John xvii. 15.) What, omnipotence not able to protect his own disciples?

37. In fine, he humbly acknowledged that his power, his will, his ministry, his mission, his authority, his works, his knowledge, and his very life, were all from, and belonged to and were under the control of, the Father. "I can do nothing of myself;" "I came to do the will of him that sent me." "The Father that dwelleth within me, he doeth the work,"

&c. "A G.o.d within a G.o.d," is an old pagan Otaheitan doctrine.

38. He declared that even spiritual communion was the work of the Father. (See John vi. 45.)

39. He acknowledged himself controlled by the Father. (See John v. 30.)

40. He acknowledged his entire helplessness and dependence on the Father. "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." (John v. 19.)

41. He acknowledged that even his body was the work of his Father; in other words, that he was dependent on his Father for his physical life.

(See Heb. xvi. 5.)

42. And more than all, he not only called the Father "the only true G.o.d"

(John xvii. 3), but calls him "my Father and my G.o.d." (John xx. 17.) Now, it would be superlative nonsense to consider a being himself a G.o.d, or the G.o.d, who could use such language as is here ascribed to the humble Jesus. This text, this language, is sufficient of itself to show that Christ could not have laid any claim to the G.o.dhead on any occasion, unless we degrade him to the charge of the most palpable and shameful contradiction.

43. He uniformly directed his disciples to pray, not to him, but the Father. (See Matt. vi. 6.)

44. On one occasion, as we have cited the proof (in Matt. xi. 11), he even acknowledged John the Baptist to be greater than he; while it must be patent to every reader that no man could be greater than the almighty, supreme Potentate of heaven and earth, in any sense whatever.

45. Testimony of the disciples. Another remarkable proof of the human sires.h.i.+p of Jesus is, that one of his own disciples--ay, one of the chosen twelve, selected by him as being endowed with a perfect knowledge of his character, mission, and origin--this witness, thus posted and thus authorized, proclaims, in unequivocal language, that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Hear the language of Philip addressed to Nathanael.

"We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John i. 45.) No language could be more explicit, no declaration more positive, that Jesus was the son of Joseph. And no higher authority could be adduced to settle the question, coming as it does from "headquarters." And what will, or what can, the devout stickler for the divinely paternal origin of Jesus Christ do with such testimony? It is a clincher which no sophistry can set aside, no reasoning can grapple with, and no logic overthrow.

46. His disciples, instead of representing him as being "the only true G.o.d," often speak of him in contradistinction to G.o.d.

47. They never speak of him as the G.o.d Christ Jesus, but as "the man Christ Jesus." ( 1 Tim. ii. 5.) "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of G.o.d." (Acts ii. 23.) It would certainly be blasphemy to speak of the Supreme Being as "a man approved of G.o.d." Christian reader, reflect upon this text. "By that man whom he (die Father) hath ordained" (Acts xvii.

3), by the a.s.sumption of the G.o.dhead of Christ, we would be presented with the double or twofold solecism, 1st. Of G.o.d being "ordained" by another G.o.d; and 2d. That of his being blasphemously called a "man."

48. Paul's declaration has been cited, that "unto us there is but one G.o.d--the Father." ( 1 Cor. iv. 8. ) Now, it is plain to common sense, that if there is but one G.o.d, and that G.o.d is comprehended in the Father, then Christ is entirely excluded from the G.o.dhead.

49. If John's declaration be true, that "no man hath seen G.o.d at any time" (John iv. 12), then the important question arises, How could Christ be G.o.d, as he was seen by thousands of men, and seen hundreds of times?