The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors Part 42

50. G.o.d the Father is declared to be the "One," "the Holy One," "the only One," &c., more than one hundred times, as if purposely to exclude the partic.i.p.ation of any other being in the G.o.dhead.

51. This one, this only G.o.d, is shown to be the Father alone in more than four thousand texts, thirteen hundred and twenty-six of which are found in the New Testament.

52. More than fifty texts have been found which declare, either explicitly or by implication, that G.o.d the Father has no equal, which effectually denies or shuts out the divine equality of the Son. "To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal with, saith the holy One." (Isaiah xl. 25.)

53. Christ in the New Testament is called "man," and "the Son of man," eighty-four times,--egregious and dishonorable misnomers, most certainly, to apply to a supreme and infinite Deity. On the other hand, he is called G.o.d but three times, and denominates himself "the Son of G.o.d" but once, and that rather obscurely.

54. The Father is spoken of, in several instances, as standing in the relation of G.o.d to the Son, as "the G.o.d of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts iii. 2.) "Ye are Christ's, and Christ is G.o.ds." (i Cor. xi. 3.) Now, the G.o.d of a G.o.d is a polytheistic, heathen conception; and 1 no meaning or interpretation, as we have shown, can be I forced upon such texts as these, that will not admit a plurality of G.o.ds, if we admit the t.i.tles as applicable to Christ, or that his scriptural biographers intend to apply such a t.i.tle in a superior or supreme sense.

55. Many texts make Christ the mere tool, agent, image, servant, or representative of G.o.d, as Christ, "the image of G.o.d" (Heb. i. 3), Christ, the appointed of G.o.d (Heb. iii. 1), Christ, "the servant of G.o.d"

(Matt. xii. 18), &c. To consider a being thus spoken of as himself the supreme G.o.d, is, as we have demonstrated, the very climax of absurdity and nonsense. To believe "the servant of G.o.d" is G.o.d himself,--that is, the servant of himself,--and that G.o.d and his "image" are the same, is to descend within one step of buffoonery.

56. And then it has been ascertained that there are more than three hundred texts which declare, either expressly or by implication, Christ's subordination to and dependence on the Father, as, "I can do nothing of myself;" "Not mine, but his that sent me;" "I came to do the will of him that sent me" (John iv. 34); "I seek the will of my Father,"

&c.

57. And more than one hundred and fifty texts make the Son inferior to the Father, as "the Son knoweth not, but the Father does" (Mark viii.

32); "My Father is greater than I;" "The Son can do nothing of himself"

(John v. 19), &c.

58. There are many divine t.i.tles applied to the Father which are never used in reference to the Son, as "Jehovah," "The Most High," "G.o.d Almighty," "The Almighty," &c.

On the other hand, those few divine epithets or t.i.tles which are used in application to Jesus Christ, as Lord, G.o.d, Savior, Redeemer, Intercessor, &c., it has been shown were all used prior to the birth of Christ, in application to beings known and acknowledged to be men, and some of them are found so applied in the bible itself; as, for example, Moses is called a G.o.d in two instances, as we have shown, and cited the proof (in Ex. iv. 16, vii. 1), while the t.i.tle of Lord is applied to men at this day, even in Christian countries. And instances have been cited in the bible of the term Savior being applied to men, both in the singular and plural numbers. (See 2 Kings xiii. 5, and Neh. ix. 27.) Seeing, then, that the most important divine t.i.tles which the writers of the New Testament have applied to Jesus were previously used in application to men, known and admitted to be such, it is therefore at once evident that those t.i.tles do nothing toward proving him to be the Great Divine Being, as the modern Christian world a.s.sume him to be, even if we base the argument wholly on scriptural grounds. While, on the other hand, we have demonstrated it to be an absolute impossibility to apply with any propriety or any sense to a divine infinite omnipotent Being those finite human qualities which are so frequently used with reference to Jesus throughout the New Testament. And hence, even if we should suppose or concede that the writers of the New Testament did really believe him to be the great Infinite Spirit, or the almighty, omnipotent G.o.d,'we must conclude they were mistaken, from their own language, from their own description of him, as well as his own virtual denial and rejection of such a claim, when he applied to himself, as he did in nine cases out of ten, strictly finite human qualities and human t.i.tles (as we have shown), wholly incompatible with the character of an infinite divine Being. We say, from the foregoing considerations, if the primitive disciples of Jesus did really believe him to be the great Infinite, both their descriptions of him and his description or representation of himself, would amply and most conclusively prove that they were mistaken. At least we are compelled to admit that there is either an error in applying divine t.i.tles to Jesus, or often an error in describing his qualities and powers, by himself and his original followers, as there is no compatibility or agreement between the two.

Divine t.i.tles to such a being as they represent him to be, would be an egregious misnomer. We say, then, that it must be clearly and conclusively evident to every unbiased mind, from evidence furnished by the bible itself, that if the divine t.i.tles applied to Jesus were intended to have a divine significance, then they are misapplied. Yet we would not here conclude an intentional misrepresentation in the case, but simply a mistake growing out of a misconception, and the very limited childish conception, of the nature, character, and attributes of the "great positive Mind," so universally prevalent in that semi-barbarous age, and the apparently total ignorance of the distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristics which separate the divine and the human.

We will ill.u.s.trate: some children, on pa.s.sing through a wild portion of the State of Maine recently, reported they encountered a bear; and to prove they could not be mistaken in the animal, they described it as being a tall, slight-built animal, with long slender legs, of yellowish auburn hue, a short, white, bushy tail, cloven feet, large branchy horns, &c. Now, it will be seen at once that, while their description of the animal is evidently in the main correct, they had simply mistaken a deer for a bear, and hence misnamed the animal.

In like manner we must conclude, from the repeated instances in which Christ's biographers have ascribed to him all the foibles, frailties, and finite qualities and characteristics of a human being, that if they have in any instance called him a G.o.d in a divine sense, it is an egregious misnomer. Their description of him makes him a man, and but a man, whatever may have been their opinion with respect to the propriety of calling him a G.o.d. And if the two do not harmonize, the former must rule the judgment in all cases. The truth is, the Jewish founders of Christianity entertained such a low, narrow, contracted, and mean opinion of Deity and the infinite distinction and distance between the divine and the human, that their theology reduced him to a level with man; and hence they usually described him as a man.

CHAPTER XL. A METONYMIC VIEW OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST

IF Jesus Christ were truly G.o.d, or if there existed such a co-equal and co-essential oneness between the Father and the Son that they const.i.tuted but one being or divine essence, then what is true of one is true of the other, and a change of names and t.i.tles from one to the other cannot alter the sense of the text. Let us, then, subst.i.tute the t.i.tles found applied to the Son in the New Testament, to the Father, and observe the effect:--

"My Son is greater than I." (John vii. 28.)

"G.o.d can do nothing of himself." (John v. 19.)

"I must be about my Son's business." (Luke ii. 49.)

"The kingdom of heaven is not mine to give, but the Son's." (Matt. xx.

23.)

"I am come in my Son's name, and ye receive me not" (John v. 43.)

"G.o.d cried, Jesus, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. xiii. 28.)

"No man hath seen Jesus at any time." (1 John i. 5-)

"Jesus created all things by his Son." (Eph. iii. 9.)

"G.o.d sat down (in heaven) at the right hand of Jesus." (Luke xxii. 69.)

"There is one Jesus, one mediator between Jesus and men." (Gal. iii.

20.)

"Jesus gave his only begotten Father." (1 John iv. 9)

"G.o.d knows not the hour, but Jesus does." (Mark viii. 32.)

"G.o.d is the servant of Jesus." (Mark xii. 18.)

"G.o.d is ordained by Jesus." (Acts xvii. 31.)

"The head of G.o.d is Christ." (Eph. i. 3.)

"We have an advocate with Jesus, G.o.d the righteous." (1 John ii. 1.)

"Jesus gave all power to G.o.d." (Matt, xxviii. 18.)

"G.o.d abode all night in prayer to Jesus." (Luke vi. 12.)

"G.o.d came down from heaven to do the will of Jesus." (John vi. 38.)

"Jesus has made the Father his high priest." (Heb. x. 24.)

"Last of all, the Son sent the Father." (Matt. xxi. 39.)

"Jesus will save the world by that G.o.d whom he hath ordained."

"Jesus is G.o.d of the Father." (John xx. 17.)

"Jesus hath exalted G.o.d, and given him a more excellent name." (Phil.

ii. 9.)

"Jesus hath made G.o.d a little lower than the angels." (Heb. ii. 9.)

"G.o.d can do nothing except what he seeth Jesus do." (John v. 19.)

Now, the question arises, Is the above representation a true one? Most certainly it must be, if Jesus and the Father are but one almighty Being. A change of names and t.i.tles cannot alter the truth nor the sense.

To say that Chief Justice Chase has gone south; Secretary Chase has gone south; Governor Chase has gone south; Ex-Senator Chase has gone south, or Salmon P. Chase has gone south, are affirmations equally true and equally sensible, because they all have reference to the same being; the case is to plain to need argument.

The above reversal of names and t.i.tles of Jesus and the Father may sound very unpleasant and rather grating to Christ-adoring Christians, simply because it is the transposition of the tides of two very scripturally dissimilar beings, instead of being, as generally taught by orthodox Christians, "one in essence, one in mind, one in body or being, and one in name," as the Rev. Mr. Barnes affirms. Most self-evidently false is his statement, based solely on scriptural ground. If Jesus is "very G.o.d," and there is but one G.o.d, then the foregoing transposition cannot mar the sense nor altar the truth of one text quoted.