# Who is Jesus?/Book 1/Part 2/Chapter 3

III. THE FORCE OF FACTS —
THE obvious impossibility of dividing the Infinite enables us to perceive the force of the Unitarian point of view. If we regard Jesus as a semi-Divine being or only a man as other men, in either case possessing a life independent of the Father, then he is not God in any special sense, and they are correct. The weakness of their case is the assumption that God cannot manifest Himself as a man, except as He manifests Himself through all men. It is true that we cannot divide the Infinite; but it is not necessarily true that God cannot temporarily limit Himself in manifestation and still be God.
The weakness of the Trinitarian position is that they base their religion upon the assumption that the duality of personality in the Father and the Son which is suggested in the Old Testament and appears more deﬁnitely in the New Testament is a fact, and not an appearance. We maintain that if this duality of ​personality is a fact, a reality, and not merely an appearance, then Jesus is not God—he is only a man as other men, with a human father, and the Unitarians and the other opponents of the deity of Jesus are correct—for the Inﬁnite is not divisible.
Now let us assume that it is difficult to understand how the Inﬁnite God could temporarily limit Himself and still be God. Let us also assume that it is difficult to understand why the Old Testament should suggest, and the New Testament state, a duality of personality in the Father and the Son if it is only an appearance. In doing this we recognize the merits of both the Unitarian and the Trinitarian positions, opposed as they may be.
But we would suggest to both that there are many things in outward nature which are difficult to comprehend, but we accept them because we know from experience that they are true. We do not comprehend gravitation and electricity, for example, except in their manifestations, yet because of their manifestations we acknowledge them as facts of life. I do not insist that we shall accept the impossible, as, for example, that the Inﬁnite is divisible, or ​that two men are one man, or that three separate and distinct Gods are only one God, but I do insist that we shall accept the plainly demonstrated facts of life. A true science says, What are the proved facts? A false science discards the facts which it finds inconvenient. As honest men, as men of common sense, it is our duty to ask ourselves if the phenomena presented to our attention are real facts or only apparent facts. If what we perceive is real enough to be a fact of life, we must be honest enough to give it due credit.
Now what are the facts in regard to Jesus?
Perhaps we are all convinced that a man named Jesus of Nazareth really existed. As we have already suggested, such an effect as he has produced in human history cannot be accounted for except by an adequate reality back of it. I think that we may safely label this as a fact.
If such a man really existed, as we have conceded, we will perhaps all agree that his life was of such an unusually beneficent nature that most men regard it as the most ideal life of history. I find that even Jews are proud of him as the most brilliant one of their race, and that Mohammedans give him high place in their limited ​galaxy of prophets; in fact, it would appear that today most men, of whatever religion, rank him either as one of the noblest in the list of the world's benefactors, or easily and incomparably first. Shall we call this another fact?
I do not know of any who suggest that he was insane. May this not be another fact?
I do not know of any who call him an impostor. There are those who assert that he did not make the personal claims about himself which are contained in the New Testament, but no one today, so far as I know, calls him an impostor. Another fact?
Now, in résumé of these four facts, we will probably all admit that Jesus actually lived and died in Palestine about the time he was supposed to have lived; that he preached some kind of doctrine to the Jews and was put to death by the Romans; that his teachings and his life were superior to the teachings and life of any other man of whom we have any record, that he was not insane, nor was he an impostor.
The next fact would be that all we know of him is contained in the collection of writings which we call the Bible, except for a few confirmatory statements in profane history.
​The next fact is that the statements of the Bible concerning him are either true or they are untrue. If they are untrue, we do not know anything about him, and therefore can have no definite opinion of him, but merely a conjecture. If we have a favorable and clearly defined opinion of him, it is because we accept the statements of the Bible as substantially true. If we do not accept them as absolutely true, is it not because they conflict with our personal theories?
Yet the fact remains—and it is a fact—that the man revealed by the New Testament accounts of Jesus is the most wonderful man in point of character the world ever saw. If these accounts are untrue, who was able to invent the most surpassing character of history? Could his unlearned followers have combined to create so consistent a unity, so Divine a man? Such a conclusion would seem untenable.