Ashland tidings. [volume] (Ashland, Or.) 1876-1919, 1913-09-29

him is within the scope of the sub
jects on which he spoke, and if it
were true, he would have confirmed
it explicitly. But such is not the
case: on the contrary, the gospel
records of his teaching show, both
negatively and affirmatively. that
Jesus did not teach that he was the
Deity, nor that God consists of three
persons. He expressed the desire to
be glorified, but never to be deified.
On looking through the gospels we
find that Jesus frequently spoke of
himself as distinct from God. For
instance, he said, "Ye believe in God,
believe also in me-" He referred to
himself with other men as worship
ing God-"We know what we wor-
ship" Again he plainly said that
he was a mana man that hath
told you the truth"
Once he had dispute with the
Jews on this very question. They
took up stones to stone him and he
asked them, "Why?" They an
swered, For blasphemy, and because
that thou, being man, makest thy
self Cod" In reply he did not deny
that he was man, but he corrected
them on the other point His words
were, 81 said, l am the son of Cod"
Surely in these circumstances if he
were God, he would have said so. If
the Deity were three persons of
whom he was one, he would not have
spoken as he did. He was not the
person to dodge an issue; there was
nothing equivocal about him; and
this incident occurred at the feast OF
the dedication in Jerusalem, where
he was virtually speaking to all who
had ears to hear.
There is another incident, record
ed in three of the gospels, that ought
to be conclusive of this question. In
this he said, why callest me good
None is good, save one, that is God.
This saying is squarely contrary tc
the theory that Jesus was God, and
it is equally contrary to- the theory
that God is three. Jesus was, as
Mrs. Eddy has said, "Godlike and
glorified man" (Science and Health
page 54); but his words show thai
even he was wholly dependent on the
Father. His was a reflected glory
he reflected the goodness of God
and this is the true function of al
men.
In order to understand the wore
Son" as used by Jesus we must con
slider his use of the word Father,
for each of these words is the coun
terpart and complement of the other
In the gospels we find that he spok,
not only of my Father, but of tn
Father, your Father, and our Father
and that he used these titles inter
changeably. This fact of itself prove
that he did not regard himself as
member of trinity with the Father
But there is further proof from hi
own lips. Several of his utterance
plainly imply that the same relatio
to God in which he stood is the di
vine birthright of other men. Thu
he spoke of other men as sons O
children of God, and he expressed hi
whole aim and object in the word!
That where | am, there ye may b
Also"
1t is to be observed, moreover, tina
the words Father" and "Son" a
Jesus used them expressed both kin
ship and likeness, both relation an
kindred nature. They denoted tina
the nature of God is imaged or re
Elected by man; that is, by the res
man. This is what Jesus mean
, when he said, HE that hath seen m
hath seen the Father" AS Mrs
Eddy has explained, His mission wa
, to reveal the Science of celestial be
, ing, to prove what God is and wha
J He does for man" (Science an
! Health, page 26.)
[ That Jesus did not teach that h
was identical with God is again clear
r ly shown by what he said in praye
, for other men: "The glory whic
| thou gavest me have given them
that they may be one, even as we ar
one" The unity with God which h
claimed was therefore relation wit
/ the divine Spirit or Mind which be
| longs to every man. 1t was evidentl
the mental and spiritual unity of a
men with their divine Principle
I which he had given them to under
stand and demonstrate.
From these premises the conclr
sion inevitably follows that the belle
J in Jesus as God is not merely acs
} demic error; it is not mere ques
tion of theory or doctrine For thos
who maintain or accept it, the def
7 cation of Jesus obstructs the yer