The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-10-06

the Christ, but the belief that Jesus
is God and the correlative theory that
God consist of three persons. This IS
the real issue; and Of course 1t IS one
that ought to be referred to Jesus and
settled by his own utterances as re-
corded in the New Testament. The
doctrine that would defy him is with
in the scope of the subjects 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 elorified, but never of be deified.
Jesus Not God.
On looking through the gospels we
fird that Jesus frequently spoke of
himself as distinct from God. For in
stance, he said, Eye believe in God, be-
lieve also in me-" He referred to him
self with other men as wOrshiping
God-"We know what we worship"
Again he plainly said that he was a
a "a al that hath told you the
truth"
Once he had a dispute with the Jews
on this very question. They took up
stones to stone him and he asked
them, Why? They answered, For
blasphemy, and because that thou, be-
ing a man, makest thyself God" In
reply he did not deny that he was a
man, but he corrected them on the
other point. His words were, Il 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 h dedication of Jerusalem,
where he was virtually speaking to
all who had ears to. hear.
There is another incident, recorded
in three of the gospels, that ought to
be conclusive of this question. In this
he said, why callest thou me good?
None is good, save one, hat Is God"
This saying is squarely contrary to
the theory that Jesus was God, and
1t Is equally contrary to the theory
that God is three. Jesus was, as Mrs.
Eddy has said, a "Godlike and glorifed
man" (Science and Health, page sd;
but his words show that 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 all men.
In order to understand the word
Son as used by Jesus We must con-
slider his use Of the word Father
for each of these words is the our
terpart and complement of the other.
In the gospels we find that he spoke
0 only OF my Father, but of the
Father. your Father, and our Father,
and that he used these titles inter
that he did not regard himself as a
member of a trinity with the Father.
Further Proof from Jesus.
But there is further proof from his
own lips. Several of his u~tterances
plainly imply that the same relation
70 God In which he stood is the divine
birthright Of other men. Thus he
spoke Of other men as sons or chill
dren Of God, and he expressed his
whole aim and object in the words,
that where 1 am, there We may be
Also"
1t is to be observed, however, hat
the words Father and Son as
Jesus used them expressed both kim
ship nj likeness, both relation and
kindred nature. They denoted that
an "SSN"A~ TX ~ Is lHldSGQ or re-
Elected by man: that is, by the real
man. This is what Jesus meant when
he said, He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father" AS Mrs. Eddy has
explained, His mission was to reveal
the science of celestial being, to prove
what God is and what He does for
man." (Science and Health, o. 26.)
That Jesus did not teach that he
was identical with God is again clear.
~ shown by what he said in PRAYER
for other men: THE glory which
thou gavest me I have given them
that they may be one, even as we are
one" The unity with God which he
claimed was therefore a relation with
the divine spirit of mind which be.
longs to every man. It was evidentl,
the mental and spiritual unity of al
men with their divine principle. which
he had given them to understand am
demonstrate.
From these premises the conclusion
inevitably follows hat the belief IL
Jesus as God is not a merely acade,
mic error; it is not a mere question o,
theory or doctrine. For those wht
maintain Or accept it, the dedication
Of Jesus o~bstructs the very way of sal
walton. For those who entertain it
this belief constitutes an obstacle il