The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors Part 6

THE various deific t.i.tles applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament are regarded by some Christian writers as presumptive evidence of his divinity. But the argument proves too much for the case; as we find the proof in history that many other beings, whom Christians regard as men, were honored and addressed by the same t.i.tles, such as G.o.d, Lord, Savior, Redeemer, Mediator, Messiah, etc.

The Hindoo Chrishna, more than two thousand years ago, was prayerfully worshiped as "G.o.d the Most High." His disciple Amarca once addressed him thus: "Thou art the Lord of all things, the G.o.d of the universe, the emblem of mercy, the bestower of salvation. Be propitious O most High G.o.d," etc. Here he is addressed both as Lord and G.o.d. He is also styled "G.o.d of G.o.ds."

Adonis of Greece was addressed as "G.o.d Supreme," and Osiris of Egypt as "the Lord of Life." In Phrygia, it was "Lord Atys," as Christians say, "Lord Jesus Christ" Narayan of Bermuda was styled the "Holy Living G.o.d."

The t.i.tle "Son of G.o.d" was so common in nearly all religious countries as to excite but little awe or attention.

St. Basil says, "Every uncommonly good man was called 'the Son of G.o.d.'"

The "Asiatic Researches" says, "the Tamulese adored a divine Son of G.o.d," and Thor of the Scandinavians was denominated "the first-born Son of G.o.d" and so was Chrishna of India, and other demiG.o.ds.

It requires, therefore, a wide stretch of faith to believe that Jesus Christ was in any peculiar sense "the Son of G.o.d," because so denominated, or "the only begotten Son of G.o.d," when so many others are reported in history bearing that t.i.tle.

The t.i.tle Savior is found in the legends of every religious country. So also G.o.d, Redeemer, and Mediator. "When a Mogul or Thibetan is asked who is Chrishna," says the Christian missionary Hue, "the reply is, instantly, 'the Savior of men.'" Budha was known as "the Savior, Creator and Wisdom of G.o.d," and Mithra as both Mediator and Savior, also as "the Redeemer," and Chrishna as "the Divine Redeemer," also "the Redeemer of the World." The terms Mediator and Intercessor were also frequently applied to him by his disciples. And both he and Quexalcote were hailed as "the Messiah." In short, most ancient religious nations were honored with or expected a Messiah.

Was Jesus Christ the "Lamb of G.o.d?" (John i. 9.) So was Chrishna styled "the Holy Lamb." The Mexicans, preferring a full-grown sheep, had their "Ram of G.o.d." The Celts had their "Heifer of G.o.d," and the Egyptians their "Bull of G.o.d." All these terms are ludicrous emblems of Deity, representing him as a quadruped, as the t.i.tle "Lamb of G.o.d" does Jesus Christ, a term no less ludicrous than the t.i.tles of the pagan G.o.ds as cited above.

And was Christ "the True Light?" (John i. 9.) So was Chrishna likewise called "the True Light," also "the Giver of Light," "the Inward Light,"

etc. Osiris was "the Redeemer of Light," and Pythagoras was both "Light and Truth." Apollonius was styled the "True Light of the World;" while Simon Magus was called "the Light of all Men."

Several nations had also their Christs, though in many cases the word is differently spelled. Chrest, the Greek mode of spelling Christ, may be found on several of the ancient tombstones of that country. The Christian writer Elsley, in his "Annotations of the Gospels" (vol. i. p.

25), spells the word Christ in this manner, Chrest The people of Loretto had a black Savior, called Chrest, or Christ. Lucian, in his "Philopatris," admits the ancient Gentiles had the name of Christ, which shows it was a heathen t.i.tle. The Chaldeans had their Chris, the Hindoos their Chrishna, the Greeks their Chrest, and the Christians their Christ, all, doubtless, derived from the same original root.

As for Jesus, it was a common name among the Jews long before the advent of Christ. Josephus refers to seven or eight persons by that name, as "Jesus, brother of Onias," "Jesus, son of Phabet," etc. Joshua in the Greek form, Jesus, was in still more common use.

Again, was Jesus Christ "the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End?" so, likewise, Chrishna proclaimed, "I am the Beginning, the Middle, and the End." Osiris and Chrishna were both proclaimed "Judge of the Dead," as Jesus was "Judge of quick and dead." Isaiah represents the Father as proclaiming, "I am Jehovah; besides me there is no Savior."

(Isa. xliii. 11.) With what consistency, then, can Christ be called "_the Savior_," if there is but _one Savior_, and that is the Father?

And other divine t.i.tles besides those above named--in fact, all those applied to Christ--are found used also in reference to the older pagan G.o.ds, and hence prove nothing.

ORIGIN OF THE TERMS MEDIATOR, INTERCESSOR, ETC.

Several causes contributed to originate a belief in the offices imaginarily a.s.signed to divine G.o.d-descended Mediators, Redeemers, and Intercessors.

1. In the first place, the Great Supreme G.o.d was believed to be too far off and too aristocratic to be on familiar terms with his subjects, or at all times accessible to their prayers. Hence, was gotten up a "Mediator," or middle G.o.d, to stand midway between the Great Supreme and the people, and transmit messages one from the other, and thus serve as agent for both parties. Confirmatory of this statement is the declaration of Mamoides, in his "Guide to the Erring," that "the ancient Sabeans conceived the princ.i.p.al G.o.d, on account of his great distance, to be inaccessible; and hence, in imitation of the people in their conduct toward their king, who had to address him through a person appointed for the purpose, they imaginarily employed a middle divinity, who was called a Mediator, to present their claims to the Supreme G.o.d."

Here the whole secret is out, the whole thing is explained, and we now understand why Christ is called a Mediator, Intercessor, "Advocate with the Father," etc.

2. Again, the Supreme G.o.d was supposed to be frequently angry with the people, and threatening to punish if not to destroy them. "I will punish the mult.i.tude." (Jer. xlvi. 25.) "I will destroy the people." (Ex.

xxiii. 27). Hence, this middle divinity, this second person of the trinity, stepped in to plead and intercede on their behalf, being, as we must presume, a better-natured and more merciful being than the Father. And thus interceding, he received the t.i.tles of Intercessor and "Advocate with the Father." (1 John, ii. 1.)

3. The princ.i.p.al circ.u.mstance, however, which led to the conception of a divine Savior was the desire to find some way to continue in sin and wrong-doing and escape its natural and legitimate consequences; in other words, to evade the penalty. Hence, it came to be believed that people might run riot in sin, and plunge into the indulgence of their pa.s.sions and their l.u.s.ts, till the hour of death approached, when they would have nothing to do but to ask forgiveness, and cast the burden of their sins and sufferings on the merits of "a crucified Savior and Redeemer,"

who "suffered once for all, that we might escape," and thus dodge the penalty for sin. It was, as Mr. Fleurbach expresses it, "A realized wish to be free from the laws of morality, and escape the natural consequences of wrong doing."

CHAPTER X. THE SAVIORS OF ROYAL DESCENT, BUT HUMBLE BIRTH

WE have the singular coincidence presented in the histories of several of the Saviors of their lineal descent through a line of kings or princes, and yet commencing their probationary life under the most humble and adverse circ.u.mstances--being born in stables, caves, and other inauspicious situations.

The story of their royal blood was calculated to add dignity to their characters, while their humble birth in the midst of poverty, and unmarked by ostentation, would evince their humility, meekness, condescension, and absence of pride, and thus proclaim a lesson of humility and resignation to their disciples and followers.

Here, seems to be plainly indicated the motives for a.s.signing them to such a birth, and such a character.

Christ's lineal descent, it will be remembered, is professedly traced (though in a very zig-zag, disjointed manner) from the royal house of David. And yet his royal blood did not save him from the most ign.o.ble and ignominious birth, and obscure exordium of his earth life.

A singular story, and yet a similar story, is told of the Indian Savior Chrishna, who was, according to the Rev. Mr. Allen (India, p. 379) of the royal house of Kousa, traced back through many generations. Yet, in order to teach the world a lesson of true humility, and administer a just reprehension to pride, he submitted to be born in a cave, amid the denizens of subterranean abodes. And here let it be noted, the best and most orthodox writers concede that while Christ is said to have born in a manger, that manger was in a cave. Mr. Fleetwood (a very popular Christian writer) testifies in this matter that "the Greek fathers generally agree that the place of Christ's birth was a cave." (Life of Christ, p. 568.) Then the coincidence in this respect between Christ and Chrishna may be set down as complete.

We have no means of learning how many of the Saviors were of royal blood, as the genealogy of some of them is not given. But those whose lineal descent is furnished us are almost uniformly traced to or evinced as springing from royal parentage, and practical humility--so far as it can be taught by an unostentatious birth--is a lesson taught by nearly all. Budha Sakia of Hindostan is directly traced through a royal pedigree.

Speaking on this point, one writer remarks: "Tradition affirms that his mother was betrothed to a rajah, and of course her son belonged to the same royal caste that Chrishna did during his existence on earth."

(Prog. Rel. Ideas, vol, i. 84.)

"The Great Prophet" of Arabia (Mahomet) not only commenced his earthly career in a humble situation, but resembled Christ in having "nowhere to lay his head." It is said of the Great Prophet, "A cloak spread on the ground served him for a bed, and a skin filled with date leaves was his pillow." The genealogy of the G.o.d Yu (of China) is traced through a line of princes to a very remote origin, while his whole life was a lesson of practical humility, and proclaimed at every step, "This is the way; walk ye in it."

CHAPTER XI. CHRIST'S GENEALOGY

IN order to exalt the dignity and character of the Christian Messiah still higher than a mere claim for a divine origin paternally would have the effect to do, two of his a.s.sumed to be inspired biographers have set up for him a claim to a royal lineage through the maternal line.

Hence, they tell us that he descended from and through a line of kings embracing the house of David. But in presenting the names, and the number of generations, in their attempts to make out this royal distinction, this kingly exaltation of birth, they exhibit a most egregious bungle, and the most barefaced tissue of discrepancies. For they not only differ widely with each other in this matter, but differ with the Old Testament genealogy, and differ with those texts which give the maternal ancestry of Jesus.

Indeed, though varying as wide as the poles from each other, they both miss Jesus and arrive at Joseph in tracing down the generations from Abraham (unless we a.s.sume they intended to represent Joseph as being his father).

Luke, in his gospel, names and counts off forty-one generations from David to Joseph, though he had previously represented it as being forty-two; but Matthew says that "from Abraham to David are fourteen generations," but according to his own showing, and according to his own list of names, there are but thirteen. And then he tells us there are but fourteen generations from David to the carrying away into Babylon.

BUt according to the Old Testament genealogy (see i Chron. iii.) there were eighteen.

And then the names comprised in the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke are so widely different from that found in Chronicles, as to set all a.n.a.logy and agreement at defiance.

In fact, in their whole list of names, from David down to Joseph, they only come together twice. Their names are all different but two, that of Salathiel and Zorobabel, which names alone are found in both lists.

Matthew tells us that the son of David, through whom Joseph descended, was Solomon, but Luke says it was Nathan. The next name in Matthew's list is that of Roboam, but the corresponding name in Luke's list is Mattatha. Matthew's next name is Abia, which Luke gives as Menan, while Chronicles differs from both, and gives it as Abijah. Matthew says Joram begat Ozias, but Chronicles virtually declares Joram had no such son, although he had a great-great-grandson Uzziah. But Luke says, in effect, there was no such person in the genealogical tree, or family line, as either Joram, Ozias or Uzziah. Matthew says again, "Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon." (Matt. i. ii.)

But Chronicles declares that Jechonias was Jehoiakim's son, and not Josiah's, and that Josiah had no such son. And, besides, we learn, from 2 Kings xiii., that Josiah was killed eleven years before the exile to Babylon, and could not well beget a son after he had been defunct a tenth of a century.

Matthew, after naming twenty-four generations as filling out the line, and making it complete between David and Jacob, concludes by saying, "and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary."

But Luke, antecedent to spinning out his list to fourteen generations more than Matthew, i. e., making it fourteen generations longer, declares that "Joseph was the son of Heli." So that Joseph either had two fathers, Jacob and Heli; or Matthew or Luke, or both, were most egregiously mistaken, with all their "inspiration."

Again, Luke says that Salathiel was the son of Neri; but Chronicles says he was the son of Jechonias. And after Chronicles had registered Zorobabel as the son of Penniah, Matthew and Luke, a.s.suming to become "wise above what was written," both declare that he was the son of Salathiel. They agree here in contradicting Chronicles, which is the only instance but one of their agreement in the whole list of progenitors from David to Joseph.

With this exception they contradict each other all the way through, and in many instances that of Chronicles, too.

This is a strange way, indeed, of proving Jesus Christ to have had two fathers!--to be both the son of G.o.d and son of David! And it is still stranger that they should trace his genealogy to Joseph, if they did not consider him Joseph's son. Otherwise, the genealogy of "Sinbad the Sailor," or "Harry Haulaway," would have been as apropos.

Such are the beautiful harmony and agreement in the words of "divine inspiration" which Christians prate so much about.

And all this appears to be the result of an attempt to elevate the man Christ Jesus to a level with the demiG.o.ds of antiquity, nearly all of whom claimed to be of royal or princely descent. Such continual blundering, guessing, cross-firing, and clashing of names as is exhibited in the foregoing exposition, reminds us of the Hibernian's reply when asked for the number and names of his brothers: