In the first chapter of Genesis, there is a legendary account
of the creation. In the second chapter, beginning with the fourth
verse, there is another account. These legends contradict each other
at every point.
Bzzt. See here. This takes care of several of Gauvin's first few. We move to:
In the seventh chapter of Genesis, at the second verse, it is
stated that Noah was commanded to take into the ark seven males and
seven females of all clean beasts. In the fifth verse, we are
assured that Noah did as he was told. But in the eighth and ninth
verses, it is stated that of clean beasts there went into the ark
only two and two a male and a female.
See here. 9 (Gen.
7:2,5; Gen. 7:8,9)
According to the ninth chapter, the murderer must die; yet God
"set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill
him.
See here.10 (Gen. 9:5,6
Gen.4:15) The ninth chapter also says: "Every
moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;" but the fourteenth
chapter of Deuteronomy gives a list of animals, birds and fish that
we must not eat.
This is a "contradiction"? How? God is giving instructions to two different sets of people. Hello?11 (Gen. 9:3, Deut.
14:7,19)
To Abraham, God is represented as having said: "This is my
covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after
thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised.'' But a
gentleman of the name of St. Paul writing in the Epistle to the
Galatians, knew more about circumcision than God, and therefore
wrote: "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing."
See here. No grasp of covenant theology in Gauvin's living room.12 (Gen.17:10;
Gal. 5:2)
We are told that the Bible is God's inspired word, and that it
points out the way of salvation; and yet the Bible itself abolishes
the word of God, and declares that those who do as God commands
cannot be saved!
It does? Gauvin doesn't say where. The same inspired book assures us that God promised
Abraham all the land of Canaan, and that he gave him none of it
whatever;"
See here.13 (Gen. 17:8; Acts
7:5) that Abraham had a wife whose name was
Keturah; that Keturah was only his concubine;
The use of "wife" is a KJV messup. The Hebrew word is ishshah, which means any woman and includes the meaning of "wife". 14
(Gen. 25:1; I Chron. 1:32) that Abraham had two
sons, Ishmael and Isaac; that Isaac was Abraham's only son
See here.
15 (Gen 16:15; 21:3; Heb.
11:17) that Abraham bought a burying place from
the sons of Emmor; that the sepulcher was bought, not by Abraham,
but by Jacob.
See here.16 (Acts 7:16; Josh. 24:32)
If you should fail to see the beautiful harmony in
all these contradictions, remember that, according to the church, it
is because you are carnally minded, and lacking in spiritual
discernment!
No, you're just lacking in contextual education. Not uncommon especially for an airplane mechanic.
If the Bible were a revelation from God, it would surely be
consistent in what it has to say of God. Every statement would agree
with every other statement, and every attribute and quality
described would unite in the portrayal of a character clearly
distinguishable, easily understood, and infinitely grand. But as to
the nature, character and conduct of God, the Bible asserts only to
deny, and describes only to destroy. In the Old Testament, God is
like a man - he walks and talks and eats and mingles with men of
affairs. In the New, he is a spirit, and his everlasting seat is
heaven's throne. Gee, what about Jesus, who walks, talks, eats...
In Exodus 33:20, God is made to say: "Thou canst not see my
face; for there shall no man see me and live." This is contradicted
in Genesis 32:30, where Jacob declares: "I have seen God face to
face and my life is preserved."
See here. This covers a few points after, then: An
infinite God could better employ his time than in wandering through
the universe every little while to converse with some barbarians in
Palestine; and it ought to be safe to assume that a God would choose
better company. Why should he be engaged in performing tricks of
magic in the Syrian desert for a tribe of polygamous nomads, when he
might have been talking to the Wise Men of Greece?
Hmm, do we smell a tad of racism and bigotry here? Funny how freethinkers manage to get away with this stuff; try it some Kwanzaa down at the community center.
Where does God dwell? "Dwelling in the light which no man can
approach unto," says 1 Timothy 6:16. Not so, declares 1 Kings 8:12
"The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." These
statements cannot both be true.
Uh huh. See here. Repeats himself, then: It
is indeed taught in one of the Psalms that God is omnipresent.
"Whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven,
thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If
I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of
the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall
hold me." But in Genesis, the Psalmist is contradicted, God is
not omnipresent; he moves from place to place. "And Lord said,
because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their
sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have
done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me;
and if not, I will know."
See here. Repeats himself a few times, then:
Matthew tells us that "with God all things are possible." The
Book of Judges disagrees. It holds in chapter one, verse nineteen,
that God is not almighty -- "And the Lord was with Judah; and he
drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out
the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Sigh. See here, entry for 1:19. Repeat, lather, rinse, then:
In Exodus 31:17, God is represented as being like a man, in as
much as work tires him and he is refreshed with rest --"For in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
rested and was refreshed." According to Isaiah, this is not true.
Isaiah will allow no such contemptible weakness to limit the glory
of his God. In the fortieth chapter of his book, he exclaims: "Hast
thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of
the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary."
See here. Repeat self, then:
Moreover, we have the express testimony of Scripture that God
does not change. In James 1:17, we read of "the Father of lights,
with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." This,
however, is sweepingly contradicted in Jonah 3:10. It is there shown
that God does change "And God repented of the evil that he had said
that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
See here. Repeat, rinse:
Does God know the hearts of men? The question is fair; the
answer should be exact. How does the Bible answer? It tells us that
he does, and that he does not. In Acts we read: "Thou Lord which
knowest the heart's of all men." The contrary is found in
Deuteronomy, where it is said that God led the Jews forty years in
the wilderness, to humble them, to prove them, and to know what was
in their hearts." 25 (Acts 1:24;
Deut.8:2)
It doesn't take molding laws of logic; it takes knowing the nuance of the Hebrew word yada. See here. Repeat self, go to:
The same inspired book informs us that God is generous with his
gifts --"If any of you lack wisdom," says James, "let him
ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally." If God gives to
all men liberally, how can it be that he renders some men
incapable of receiving his good things, to deprive them of his
blessings? If John tells the truth, that is what he does "He
hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that
they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with
their heart, and be converted and I should heal
them."
Wow. Hyperliterality; it took Gauvin long enough. See here for arresting concept. Repeat, with a nod to this for Gauvin's one-sentence screed on predestination vs free will, then:
We read in Deuteronomy that "God is a consuming fire," and in
John that "God is love."
27 (Deut. 4:24, I
John 4:1) Reason fails to conceive of a God who
is either, but how great is the contrast here!
See here for the same principle. but how
consuming fire is a wave of ruin. It advances to destroy. Home,
wealth and life turn to ashes in its path. Behind its awful sweep
there is but death and desolation. How different is love--the
tenderest passion of the human soul!
Not what agape is at all, sorry. After more confusing "love" with sympathy, we get to:
Although Deuteronomy holds such a terrible opinion of God, it
tells us in a later chapter that he is a God of truth and without
iniquity, just and right." Yet this same book declares in its
fourteenth chapter, that God gave the Jews the following
commandment: "Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself:
thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he
may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien."
Gauvin pulled this one out of his hat here; no need to repeat it.
In the nineteenth Psalm it is said that, "The law of the Lord
is perfect. . . . The statutes of the Lord are right.... The
commandment of the Lord is pure." If this is true, God cannot be the
author of evil. But according to Isaiah, it is not true. In his
forty-fifth chapter, Isaiah makes God contradict the Psalmist -- "I
make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.'' Amos
stands with Isaiah -- "Shall there be evil in a city, and the
Lord hath not done it?"
Sere here. Blather, repeat, then:
When we ask the Scriptures what they have to say as to the
attitude of God toward peace and war, we are answered with another
contradiction. "The God of peace," says Romans; not so, says Exodus,
"The Lord is a man of war. See link above on "consuming fire". 30 (Rom. 15:33;
Ex. 15:3)
But is not God kind and merciful? Does he not soothe the
troubled brow of age with the calming consciousness of his
protecting care? Does he not smile with pity on the tender
helplessness of the prattling babe? And does he not fill with the
sunshine of his wondrous love - the sorrowing mother's aching heart?
Oh, yes - "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over
all his works." Oh, no--such is the cruelty of God that no human
need can atop or stay the march of his destructive fury. Contemplate
these frightful words: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy
all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman,
infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 31 (Psalm 145:9; I Sam. 15:3)
Knew we'd get to argument by outrage eventually. See here. After some namecalling ("uncivilized") we get to:
We come now to God's anger. "His anger endureth but a moment,"
says the Psalmist. This is denied without reserve in Jeremiah 17:4
-- "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger which shall burn
forever."
See here. Repeat snidely 5 times, then:
Does God ever tempt his children? James avers that he does not
-- "let no man say when he in tempted, I am tempted of god; for God
cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." In spite
of this, Genesis insists that God does tempt -- "And it came to pass
after these things that God did tempt Abraham"(James 1:13; Gen. 22:1)
See here. Whine twice for effect, then:Let us take another step. Is God truthful? Certainly we do not
raise this question: it is asked merely because it is suggested by
another contradiction in the Bible. In Numbers there is the emphatic
affirmation that "God is not a man that he should lie." We can
heartily agree with that statement. It is easy to believe that men
have lied about God; in fact, we find many such lies in the Bible,
but it is hard to believe that God would lie. We will, however, let
the Bible answer. The twenty-second chapter of First Kings is
certain that God does lie -- "Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath
put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the
Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
Took him long enough to get to thge point. See here.
The Jewish religion was founded on sacrifice. When a man or a
woman committed a sin, that sin had to be atoned for by the killing
of an animal; that. is to say, by a contribution to the larder of
the priests. The altars of Jehovah ran red with blood.
Gauvin I suppose was a vegan. I'll cut to the chase: he ends up spending paragraphs just poking at Jer. 7:22.<
And what shall we say of the human sacrifices which the Bible
commands? I know that in Deuteronomy the Jews are warped against
sacrificing their sons and daughters. But in the last chapter of
Leviticus human sacrifices are upheld in a very positive manner. It
is there written that "no devoted thing, that a man shall devote
unto the Lord of all that be hath, both of man and beast, and of the
field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed, .... but shall
surely be put to death." 36 (Deut. 12:30, 31;
Lev. 27:28, 29) All living things devoted to
God had to be sacrificed; human beings were devoted to him;
therefore, human sacrifices formed a part of the worship of Jehovah.
Oops. Gauvin doesn't give us a cite for that last bit, "human beings were devoted to him." No dice.
That human sacrifices were a part of the Jewish religion is further
proved by Abraham's preparation to sacrifice Isaac,
See here by Jephthah's
sacrifice of his daughter,
See here and by David's sacrifice of the
seven sons of Saul.
See here. After a few insults, Gauvin goes to the New Testament, uses a few more insults, then:
"The Bible is the best of all books," says the believer,
"because it teaches that there is to be a resurrection and a future
life." Well, before we make sure about this matter, let us see what
the Bible has to say about it. According to John, the hour is
coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
and shall come forth." The assurance is explicit. If these words are
true, there is to be a resurrection from the dead. Are they true?
Job affirms that they are not -- "As the cloud is consumed and
vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no
more. (John 5:28, 29; Job 7:9; Eccl.
3:19-22; 9:5) Language could not be plainer.
Decontextualization could not be more evident. See here. Repeat, adding Eccl. 12:3, then, after encouraging the gullible to read the Bible in English:
Take up your Bible and read it. Read it as you would read any
other book -- with your eyes open, with your reasoning faculties
awake, and with your mind determined to be honest. You will find in
it all the contradictions that have been mentioned, and you will
find hundreds more. You will find that because of man's wickedness,
God drowned the world, and that for the same reason he resolved
never to drown it again;
Yes, and what? Mere outrage.(Gen. 6:5-7;
8:21) that God is no respecter of persons, and
that he hated Esau and loved Jacob before the brothers were born;
See here. (Rom. 2:11;
9:13) that the children shall suffer for the
sins of their parents, and that no one shall bear any sills but his
own;
See here (Ex. 20:5; Ezek.
18:20) that the Sabbath is holy and must be
kept by all, and that every man must decide for himself whether any
day is holy or not;
See here (Ex. 20:8; Rom.
14:5) that certain men devoted to God must wear
long hair, and that the wearing of long hair is a shame;
See entry here for 11:4. (Num. 6:5; I Cor. 11:14)
that it is wrong to judge others, and that others must be judged;
See here. (Matt. 7:1; I Cor. 6:2-4)
that we must never swear at all, and that we must always swear by
the God of truth;
See here. (Matt. 5:34; Is.
65:16) that a man may divorce his wife for one
reason only, and that he may divorce her for any reason
whatever;
See here. (Matt.5:32; Deut. 21:14;
24:1) that the Christian must honor his father and
mother, and that he must hate his father and mother;
See here. (Ex. 20:12; Luke 14:26) that the sin
against the Holy Ghost will never be forgiven, and that those who
believe in Christ "are justified from all things."
Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost IS unbelief. Oops. After a whining break, back to (Mark 3:29; Acts 13:39)
Are we through with the contradictions of the Bible? Certainly
not. "For there is no man that sinneth not," says I Kings. In other
words, we are all sinners. But John does not believe this. In his
first Epistle, he argues that "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not.
... He that committeth sin is of the devil."
(I Kings 8:46; I John 3:6-8)
See here. Skip repetition, then:
We are told in the ninetieth Psalm, at verse ten,
that "the days of our years are three score years and ten." But
hold a while -- that is not true, for is it not written in Genesis
six and three, that man's "days shall be an hundred and twenty
years"? No -- that was the time before the Flood would occur. But even if not, how about that lifespans went down in the intervening 1000 years? Hello? (Psalm 90:10, Gen.
6:3)
If we could believe the Bible, we might rest assured that the
good man has nothing to fear, since Proverbs avows that "there shall
no evil happen to the just." But the sacred book cannot be trusted,
for the case of Job contradicts the proverb.
The proverb. Um hm. See here.
Is not God a friend to his friends? Does he not shield the
innocent from harm? The Psalmist tells us that he does -- ''For
the Lord loveth judgment, and for forsaketh not his saints;
they are preserved forever.... The wicked watcheth the
righteous, and seeketh to slay him: The Lord will not leave him
in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged. ... Mark the
perfect man, and behold the upright, for the end of that
man is peace." Ignore the railing; the same link applies. Psalms. Not universal. Enough. This covers the next few where Gauvin finds places where obviously believers were not delivered. They were not at least under the false impression that a poem have universals. Then:
It is often proclaimed in churches, and set down in religious
books, that the writers of the Bible wrote as they were moved
by the Holy Spirit. Now, if these contradictions are the work of a
spirit, may we not inquire into the nature of this spirit? What is
he like? And how does he affect human beings? We have it from Paul,
in Galatians, that "the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace,
long-suffering, gentleness, goodness." Very fine. That is one man's
opinion. Turn now to the fifteenth chapter of Judges, and you will
find that when "the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon" Samson,
"he slew a thousand men." Um hm. Too bad Judges isn't talking about "fruit". Too bad also Gauvin doesn't recognize a Greco-Roman virtue list (hardly intended to be complete and mutually exclusive) when he sees one. Move to:
As an historical book, the Bible stands alone. No secular
historian has ever even tried to imitate its style.
No? Every genre in the Bible is paralleled in secular works. The remarkable
method by which the Scriptures teach history seems to be confined to
inspiration. To appreciate my meaning, compare the sixteenth chapter
of First Kings, with the sixteenth chapter of Second Chronicles.
From the first you will learn that Baasha, king of Israel, died, and
was succeeded by his son Elah, in the twenty-sixth year of the reign
of Asa, king of Judah. The second will tell you that in the
thirty-sixth year of Asa, Baasha, king of Israel, came up against
Judah.
Poor Gauvin didn't learn much about genres or about textual criticism. He spends some time on this and another like ot -- sorry, it does not take "spiritual discernment" to solve these; it takes knowledge of textual criticism.
The historical quarrel between Samuel, Kings and Chronicles is
continued through many chapters. According to Samuel, God tempted
David to take a census of the people of Israel and Judah; according
to Chronicles, it was the devil who tempted him;
See here (2 Sam. 24:1; I Chron. 21:1) Samuel
declares that David sinned in numbering the people; Kings
insists that David never sinned except in the matter of Uriah;
(2 Sam. 24:17; I Kings
15:5)
See here. Samuel holds that David paid for the
threshing floor on which he offered sacrifice to God after numbering
the people, fifty shekels of silver; Chronicles has it that be paid
for the place six hundred shekels of gold;
58
(2 Sam. 24:24; I Chron. 21:25) See here. in Kings it is
stated that Asa and Jehoshaphat did not abolish the places of
idolatrous worship; in Chronicles it is maintained that they did
abolish them.
See here and here. (I Kings 15:14; 22:43; 2
Chron. 14:5; 17:6)
The number of contradictions in the Bible is simply
bewildering. In reading it one is amazed at the blindness and folly
of mankind in regarding it as the perfect and inspired word of God.
On one page it tells us that Moses was the meekest man of his time;
on another, that he ordered women and children to be butchered in
cold blood.
See here.(Num. 12:3;
Num.31:17) In one place it assures us that all
the horses of the Egyptians died of the plague of murrain; in
another, that all the horses of the Egyptian army were used in
pursuit of the Jews.
See here. (Ex. 9:3,6; Ex.
14:9) It tell us that Elijah, in a chariot of
fire, ascended into heaven, and it asserts that Christ is the only
man who ever made that ascension
See here. (2 Kings
2:11; John 3:13) it speaks highly in favor of
intoxicating liquors and it condemns them in language equally
strong;
Very simplistic analysis. See here. (Deut. 14:26; Prov.
20:1) it teaches us to pray to avoid
temptation, and it tells us to hail temptation with joy;
See again here. (Matt. 6:13; James 1:12) it
praises wealth as a blessing and condemns it as though it were a
blighting curse.
A proverb. See link above. Nuff said. (Prov. 10:15; Luke
6:24)
Take another contradiction. Every normal human being is anxious
to have a good name. To be favorably known, to be respected, to
be recognized by all as honest, brave, and loving -- what could
be more pleasing than this? So far the Bible agrees -- "A good name
is better than precious ointment." But according to Luke, a good
name is a curse "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you." This one is Gauvin's most creative. Contexually Luke says nothing about a "name," good or otherwise; and "name" is shorthand for "reputation." Luke 7:26 is also more than that: "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." A good name? Among the wicked, Gauvin wants? Hmph. We move now to:
66 (Eccl. 7:1; Luke
6:26 )
Let it not be supposed that the contradictions of the Bible are
chiefly in the Old Testament. The New has its full and rounded
share. According to Matthew, the father of Joseph was called Jacob,
according to Luke his name was Heli;
See here for this and several that follow. We move to: (Matt.1:2-16; Luke
3:23-34) if Matthew is right, the angel
announced the miraculous conception to Joseph; if Luke is correct,
the annunciation was made to Mary;
See here for this one and several that follow. We go to: Mark assures us
that three days after his baptism Jesus was in the wilderness with
Satan; John explains that at that time he was attending a marriage
feast an Cana,
See here. (Mark 1:12, 13; John
2:1,2) if Matthew was well informed, the
Centurion came in person to Jesus and begged of him to heal his
servant; if Luke was not mistaken, the centurion did not come, but
sent the elders of the Jews;
See here. (Matt.
8:5,6,7; Luke 7:3) the first Gospel has it that
Jesus was met by two men coming out of the tombs; the second states
that he was met by only one;
See here (Matt. 8:28;
Mark 5:2) the first teaches that two blind men cried
out to him from the wayside; the third informs us that only one man
so addressed him.
Same principle applies as in prior link. (Matt.20:30; Luke
18:35-38)
The writers not only contradict each other, they contradict
themselves. Matthew makes Jesus say: "Let your light so shine before
men that they may see your good works." A little later, in the same
sermon, he puts into his mouth the very opposite -- "Take heed that
ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them."
See here (Matt.5:16; 6:1)
John avows that Christ said: "I and my Father are one."
Afterwards he makes him say: "My Father is greater than I"
See here for how both are true. (John 10:30; 14:28) John
also writes that Christ declared himself the judge of all men, and
later acknowledged that he judged no man.
See here.
(John 5:22; 8:15) Again, in John, Christ
affirms: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true,"
while in the same Gospel he proclaims: "Though I bear record of
myself, yet my record is true."
See here. (John 5:31;
8:14)
Who can understand these contradictions? Who can believe them
inspired? In the whole story of Christ, there is nothing certain,
clear and definite. He was all-powerful, and he was not. (Matt. 28:18; John 5:30)
Um, any conception that Matt. refers to the Risen Lord, chronologically before John 5:30 by quite a bit? He
came to bring peace on earth, and he did not.
See here, relevant portion. (Luke 2:14; Matt. 10:34) He favored
and condemned the use of the sword
See here. (Luke
22:36; Matt. 26: 52) He preached
non-resistance, and practiced open attack.
See here and here.
(Matt.5:39; John 2:15) He told men to
love their enemies, and advised them to hate their
friends.(Matt. 5:44; Luke
14:26)
See here. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, salvation
depends upon good works; in John it is the reward of faith.
No dichotomy. See here. (Matt. 6:14; Luke 6:35-37; John
3:36)
The accounts of the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Christ
were written by men who did not know the facts.
All of Gauvin's "issues" on the trial are addressed here. Matthew's simple
story of the arrest contradicts John's statement that the arresting
soldiers fell to the ground.
It does not "contradict"; it supplements. (Matthew
26:47-57; John 18:3-13) Matthew
says that in his trial before Pilate, Christ spoke
only two words -- "Thou sayest" -- and that Pilate marveled
at his not saying more; according to John, he made a speech to
Pilate.
Complementary -- two entirely different times in the trial process; the Jewish officials were not present at the latter. (Matt.27:11; John 18:34,
36,
He was crucified
at the third hour, if Mark was not mistaken; at the sixth hour, if
Luke was well informed.
See here. (Mark 15:25; Luke
23:44) Mark declares that he was reviled by the two
thieves crucified with him; Luke says that one thief -railed on him
and was rebuked by the other, who acknowledged Christ's innocence
and also his divinity.
Once again, complementary, not contradictory. Again be reminded of the principles cited in this series. (Mark 15:32; Luke
23:39-43)
Matthew says they gave him to drink "vinegar mingled with
gall;" Mark says it was "wine mingled with
myrrh."
See here. (Matt.27:34; Mark
15:23) According to John, he was crucified before
the Passover; the other Gospels say it was after the Passover.
See link above on time of crucifixion. (John 19:14;
Matt.26:17-29) If John is correct, he was
embalmed before he was buried; if Luke can be believed, he was not."
Gauvin said this elsewhere too. (John 19:39,40; Luke
23:52-56)
How many women came to the sepulcher? John says one; Matthew
two; Mark three; and Luke at least five.
This and several that follow are answered here and are just the same thing Gauvin used before and we addressed, so no need to repeat it here. We go to:
(John 20:1; Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke
24:10)
According to Luke, Christ ascended into heaven with his
human body; yet Paul asserts that "flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God."
Gauvin has no conception of Jewish idiom -- see here. (Luke
24:39, 42, 43, 50, 51; I Cor. 15:50) Luke
makes the ascension occur in the evening of the day of the
resurrection; the Book of Acts explains that forty days after
this Christ had not yet ascended. And Matthew, who knows
nothing of the upward flight, quotes from Christ the following
words that deny the ascension altogether: "Lo I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world."
This is a repeat from the other essay, except the last part, for which, it natrually eludes Gauvin that this is said by a being who identified himself with spiritual, omnipresent Wisdom. Gauvin closes with several paragraphs of heave-ho about how nasty the Bible is and how wonderful freethought is. We'll spare the reader the false advertising.