Paine "Chapter II" Paul the Apostle

 

Mr. Paine continues in Chapter II spending considerable time and space in his work "The Age of Reason" raging against the four Gospels. I use the word raging because it seems most fitting for his mode of writing upon this subject. I am going to reframe from responding in detail to all his accusations and arguments as they are most petty and unsubstantiated. His work is online and you can go and read it for yourself. If I attempted a comprehensive response to every accusation he presented it would consume me and my blog to no end. 

As he continued he again, as his manner was, asserting the authors of the Gospels could not be those they were assigned to. He based this argument among other things upon a late date given for their authorship, stating they were written sometime in the 4th century some 300 years after the event. 

However, the fact is we have fragments of papyrus, one of which is P52 from the book of John Chapter 18 that is dated in the latter part of the first or early second century. It is old enough to possibly be a copy of an original manuscript. When translated it reads the same as our modern English translations nearly 2,000 years later. This along with many other textual facts renders his arguments absurd. 

He then continues with much effort pointing to different wording presented in the differents Gospels concerning the events recorded in each. All of which is meaningless, for one would expect different accounts by different witnesses to vary in what they recorded, added to that the thousands of copies of text we have to draw from would naturally render some varients. So nothing he offers concerning the Gospels warrants any effort to address any further.

As he moves into the Epistles we are again amazed at his rich imagination, for concerning the Apostle Paul and his vision during the trip to Damascus he states, ". . . that is more than many others have done, who have been struck with lightning; and that he should lose his sight for three days, and be unable to eat or drink during that time, is nothing more than is common in such conditions." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason) This he offered purely out of his imagination, for there is nothing in the text that would suggest such a surmising.

I present this next quote simply for amusement purposes, "The doctrine he [Paul] sets out to prove by argument, is the resurrection of the same body: and he advances this as an evidence of immortality. But so much will men differ in their manner of thinking, and in their conclusions, they draw from the same premises, that this doctrine of the resurrection of the same body, so far from being an evidence of immortality, appears to me to be an evidence against it; for if I have already died in this body, and am raised again in the same body in which I have died, it is presumptive evidence that I shall die again. That resurrection no more secures me against the repetition of dying, than an ague-fit, when past, secures me against another. To believe therefore in immortality, I must have a more elevated idea than is contained in the gloomy doctrine of the resurrection." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason). 

I was going to cease with the amusement, but I must continue for at least one more quote. After the foolishness related above, he makes the following statement which leaves one wondering what this has to do with his objective?

"Every animal in the creation excels us in something. The winged insects, without mentioning doves or eagles, can pass over more space with greater ease in a few minutes than man can in an hour. The glide of the smallest fish, in proportion to its bulk, exceeds us in motion almost beyond comparison, and without weariness. Even the sluggish snail can ascend from the bottom of a dungeon, where man, by the want of that ability, would perish; and a spider can launch itself from the top, as a playful amusement. The personal powers of man are so limited, and his heavy frame so little constructed to extensive enjoyment, that there is nothing to induce us to wish the opinion of Paul to be true. It is too little for the magnitude of the scene, too mean for the sublimity of the subject." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason).

I would comment further, but I will leave the foolishness of his reasoning stand for its self. However, since it is Paul he was maligning, I will let Paul answer his foolishness. 

1 Corinthians 15:35-58 ESV

(35)  But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”

(36)  You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

(37)  And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.

(38)  But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.

(39)  For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.

(40)  There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.

(41)  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

(42)  So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

(43)  It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.

(44)  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

(45)  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

(46)  But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

(47)  The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

(48)  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

(49)  Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

(50)  I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

(51)  Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

(52)  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

(53)  For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

(54)  When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

(55)  “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”

(56)  The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

(57)  But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

(58)  Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

May the Grace of God be with each of you,

David

Paine "Chapter II" The Genealogies

 

Mr. Paine begins his overview of the New Testament retelling the story of the incarnation of Christ in an obscene fashion, with the use of his imagination making his jest concerning a ghost and the impregnation of Mary, then a lude reference to Joseph as doing the same. It is difficult to read such a maligning of the sacred text. For that purpose, I will reframe from reposting it here. He then moves on with his argument.

"The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might nevertheless be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. . . .The book of Matthew gives (i. 6), a genealogy by name from David, up, through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and makes there to be twenty-eight generations. The book of Luke gives also a genealogy by name from Christ, through Joseph the husband of Mary, down to David, and makes there to be forty-three generations; besides which, there is only the two names of David and Joseph that are alike in the two lists." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

His argument here is, of course, the two lists do not agree. His assertion, therefore, is neither book can be trusted in any further details for they both begin with a bogus genealogy. I am not sure if Mr. Paine was scripturally ignorant or purposely presented the list in a deception to mislead. 

Matthew, as a Levite, focuses on the Messiahship of Jesus in that he traces the legal line from Abraham through David, then Solomon and the royal line, to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17) and the husband of Mary. 

Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus. He traces the bloodline from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham the genealogy is identical to Matthew’s up to the House of David. Then Luke goes from David through Nathan (a different son of David) to Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38). The reason Mr. Paine was seeing two lists with different names is that there are two lists. Each follows a different line until they merge at Abraham and then diverge again at David.

Mr. Paine in his overview of the Book of Ruth or I should say in his imaginary retelling of Ruth again using his lude assertions overlooks the implications that are relevant here in this text. Why was Jesus born in Bethlehem? The Book of Ruth is especially important because it answers that question. Bethlehem was established as the “House of David” because of the events in the Book of Ruth. That designation had implications for Joseph and Mary when Caesar Augustus ordered a special tax to be levied. It is beyond our minds to comprehend the working of God's providence in the accomplishing of all these things.

And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. (Luke 2:3-5) Bethlehem is where the shepherds were in their fields on that momentous night:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. - (Luke 2:8-9) It is even possible that those fields were the fields of Boaz and Ruth, so even their fields could have played a part in the birth of Christ.

Let's remember Mr. Paine's overview of Ruth, "I come to the book of Ruth, an idle, bungling story, foolishly told, nobody knows by whom, about a strolling country-girl creeping silly to bed to her cousin Boaz. Pretty stuff indeed to be called the word of God." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

 Mr. Paine who was so infatuated with the truth seems to have no problem when embellishing the Scriptures with his imagination. The truth is, Ruth is the ultimate love story in many ways. It is studied in some college classes just as an elegant piece of literature even when set apart from its supernatural origin. And the literary level is much respected. However, at the prophetic and personal levels, it can have a profound impact on every one of us.

It profiles the role of the kinsman-redeemer and it can often be difficult to comprehend that you and I are the beneficiaries of a love story that was written in blood on a wooden cross erected in Judea some 2,000 years ago. However, knowing the story of Ruth and it's ramifications, brings the sacrifice of Jesus, our Kinsman-Redeemer, into sharper focus.

In Ruth, we have this interesting case where a Gentile daughter-in-law, after the death of her husband, insists upon clinging to her Jewish mother-in-law. Numerous events occur prior to a famous scene on the threshing floor where Ruth makes the request of Boaz, a rich land owner, to take her as his bride. It is here in this account we can see the acceptance of the Gentiles into the Kingdom through Christ. Yes, it is by pure grace that Christ receives us unto himself making us his own. We do not earn this, but simply by trusting him, we are delivered and brought to serve him throughout the rest of our lives. Mr. Paine in his work in "The Age of Reason" was totally blind to the obvious hope that was before him.

May God bless each of you,

David