A Response to Carrell
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:33:38 -0800 (00882254018, 2.2.32.19971216003338.00695c34@midwest.net)
Dear friends:
We have been asked not to send this correspondence to foreign addresses where
the e-mail connection is expensive. This would apply to addresses in
Donetsk.ua specifically, and perhaps in some other places. We do not want to
place an unsolicited burden on our friends there, nor to anyone else who is
finding this exchange too voluminous for them to receive -- (slow modems and
the like) -- or just lack of interest. If you respond to any post, be sure to
make the necessary deletions in the address list.
And BTW, Mr. Till, you've got my e-mail address on your list twice. Maybe
that's my fault, really. I realize you want to make sure I get it, but enough
is too much. (^v^)
Farrell asked me to send him a copy of my "previous post". I might point out
that after clearly implying that I had lied about it, that I had never sent
such a post at all, he magnanimously allowed me "the benefit of the doubt" .
That is why I emphasized my response to it. He has also implied that I have
accused him of lying. I didn't, but such accusations can be of no value in
such a discussion, so I suggest we all just stick to what is written.
Here is the "previous post": Please pardon our spelling errors, Till's and
mine. (All of them came to light when I ran this through a spell checker.
Handy little piece of free software. You on AOL might look into it at keyword
BPS.)
Subj: Re: accepted canon
Date: 05/04/96
To: errancy@atheist.tamu.edu
May I respond to the following paragraph:
(Quoting Till):
>>Myself, I am convinced that there are obvious discrepencies (sic) in
the bible, discrepencies (sic) that cannot be resolved, regardless of
what symbolical language is used.
(Reference to helicopters in Revelation snipped -- not relevant.)
<<
(First sentence of my response snipped -- helicopters in Revelation again.)
But I take exception to the statement
that the accounts of what happened the morning of Christ's
resurrection are contradictory.
>> May I briefly state what I believe the scenerio (sic) MIGHT have been
and which makes everything fit together perfectly. Matt 28:1ff
says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the
sepulchre as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.
The other gospels mention other women. The fact that they
aren't mentioned by Matthew is not a contradiction. In relating
any event it is natural to include or exclude whatever fits in
with one's purpose. And it is well known that the Bible writers
were very brief. Many things were happening simultaneously, and
the writers did not choose to use the "Meanwhile, back at the
ranch...." formula!
The women probably did not see the angel roll back the stone.
They only saw that it had already been rolled back. Nor did the
guards see Christ depart from the tomb. The stone was rolled
back to show that they tomb was ALREADY empty. When the women
got there they saw the angel who was now inside the tomb. (Mark
16:5) Luke says there were two angels. Again, no contradiction.
One apparently acted as spokesman, and Mark mentions him only,
saying that he sent them to inform his disciples that he had
risen.
However, Mary had already departed as soon as she saw the stone
rolled back, assuming that the grave had been opened, possibly
by the Jews or by the Romans. John says that when Mary saw that
the stone was rolled away she ran off to inform the disciples.
She was not with the other women who met the angel(s). Nor was
she with them on the road back when they saw Jesus. She only
knew or rather assumed that "They have taken away the Lord out
of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."
Peter and John now run to the sepulchre with Mary following at a
slower pace behind them. The disciples saw the linen clothes
lying, possibly as if the body of Jesus had simply disappeared,
leaving the clothes to fall where they were. Again, when the
angel rolled back the stone, the Roman guards saw nothing. John
believed from what he saw, although he did not yet understand
fully about the resurrection.
Now Peter and John depart. Mary, probably exhausted from all
the running, now arrives at the tomb, and is there alone. The
other women have already departed, but have not yet seen the
risen Christ. "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of
the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." (Mark 16:9)
Personally I think that the scene where he showed himself to her
is one of the most touching in the whole Bible!
"But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she
wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth
two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other
at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." (John 20:11f)
This is reminiscent of the two carved angels on the Mercy Seat
in the ancient Jewish tabernacle. Indeed they were symbolically
viewing God's mercy, now fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ on
the cross.
But Mary was so distraught that she was not even surprised at
seeing the two angels. Only when the Lord himself appeared to
her did her deep sorrow change to the wildest joy. And this was
his first appearance. He did not allow her to waste time by
touching or embracing him, knowing that it was important that
the others be informed, and so she departed with wings on her
feet!
After this the Lord appeared to the other women and sent them
also to inform his disciples. Thus everything works together
perfectly.
The other appearances, 10 in all, I believe, can be easily
reconciled. Paul makes a point of saying that he was seen by
more than 500 brethren at one time, and that most of them were
alive when Paul wrote. (I Cor. 15:6) Thus it was no
hallucination. Nor was it a myth, as is so often said. It is
true, or it is a lie, but not a myth.
If you would like to respond to this, I would appreciate it if
you would email me directly. I am not on this board. I did
subscribe briefly, but the volume of mail is too much to handle. <<
theoflus@aol.com
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net