A Response to Carrell
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:42:45 -0800 (00882330165, 2.2.32.19971216214245.00687070@midwest.net)
At 04:33 PM 12/15/97 -0800, Farrell Till wrote:
>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.
<snip>
TILL
This message appeared on the list as if it had been sent by Farrell Till
(jftill@midwest.com>. I did not send it. It originated with Bill Carrell,
who has assured me that he did not try to make the message appear as if I
had sent it.
He informed me that he doesn't even know how to do this, so how it happened
is a mystery to both of us.
I have informed Carrell that his message above didn't need to be sent to the
Errancy list because in forwarding his resurrection postings and responses
to Errancy, I have always stripped away the long list of cc names that are
on the list where this thread originated. At any rate, I will be responding
later to the part of Carrell's posting that I have snipped. Look for it
under the title of "Switching Horses in Midstream."
>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
>
>
>
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net