Jesus!

[justbyfaith]

It is a story by Stephen Vincent Benet. I read it in school, sixty years ago. If I remember right, the Devil has the soul of one of Webster's constituents, and Webster tricks Satan to retrieve the soul.

Here's a text.

The Devil and Daniel Webster

What a horrid, ironic ending!

 

[brakelite]

Lol. I was wondering about that. Could we add Louis Lamour VB and/or Wilbur Smith?

 

[Oddawll2]

What a horrid, ironic ending!

I don't remember my reaction when I originally read the story.

Seems to me, the story can have one of two endings. Either the jury finds for Webster's client or it doesn't.

If the jury finds for the client, that implies that forgiveness is possible.

If the jury finds for the stranger, that implies the impossibility of forgiveness, and we are are damned.

Benet picked the optimistic option.

 

[Oddawll2]

Lol. I was wondering about that. Could we add Louis Lamour VB and/or Wilbur Smith?

They get my vote, and maybe J K Rowling. Now if we can convince Harold Bloom . . .

 

[justbyfaith]

I don't remember my reaction when I originally read the story.

Seems to me, the story can have one of two endings. Either the jury finds for Webster's client or it doesn't.

If the jury finds for the client, that implies that forgiveness is possible.

If the jury finds for the stranger, that implies the impossibility of forgiveness, and we are are damned.

Benet picked the optimistic option.

You missed the part where Daniel Webster opened up the door for the opportunity for Scratch to come and do with him what he had done with Jacob Stone. That is the ironic twist at the end.

 

[Oddawll2]

Greeting Oddawll2 and welcome to this forum. And welcome also to the family of God. It is wonderful that you are reading the Bible in a manner and with a motive to cover truth, rather than as an exercise to discredit or malign.... That of itself is sufficient evidence of your genuine conversion.
Now at the risk of raising the ire of other members here who may disagree, I would like to propose one or three basic principles that may help you to understand the scriptures, at least in the basics. No-one expects you to earn a doctorate in divinity... Ever... so don't sweat not getting it.
First point. The Bible is not word inspired. There are some minor discrepancies between the eye witness accounts we read of Jesus life in the gospels... Which is to be expected because you have different people seeing the same things but from different perspectives. This is all in God's order in order that we may gain greater insight into the events thus described. Police love this when presenting a case. 10 witnesses giving exactly the same evidence creates suspicion of collusion... so slight differences in the gospels give more credence to their validity and truthfulness. So, not word inspired, but most assuredly thought inspired. Inspired by the holy Spirit the writers of scripture, including the prophets of the Old testament, wrote in their own words the thoughts and principles that God revealed to them.
Secondly, about the Trinity. The Trinity, as a word, is not found in scripture. Scripture uses the word Godhead... Which is my preference. God is God. He is unexplainable, except in those areas He has been pleased to reveal. What we know is what we are told. When people attempt to explain the term Trinity, they invariably need to use expressions and concepts that are not found in the Bible. To my mind, if a concept itself in unexplainable, and those promoting it cannot adequately explain it in a way any else can understand, it is best left alone.
What we are told, in its most basic fundamental form is adequate. That God is a Father. That Jesus is His Son. God says Jesus is worthy of worship... Obviously because of His Sonship. The holy Spirit is described in the scripture as being the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Jesus, sometimes in the same sentence. The scripture also says Jesus was the vessel through Whom God the Father created all things... Therefore the Sonship of Jesus goes back to a time before creation. We are not told how long. Nor are we told the Son is as old as the Father as the Trinity attempts to teach us. A Son the same age as His Father is simply not logical. And God is logical, and has described his identity in ways that are logical and in harmony with our admittedly finite minds. It is dangerous to go beyond that. I could go a little deeper, but the above I think is sufficient to give you somewhat of a broader perspective of what you are getting yourself into. The Trinity, despite the creeds etc that demand it is a doctrine all Christians must accept to avoid being labelled heretics or non Christians, is an essence an assumed doctrine. Assumed doctrines should never be doctrines.

For a good example of how different witnesses tell the tale in different ways, we might compare the descriptions of the women (or woman) who went to the Tomb after Jesus’ burial

Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, a woman named Joanna, and the others.

In Mark at least three women go to the tomb. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and a woman named Salome.

Matthew only mentions two women, Mary Magdalene and a woman described as the other Mary, who must have been the mother of a James.

John only mentions Mary Magdalene.

 

[Deborah_]

Democracy in action.

Not democracy but mob rule

John only mentions Mary Magdalene.

Yet have you noticed that Mary Magdalene uses the word "we" when reporting her/their discovery? (John 20:2)

 

[Oddawll2]

Not democracy but mob rule



Yet have you noticed that Mary Magdalene uses the word "we" when reporting her/their discovery? (John 20:2)

Do you know anything more about the women, Joanna, Mary, and Salome?

 

[Deborah_]

Do you know anything more about the women, Joanna, Mary, and Salome?

Joanna was married to a man who worked for King Herod (Luke 8:3)
Mary was "the mother of James the younger and Joseph" (Mark 15:40)
I don't think we know anything more for certain about Salome, but she may have been the wife of Zebedee and the mother of Jesus' disciples James and John.

This article just about sums it up:

Who Were the Women at the Empty Tomb?

 

[justbyfaith]

The fact that Mary the mother of Jesus was the mother of Joses and Joseph, and that there is a Mary mentioned who is the mother of Joseph and Joses who is not said to be the mother of Jesus, may be the Holy Spirit's hint that He doesn't want us focusing on Mary being the mother of Jesus, in that He identified her as the mother of Joses and Joseph in the account of them appearing at the tomb, and elsewhere tells us that Mary the mother of Jesus has sons named Joseph and Joses. In other words, it is the same Mary, but in the account in question, the Holy Spirit does not identify her as the mother of Jesus; perhaps to let us know that He doesn't want Mary to be our focus! That it is inconsequential that she is the mother of Jesus, and therefore doesn't bear mentioning! She is even identified as the mother of Joseph and Joses, and not as the mother of Jesus.

 

[bbyrd009]

Joanna was married to a man who worked for King Herod (Luke 8:3)
Mary was "the mother of James the younger and Joseph" (Mark 15:40)
I don't think we know anything more for certain about Salome, but she may have been the wife of Zebedee and the mother of Jesus' disciples James and John.

This article just about sums it up:

Who Were the Women at the Empty Tomb?

"For example, is John 19:25 about three women or four?"

or even two, i'll have to dig it up later though sorry; it's @ Abarim though

 

[101G]

Joanna was married to a man who worked for King Herod (Luke 8:3)
Mary was "the mother of James the younger and Joseph" (Mark 15:40)
I don't think we know anything more for certain about Salome, but she may have been the wife of Zebedee and the mother of Jesus' disciples James and John.

This article just about sums it up:

Who Were the Women at the Empty Tomb?

Not saying that you are right or wrong, nor the article. but consider this.
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

this vere clearly tells us that Salome was Mary's daughter. as well as these two verse,
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

these verses correspond exactly with, Ps 38:11 My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off.

now here's the consideration to make. #1. "the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons", why she is never identified as "The WIFE" of Zebedee.
Matt 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

the verse say "with" her sons. ok now consider this,
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

do one see it now?.

 

[Oddawll2]

So, the Gospels more or less agree that a group of women went to the tomb on Sunday (the first day of the week?).

Mark says that “they saw a young man dressed in a white robe.”

Matthew says that the women met an angel.

Luke says that the women met “two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning.”

John says that Mary Magdalene found an empty tomb, no mention of angels or men.

 

[justbyfaith]

So, the Gospels more or less agree that a group of women went to the tomb on Sunday (the first day of the week?).

Mark says that “they saw a young man dressed in a white robe.”

Matthew says that the women met an angel.

Luke says that the women met “two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning.”

John says that Mary Magdalene found an empty tomb, no mention of angels or men.

Actually, John also speaks of two angels, see John 20:12.

 

[Oddawll2]

Actually, John also speaks of two angels, see John 20:12.

Maybe same angel with a different permutation of events?

 

[justbyfaith]

define "permutation".

 

[Enoch111]

So, the Gospels more or less agree that a group of women went to the tomb on Sunday (the first day of the week?).
Mark says that “they saw a young man dressed in a white robe.”
Matthew says that the women met an angel.
Luke says that the women met “two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning.”
John says that Mary Magdalene found an empty tomb, no mention of angels or men.

If these observations are meant to suggest that the Gospels are contradicting each other, think again, then try to harmonize the accounts.

1. It was early in the morning of the first day of the week (what we call Sunday) "when the sabbath was past" (Mark) and all the Gospels agree.

2. However, John focuses on Mary Magdalene, Matthew on Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" (the mother of James), Mark adds Salome to the list, and Luke gives us the complete picture -- "they" meaning "the women also, which came with him from Galilee" (as stated in his previous chapter).

3. Matthew identifies the one angel (wearing a long white garment and radiating light) who rolled away the stone from the door, and Mark calls him a "young man" who was then found sitting. Luke indicates that a second angel joined him (shortly thereafter) to address all the women, and John says that these two angels spoke to Mary later on, after Peter and John had viewed the empty tomb and departed.

So to sum up:

1. Early in the morning on the first day of the week, all the women who had accompanied Jesus came with prepared sweet spices to anoint (embalm) Christ, presuming that His body was still in the tomb. Two angels (one of which had rolled away the stone) met them within the tomb and informed them that Christ was risen, and told them to go quickly to inform the other disciples.

2. All the women departed quickly as urged by the angels, but Mary Magdalene probably ran the fastest, although she informed Peter and John that Christ was MISSING (not risen) -- "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him", and returned with them to the tomb.

3. Peter and John also discovered that the tomb was empty, and believed that Christ was risen, then departed (presumably to inform the other disciples). However Mary Magdalene had still not believed that He was risen, and stood weeping outside, while thinking that someone had laid Christ somewhere else. Even though the angels had told her earlier (along with the other women) she had simply not believed up to that point, so Christ appeared to her and settled her doubts. But before He appeared those two angels came and asked Mary why she was weeping, and when she turned around she saw the Lord.

It is generally assumed that Mary Magdalene was the first to believe that Christ was risen, when actually she was the last among the women (just as Thomas was the last among the apostles).

 

[Deborah_]

Not saying that you are right or wrong, nor the article. but consider this.
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

this vere clearly tells us that Salome was Mary's daughter. as well as these two verse,
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

The English looks ambiguous here, but it's impossible for the Greek to mean that Salome was Mary's daughter ('Salome' would have to be in the genitive case).

The fact that Mary the mother of Jesus was the mother of Joses and Joseph, and that there is a Mary mentioned who is the mother of Joseph and Joses who is not said to be the mother of Jesus, may be the Holy Spirit's hint that He doesn't want us focusing on Mary being the mother of Jesus, in that He identified her as the mother of Joses and Joseph in the account of them appearing at the tomb, and elsewhere tells us that Mary the mother of Jesus has sons named Joseph and Joses. In other words, it is the same Mary, but in the account in question, the Holy Spirit does not identify her as the mother of Jesus; perhaps to let us know that He doesn't want Mary to be our focus! That it is inconsequential that she is the mother of Jesus, and therefore doesn't bear mentioning! She is even identified as the mother of Joseph and Joses, and not as the mother of Jesus.

But it was normal practice to use terms like these ("the mother of X"; "the mother of Y") to distinguish between different women of the same name - and there were hundreds of Marys in Palestine. (The names Joseph, James and Jesus were equally common)

 

[Oddawll2]

define "permutation".

Permutation = order of events.

8549 is a different permutation than 4689.

In the list of events:

The women go to the tomb,
find an empty tomb,
talk to an angle, and
decide what to do about it

that is a different permutation than

women go to the tomb,
find an empty tomb,
decide what to do about it, and
then talk to an angel.

 

[mjrhealth]

The NIV and the NASB are the primary ones that I am leary of. I have found that they are based on manuscripts that have certain inspired verses/phrases/passages missing from their pages...such as 1 John 5:7, the latter half of Mark 16, the beginning of John 8, the latter half of Romans 8:1, Jesus' words in Luke 9:55-56 is missing...and there are very likely many more things like this (I did not go on a vendetta against the versions to try and find every instance where the scriptures are missing...but these are the things I became aware of in my excursion into trusting these versions for a season and then returning to the kjv later).

the bible is the word of God how could it possibly have errors or miss translations. God forbid that Gods word be in error.