Quickies

Webers_Home · Aug 13, 2017

-
How The Critters Got To Noah

● Gen 6:3a . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever. Yet
his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But
people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years
afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood,
didn't die till he was 175 years old. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude
that God was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years
left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody?
Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of
Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the Flood came and
destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz:
reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears
forever.

● Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the
people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going
to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of
them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark

● Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the
earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life;
everything on earth shall perish.

● Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each
into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female. From
birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing on
earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.

Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers.
God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which
implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went
extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because
Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.

A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4
years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450
miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of
shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do,
but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was
plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time
for the Folly's maiden voyage.

If the ark were to launch in 2017, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1897-- six years before the Wright Brothers historical flight,
and fifteen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably reproduced
many times along the way since there are not all that many species that live
to see 120 years of age.

But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny
theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of
plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know
that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry
parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.

Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure
points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for
example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was
once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's
crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into
the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they
cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form
mountain ranges and hill country.

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter
forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the
waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the
sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys
sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a
boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover
the earth." (Ps 104:5-9)

That portion of Psalm 104 is probably speaking of Gen 1:9-10. It's handy for
showing that God is capable of molding the Earth's lithosphere into any
geological configuration He pleases to push sea beds up and form land
bridges; thus expediting migrations from all over the world over to Noah's
diggings.

This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old
stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the
surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the
Great Lakes region.

The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac.
Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters
hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that
hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down
the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.

The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley
Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor
connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.

Ten miles off the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico,
are the remains of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to
fourteen thousand years old; testifying that the earth's topography was
quite a bit different in the ancient past.

Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway,
although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at
various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were
smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the
Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough
indigenous water on it to cover the crust to a depth of 9,000 feet of water.
That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles deep.

Geological processes normally take thousands of years to accomplish, but
those processes can be sped up considerably by the cosmos' creator, who
has absolute control over everything-- not just the earth's geological
processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 14, 2017

-
The Fate Of Noah's Ark

● Gen 8:3b . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The precise topographic location, where the ark went aground, was not
really up on a specific mountain by the name of Ararat nor up on any other
mountain for that matter. The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is
haareey which is the plural of har (har). It doesn't always mean prominent
land masses like Everest or McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can
also mean a range of mountains like the Pyrenees bordering Spain and
France and/or a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where
Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.

"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of
Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke
1:39-40)

In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San
Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There
were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was
very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and
cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and
calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top
of one of its mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.

Another inhabited region in the continental U.S. that's elevated is the area of
Denver Colorado; which is located on the western edge of the Great Plains
near the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver is a whole mile above
sea level-- 5,280 feet. However, Denver, even though so high above sea
level, isn't located on the tippy top of a mountain, nor even on the side of
one; it's just located up on high ground.

The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire
planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain
peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?

When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early
1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour
guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area
is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because
they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down
off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor
timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would
hippos, elephants, and flightless birds.

The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears
three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38,
and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat is always the country of Armenia: never a
specific peak by the same name.

So; where is the ark now? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen
6:15, the ark was shaped like what the whiz kids call a right rectangular
prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box.
So most of the lumber and/or logs used in its construction would've been
nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together cabins, sheds, fences,
barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's very safe to assume Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the
ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires.
Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using
refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody
needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs.
There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 15, 2017

-
Eating Meat

● Gen 9:1-4 . . Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them: Be
fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you
will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon
every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the
sea; they are given into your hands.

. . . Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that
has its lifeblood still in it.

Blessings should never be construed as commandments and/or laws and
edicts. In other words: God gave Noah and his sons the green light to eat
meat, but He didn't say they had to.

● Rom 14:2-3 . . One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another
man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats
everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does
not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has
accepted him.

FYI: Prior to the Flood, humans were vegans. Afterwards; they were given
permission to become omnivorous. People are often curious about that.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.

That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old,
but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7
8). Well, Noah at 175 was about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human
body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in
Abraham's.

Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended
primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human
body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential
nutrients; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic
supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.

People subsisting on vegan diets, such as many of the people of India, often
eat lots of minute insect eggs along with their fruits and vegetables without
knowing it, thus providing themselves with a number of essential nutrients
that most everyone else obtains by deliberately eating animal products. It's
kind of humorous that in their care to avoid meat, the people of India end up
eating bugs.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 16, 2017

-
Abraham And Hagar

● Gen 21:10-12 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and
her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my
son Isaac.

The common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate
because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a
clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's
in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any
and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the
clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.

● Gen 21:14 . . Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin
of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then
sent her off with the boy.

The phrase "sent her off" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that speaks of divorce as well as the emancipation
of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed;
no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our
thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son
Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest son.

Later, when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; God referred to him as
the patriarch's only son.

● Gen 22:2 . .Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and
go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of
the mountains of which I will tell you.

● Gen 22:12 . . Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing
to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your
son, your only son, from Me.

Biologically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons (Gen
25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved
when the old boy emancipated Ishmael's mother; and I sincerely believe
that is precisely how Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, and Heb 11:17 ought to be
understood.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 17, 2017

-
Abraham And Ex Post Facto

● Deut 29:13-14 . . Not only with you am I making this covenant and this
oath, but with those standing here with us today before the Lord, our God,
and [also] with those who are not here with us, this day.

It's sincerely believed by some that the statement above serves to include
Abraham in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But the statement below
seems to exclude him.

● Deut 5:2-3 . .The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not
with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of
whom are here alive today.

I'm pretty sure that Abraham was excluded from the covenant. The reason I
feel that way is because God promised to curse whosoever curses Abraham.

● Gen 12:3 . . I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you
I will curse,

The problem is: Abraham was married to a half sister (Gen 20:12)

The covenant prohibits marrying, and/or sleeping with, one's half sister. (Lev
18:9, Lev 20:17).

Under the terms and conditions of the covenant; men who sleep with their
sisters are cursed the moment they do so because "cursed be he" is
grammatically present tense; no delay and no waiting period; viz: the curse
is immediate.

● Deut 27:22 . . Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter
or his mother's daughter.

● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this Torah,
to fulfill them.

Well; it seems to me that were God to slam Abraham with a curse for
sleeping with his sister, then God would be obligated to slam Himself with a
curse in return as per Gen 12:3.

Abraham enjoyed quite an advantage. He had a certain kind of immunity. In
other words, seeing as how Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
were instituted long after Abraham passed away; then none of the curses
listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 applied to him.

● Gal 3:17 . .The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the
covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

The "promise" in question reads like this:

"I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will
aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing. And I will bless those
who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families
of the earth shall be blessed in you." (Gen 12:2-3)

Additionally:

"And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings,
the entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them
for a god." (Gen 17:8)

Q: What about Genesis 26:4-5? doesn't that prove Abraham was included in
the covenant?

A: The passage in question reads like this:

"I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will
give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will
be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my
commands, my decrees and my laws."

Gen 26:4-5 reveals that the promises God made to Abraham as per Gen
12:2-3 and Gen 17:8 were not sustained by Abraham's piety; rather,
Abraham's piety up to that point deserved them. In other words: once God
made those promises, neither Abraham nor his posterity can ever lose them
because they are unconditional

● Gal 3:18 . . For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on
a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

That should be really good news to Abraham's posterity because although
the law has a marked effect upon their occupation of the land, it has no
effect upon their entitlement to it.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 18, 2017

-
Leaven

● Gen 19:3 . . Lot prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread,
and they ate.

The Hebrew word for "unleavened" is matstsah (mats-tsaw') which
essentially refers to an unfermented cake or loaf; in other words: bread
made with sweet dough rather than sour dough.

In this day and age of cultured yeast it's not easy to explain what the Bible
means by leavened and unleavened. Well; the primary difference between
the two terms isn't ingredients; rather, the primary difference is age; for
example:

"Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven" (1Cor 5:8)

If there is an old leaven, then there must be a new leaven; just as there is
an old wine and a new wine.

Old leaven can refer to a batch of dough that's going bad, i.e. fermenting;
which, given time, dough will do on its own without the addition of yeast
because all flour, no matter how carefully it's milled and packaged, contains
a percentage of naturally-occurring fungi. New leaven, then, would refer to a
time in the life of the dough before the flour's naturally-occurring fungi has
time to spoil the product; for example:

● Ex 12:34 . . So the people took their dough before it was leavened, with
their kneading bowls bound up in the clothes on their shoulders.

That gives an idea of how quickly God moved the people out of Egypt after
slaying all the firstborn. They had made unfermented bread for that night's
meal in accord with the law of the Passover instituted in the 12th chapter of
Exodus.

Anyway, point being; Lot served his guests fresh bread made with fresh
dough rather than with bread made with dough that's been sitting around for
a while. Bread made with sour dough is reasonably safe to eat, we know
that, so serving his guests bread made with aged dough wouldn't have been
a health issue. I like to think that Lot served his honored guests unleavened
bread as an act of courtesy rather than necessity. Giving people your best,
rather than your less than best, shows that you think highly of them.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 19, 2017

-
Who/What The Firstborn Is

● Col 1:15 . . He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation.

Christ wasn't even the one born first in the human family let alone the entire
creation so what gives here?

Well; firstborn is just as much a rank as it is a birth order; and though the
latter is set in biological concrete; the title, and it's advantages, are
transferable to a younger sibling; e.g. from Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) from
Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) and from Manasseh to Ephraim
(Gen 48:13-14). This situation can lead to some interesting ramifications;
for example:

● Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus
asked them a question; saying: What do you think about the Christ, whose
son is He? They said to Him: The son of David. He said to them: Then how
does David in the Spirit call Him "Lord" saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit
at My right hand until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet. If David then
calls Him "Lord" how is He his son?

Jesus referenced Psalm 110:1, where there are two distinct Hebrew words
for "lord". The first is yhvh, a name reserved exclusively for God. The second
is 'adown, which is a very common word in the Old Testament used to
simply indicate a superior. Sarah labeled Abraham her 'adown (Gen 18:12)
Rachel addressed her dad by 'adown (Gen 31:5) and Jacob addressed his
brother Esau by 'adown (Gen 33:8).

So then; Psalm 110:1 could be translated like this:

"Yhvh said unto my superior: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool."

Anybody who knew the Old Testament in Jesus' day knew good and well
from Ps 89:27 that David has no superiors but God because he holds the
rank of God's firstborn; viz: no king that you might name is David's superior
other than Yhvh: the king of all kings.

So Psalm 110:1 suggests that David's rank-- and subsequently its
advantages --as God's firstborn has been transferred to another man; and
seeing as how Jesus' opponents agreed that the other man is David's son,
then the position has been transferred not to one of David's siblings; but to
one of his own posterity; so that now David has to bow and scrape to one of
his own grandchildren, which up to that time was not only unheard of; but
just wasn't done.

● Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word

Well; no surprise there. This was something not only strange to their Jewish
way of thinking; but entirely new, yet there it was in black and white in their
own scriptures; and they had somehow failed to catch its significance until
Jesus drew their attention to it.

Now; here's something else that I'm 110% positive crossed the minds of
Jesus' learned opposition. To their way of thinking, David's position as God's
firstborn as per Ps 89:27 is irrevocable. Well; seeing as how there is no
intermediate rank sandwiched in between the firstborn position and the
paterfamilias position, that means David's son, about whom he spoke in Ps
110:1, is equal in rank to God; which is a blasphemous suggestion to say
the least. (chuckle) Those poor know-it-all Pharisees were utterly baffled
beyond words.

"Your throne O God is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the
scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated
wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy
more than your fellows." (Ps 45:6-7)

If that passage has been translated correctly, it says one of two things.
Either God is speaking to Himself, or He is speaking to a king of the Davidic
dynasty that has been promoted to a level of dignity and authority equal to
His own; which of course outranks David by a pretty large amount; and in
point of fact: is superior to the entire cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter,
and energy --no contest.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 20, 2017

-
David's Little Boy

Long story short: David breached the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy by
committing the capital crimes of premeditated murder and adultery (2Sam
11:1-2Sam 12:23). As bad as those two breaches are; what really rattled
heaven's cage was that David's conduct was an embarrassment.

● 2Sam 12:14a . . Because by this deed you have given occasion to the
enemies of The Lord to blaspheme,

What might the nature of that blasphemy be? Well behavior like David's
causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His
name. That's a very common form of blaspheme: it goes on all the time.
(e.g. Isa 62:5, Rom 2:24)

● 2Sam 12:14b-18 . . the child also that is born to you shall surely die . .
.The Lord struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was
very sick . . .Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.

How was that fair? Well; it wasn't meant to be fair to the boy; it was meant
to be fair to David. His little boy was just collateral damage.

● Ex 34:6-7 . . Then Yhvh passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed: Yhvh,
Yhvh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in
loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished: visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the
grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

It is apparently God's prerogative to get back at people by going after their
posterity and/or the people they govern.

There's a horrific example of collateral damage located at Num 16:25-34.
Another is the Flood. No doubt quite a few underage children drowned in
that event due to their parents' wickedness. The same happened to the
children in Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ham's punishment for humiliating
Noah was a curse upon his son Canaan, and during Moses' face-off with
Pharaoh, God moved against the man's firstborn son along with all those of
his subjects.

The grand-daddy of all collateral damages is everybody has to die because
the human race's progenitor disobeyed God in the very beginning. (Rom
5:12-18)

Interesting isn't it? There are times when Heaven's anger seems to come out
of the blue; but if truth be known; sometimes it actually comes out of the
past; for example:

● 2Sam 21:1 . . Now there was a famine in the days of David for three
years, year after year; and David sought the presence of the Lord. And the
Lord said: It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites
to death.

Joshua agreed to a non-aggression pact with the Gibeonites during the
conquest of Canaan (Josh 9:3-16). Saul, when king, dishonored the pact. He
apparently got away with it; but not his countrymen, no; God slammed them
for what Saul did; and that posthumously.

Moral of the story: The sins of today, jeopardize the lives of tomorrow; and
sometimes those lives are very large in number.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 21, 2017

-
The Meaning Of "Under The Law"

● Rom 6:14 . . Sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not
under the law but under grace.

The apostle Paul was a well-trained Jew (Acts 22:3, Php 3:5). He and his
fellow Pharisees generally understood the law as that of Moses', a.k.a. the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The important thing to note about the covenant is that it's a legally binding
contract. So then the term "under the law" refers to contractual obligations.

Seeing as how Christ's followers are not contracted with God to comply with
the Jews' covenant, then neither is God contractually obligated to penalize
Christ's followers for breaching it.

God has to lower the boom on Yhvh's people with any and/or all of the
curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 for
breaching the covenant, but He doesn't have to lower the boom on Christ's
followers with those curses because He isn't contracted with them to do so.
This is a very important aspect of Christianity.

In a nutshell: where there is no contract, there is no contract to breach; and
where there is no law, there is no law to break; and where there is no law to
break, there are no indictments. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

This principle applies in a really big way to people who have undergone the
baptism described at Rom 6:3-11 because it essentially means that they
cannot be sent to hell for breaking the Ten Commandments, or any of the
other covenanted commandments for that matter.

● Luke 2:8-11 . . And in the same region there were some shepherds staying
out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel
of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone
around them; and they were terribly frightened.

. . . And the angel said to them: Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you
good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the
city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Well; I have to say that if people's path to heaven incorporates compliance
with the Ten Commandments, then their religion contains no good news at
all, nor do they have any reason to be joyful; rather, they have plenty of
cause for anxiety.

● Gal 3:10 . . All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is
written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written
in the book of the law. (cf. Deut 27;26)

/

Webers_Home · Aug 22, 2017

-
Who/What The Schoolmaster Is

● Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that w
might be acquitted by faith.

The koiné Greek word for "schoolmaster" is paidagogos (pahee-dag-o-gos')
which defines not a headmaster, nor a teacher, nor a tutor. It essentially
defines a servant whose responsibility it was to their master's children to
school. In other words: a sort of chaperone who made sure the kids got
there; even if the servant had to take them by the hand to do it.

The "law" to which the writer refers is the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Although Gentiles aren't contracted with God to comply with the covenant,
it's useful for revealing God's feelings about certain kinds of behavior; for
example:

● Lev 19:11 . . You shall not deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

Once a Gentile is made aware that their maker disapproves of dishonesty,
henceforth they get in hot water every time they lie because God is lenient
with uninformed liars but has little patience with scofflaws.

● Num 15:30-31 . .The person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly
reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His
commandment, that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.

So; what might "cut off" amount to? Well; for one: no liar will be allowed
entrance to the holy city.

● Rev 21:27 . . No one who practices lying shall ever come into it

● Rev 22:14-15 . . Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they
may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into
the city. But outside are whoever loves and practices a lie.

The law's task then; is to instill fear in dishonesty, and make liars aware that
if they opt to take their chances, and stand before God to be judged on their
own merits; that they haven't the slightest, slimmest possibility of coming
away unscathed. It's a 110% forgone conclusion that they will come away
dead.

● Rev 21:8 . . All liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire
and brimstone, which is the second death.

I am willing to bet that nobody can get through the day without dishonesty--
we need dishonesty, we have to have dishonesty or interactions with our
friends, with strangers, with associates, with superiors and loved ones would
be very strained indeed. It is just humanly impossible to be honest all the
time. I would even go so far as to say that in the world in which we live; it's
not smart to be 110% honest all the time; viz: "Honesty is the best policy"
just isn't true; not in the world we live in anyway; which is a bit of a catch
22.

Q: Why does everyone find it so easy to lie?

A: Because human beings are natural-born liars.

● Ps 58:3 . . The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies
go astray from birth.

That's an interesting statement. It's saying-- in so many words --that
although infants are too young to lie; they are born with a proclivity to lie,
and that's what makes them wicked because that proclivity to lie is in them
and will eventually have its way with them.

Q: How are people supposed to obey that commandment seeing as how
we're all natural-born liars?

A: Nobody can, it's impossible.

● Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Well; the Schoolmaster's goal is not just to frighten liars and make them
nervous; but also to show them the God-given way out of their predicament.

● Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be acquitted by faith.

The cross' first and foremost purpose was to satisfy justice for all kinds of
sin, including dishonesty. That right there should make liars breathe a little
easier in respect to the sum of all fears.

● 1John 2:1-2 . . If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous; and he himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not
for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

● Isa 53:6 . . All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

FYI: The June 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine contains a very
interesting article titled: Why We Lie. There's actually been studies done
about this.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 23, 2017

-
The Sin Nature

I have yet to encounter the term "sin nature" in the New Testament. I
suspect somebody coined it as a substitute for the flesh that Paul often
spoke of in his letters.

● Rom 8:8 . .They that are in the flesh cannot please God.

The koiné Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically indicates the
meaty parts of either man or beast. The meat of the human body would of
course include the 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within
humanity's bony little skulls sufficing for a mind; and it's not all that difficult
to tamper with a brain and make its owner quite mindless.

The meaty parts of the human body are the source of a human being's
human nature and it isn't all that difficult to define. Webster's says its (1)
the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are common to most people,
and (2) the nature of humans; especially the fundamental dispositions and
traits of humans.

Ironically, when God finished assembling the cosmos with its various forms
of life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good; but "very"
good. In other words, God was satisfied that the human body came out just
exactly as He designed it to come out; but it didn't stay that way.

When people do something contrary to their better judgment; it's very
common to hear them complain "I don't know what came over me." Well;
the thing that came over them was their own body exerting its fundamental
dispositions and traits; viz: the human body literally has a mind of its own; it
constantly, and perpetually, competes with its host for control of their
thoughts, their speech, and their conduct, and more often than not wins.

When I was a growing boy my dad was always telling me that I was my own
worst enemy. I think that maybe the apostle Paul would have agreed with
my dad because he too was his own worst enemy.

● Rom 7:18 . . For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good
thing

● Rom 7:24 . .What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this
body of death?

/

Webers_Home · Aug 24, 2017

-
Eternal Life

Eternal life is often mistaken for immortality. The two are not the same.

Immortality is a material kind of life that has to do with a superhuman body
impervious to age, death, and putrefaction.

Eternal life, on the other hand, isn't a material kind of life; it's a spirit kind of
life; which is why it's possible for people to obtain eternal life before they
obtain immortality.

For example: Christ had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26, 1John
1:1-2) but according to Rom 6:9 and Rev 1:18, he didn't obtain immortality
till he rose from the dead.

Likewise Christ's believing followers have eternal life while they're here
(John 5:24) but according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:51-53, they won't
obtain immortality until their resurrections.

So then; I think we can safely conclude that immortality is something that
can be seen, while eternal life is something that cannot be seen.

The properties of eternal life are a little easier to understand when
juxtaposed with human life.

Human life's primary characteristic is human nature; roughly defined as the
fundamental dispositions and traits of the human being.

Eternal life's primary characteristic is divine nature, roughly defined as the
fundamental dispositions and traits of the supreme being.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 25, 2017

-
The Brazen Serpent

● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have
eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story
short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the time at every
meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine
benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational;
angrily demanding tastier food.

In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; Yhvh
sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking
people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.

After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged
Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image
of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying
from venom could look to the image for relief.

The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the
people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church
attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not
the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday
school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments,
not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The image was it; nothing
else would suffice to save their lives.

In other words then: Christ's crucifixion for the sins of the world is the only
God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when people accept it, then
according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify for a transfer from
death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion for the sins of the worlds as
the only God-given rescue from the sum of all fears are already on the docket
to face it.

● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does
not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the
name of God's one and only Son.

His son's "name" in this case is relative to the fiery serpent incident.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 26, 2017

-
When People Obtain Eternal Life

In the passages below, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verbs.
They're in the present tense; not future, indicating that believers have
eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.

● John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life

● John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

● John 5:24 . .I assure you, those who heed my message, and trust in God
who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins,
but they have already passed from Death into Life.

● 1John 5:13 . .I write these things to you who believe in the name of the
Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's
testimony, as an expert witness; people currently lacking eternal life are also
lacking His son; i.e. they are currently quite christless.

● 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal
life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and
whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.

I should think that it goes without saying that christless Christians are in
grave danger of the sum of all fears.

● Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

How many christless Christians are there? Well; for starters: Roman
Catholicism-- known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the
world --currently consists of approximately 1.226 billion followers who all, to
a man, including the Pope, insist that no one obtains eternal life before they
die and cross over to the other side.

That can mean but one thing, and one thing only: seeing as how those
1.226 billion souls are currently lacking eternal life, then according to God's
expert testimony they are currently quite christless. And you can safely
apply that rule to any, and all, denominations insisting that nobody obtains
eternal life before they die and cross over to the other side.

It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain

FYI: Failure to accept God's testimony is all the same as insinuating that He's
a person on marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth.
(1John 5:9-10)

/

Webers_Home · Aug 27, 2017

-
How Christ Is Related To Adam

I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a
virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. Well;
that all depends on how we go about defining "father".

According to the book of Genesis; God created Adam's flesh from the earth's
dust. Not so Eve.

She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's
side. Thus Eve's flesh wasn't the flesh of a second species of h.sapiens. Her
flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's except for
gender. In other words: Eve was the flip side of the same biological coin. In
point of fact, the Bible refers to Eve as Adam just as it refers to Adam as
Adam. (Gen 5:22)

From that point on; any human flesh biologically produced from Eve's flesh--
whether virgin conceived or naturally conceived --would be biologically just
as much Adam's flesh as Adam's because the source of its mother's flesh
was Adam's flesh.

So then; unless somebody can prove-- clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity; air tight and iron clad-- that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't
biologically related to either Adam or Eve; then we are forced to conclude
that Adam was the first in Jesus Christ's long line of biological
fathers.

NOTE: It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y
chromosome necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they
usually can't. However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman
from a sample of man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more
difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of
woman flesh. And seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh,
then any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would
be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was actually his.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 28, 2017

-
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin

Some folk posit that Mary was, in some manner, a sort of surrogate mother,
i.e. Jesus' embryo was an implant. Others sincerely believe that Mary's baby
was an alternate species of human life totally unrelated to her own, i.e.
another Adam, so to speak; basing their posit on 1Cor 15:45.

But the Bible testifies that Jesus Christ was Mary's honest to gosh, bona fide
biological human progeny.

Q: How can you be so sure that Jesus Christ was produced from his mother's
human egg, viz: her ovum?

A: Not only the Bible; but also the science of Biology bears that out.

Christ is stated to be born of David's seed.

● Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine
own heart, which shall fulfill all my will". Of this man's seed hath God,
according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper'
mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their
genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e.
biological seed rather than spiritual seed.

Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's flesh, one of his biological
descendants had to be involved. So then, seeing as how Jesus was virgin
conceived, then his mother became the default progenitor, i.e. Mary was one
of David's granddaughters.

● Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God
will give him the throne of his father David

An implanted embryo isn't really a conceived embryo. Conception took place
in a woman's womb back in those days when her own ovum was involved in
the process.

NOTE: In following the kings of the Davidic dynasty in the Old Testament,
it's readily apparent that many of the names of the monarchs are associated
with their mothers' names. There's a number of theories as to why that is,
but the one that satisfies me most is that by naming the mothers of David's
successors, it proves that they were 100% normal human beings rather than
alien beings; which, in my mind at least, makes Luke 1:31 an extremely
important piece of information.

● Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah

Well; it's clear enough to me, yes, but there are some folk who would
contest Christ's biological origin.

Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny; then wouldn't his
mom have passed the guilt of Adam's sin to him?

A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's posterity--
regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for tasting
the forbidden fruit.

Note the grammatical tense of the passage below; it's past tense; indicating
that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity
(which included Eve seeing as she came into being via the organic tissues of
his own body) became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of
his family yet to be born.

● Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

● Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were
made sinners.

Well; the trick is: though Adam's disobedience made his posterity sinners; it
didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking
about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about joint
principals in Adam's act of disobedience.

The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to
clear his sin off the books seeing as how life's end is the proper satisfaction
of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his
posterity's own personal sins is another matter.

Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in Adam's slip-up, then how can
it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?

A: Adam's slip made Christ culpable right along with his fellow men, yes; but
it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal sins
of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)

Q: What was the secret to his success?

A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only did
he descend from David according to the flesh, but Christ also descended
from God according to the Spirit. (Luke 1:32-35). That is quite an
advantage because according to 1John 3:9, that which is born of God not
only doesn't sin, but cannot sin.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 29, 2017

-
How Christ Became Solomon's Progeny

Q: Seeing as how Christ was virgin conceived; how did he get into Joseph's
genealogy as per the first chapter of Matthew?

A: At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons Manasseh
and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and
power to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding additional
children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid
Bilhah-- Dan, and Naphtali.

Jacob's motive for adopting his son Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for
his deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which
subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.

Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke
to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to take part in naming Mary's out-of
wedlock baby.

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt
1:21)

Joseph complied.

"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)

So Christ went in the books as Joseph's son; because that's how it worked in
those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child. In other
words: Christ became Joseph's son by means of adoption, just as Ephraim
and Manasseh became Jacob's sons by means of adoption.

Q: But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Jesus was Joseph's foster
child rather than adopted child?

A: Webster's defines "foster" as affording, receiving, or sharing nurture or
parental care though not related by blood or legal ties. In other words:
foster children have no inheritance rights nor a legitimate place in their
foster father's genealogy. Foster children are expendable.

In contrast; Webster's defines "adopt" as to take voluntarily (a child of other
parents) as one's own child. In other words: adopted children have
inheritance rights and a legitimate place in their adopted father's genealogy.
Adopted children are permanent.

Jesus' adoption was essential because even though he was born a biological
candidate for David's throne, he wasn't born a legitimate candidate. The
reason being that the throne passed to Solomon rather than his brother
Nathan. Plus, the throne never passes down through women, only men.
Mary provided Jesus a biological right to David's throne, but she could not
provide him a legal right to it.

John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer are often unaware of the strict biblical
conditions that dictate ascendance to David's throne and so are easily led to
believe that Joseph was Jesus' foster father instead of his adopted father.

NOTE: Just in case there's a man looking in on this thinking about adopting
his wife's children from a previous marriage; should the two of you later
divorce; she can legally make you pay child support for another man's kids
because when you adopt them, the law and the courts regard their status as
your own biological progeny.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 30, 2017

-
Jonah

● Matt 12:39-40 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of
a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth.

The Lord paralleled his journey with Jonah's. Well, seeing as how Christ was
dead for most of the time that he was in the tomb, then I think it's valid to
conclude that Jonah was dead for most of the time that he was in the fish.

According to Jonah's second chapter, there were moments during his
nautical adventure when he was in two places at once: the fish's belly and
the bottoms of the mountains.

Seeing as how the Lord paralleled his own journey with Jonah's, then I
believe it is valid to conclude that there were moments in Christ's adventure
when he was in two places at once too: the tomb's belly and also the
bottoms of the mountains; i.e. the heart of the earth.

(It doesn't take much education to know that the bottoms of the mountains
are situated in neither a fish's tummy, nor a tomb.)

Jesus appropriated the story of Jonah to predict his resurrection.
Unfortunately people are typically distracted by the time element;
consequently totally missing the parallel's purpose. The average rank and
file pew warmer is convinced that Jonah was alive the whole time he was in
the fish. Well, had he been, then Jesus would had to been alive the whole
time he was in the tomb; otherwise the parallel fails.

Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites and also a sign to Jesus' generation (Matt
13:39-40, Luke 11:29-30). The word "sign" is translated from a koiné Greek
word that's sometimes used in the gospels to indicate miracles. Now, had
Jonah merely survived the fish's tummy, that would not be the kind of sign
that Jesus had in mind. He needed a miraculous event that would adequately
depict his own; the reason being that Jesus wasn't on track to be
resuscitated, no, Jesus was on track to be resurrected because he would be
quite dead from crucifixion. (John 19:33)

According to Jonah 2:6, the prophet was spared putrefaction. Well;
according to Ps 16:8-10 and Acts 2:25-31, Jesus too was spared
putrefaction. Thus it all came to pass just as the Lord said: As Jonah, so the
Son of Man.

NOTE: Commentators smarter and better educated than I posit that Jonah
2:3-7 recounts Jonah's demise via drowning. In other words: Jonah was
dead before he was laid to rest in the fish's tummy just as Jesus was dead
before he was laid to rest in the tomb.

/

Webers_Home · Aug 31, 2017

-
Hell vs Common Sense

I watched an educational series on NetFlix in September of 2014 called "The
Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ph.D. director of the Hayden Planetarium. Mr. Tyson said, in so many words;
that in the study of Physics, one must sometimes abandon sense and accept
discoveries as they are no matter how contrary to logic they may seem.

The NASA teams that sent Pioneers, Voyagers and Mariners out to explore
the planets came to the very same conclusion: they learned to abandon their
logical expectations and instead expect the unexpected; and they
encountered plenty.

The discovery of the cosmos' accelerating expansion was very discouraging
for cosmologist Alan Sandage-- once a proponent of the theory that the
universe would eventually run out of explosive energy from the Big Bang
and gradually pull itself back together --and called the discovery of the ever
increasing velocity of the expanding universe a terrible surprise. And of
course it is because the known laws of gravity, combined with common
sense, demand that the ballooning universe eventually slow down, stop
expanding, and shrink rather than picking up speed.

In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of Physics and planetary
exploration, faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes
sense to it.

I readily admit that the idea of people existing in an altered state,
consciously suffering to time indefinite, makes no sense at all to my human
mind's way of thinking, and seems to totally contradict the nature of a divine
patron reputed to be kind, caring, and sympathetic. But just as science
admits to many unsolved mysteries; so does Christianity. And there's no
shame in that. The shame is in pretending to have complete understanding
of a supernatural entity that by its very nature defies reason and common
sense.

● 1Cor 2:13-14 . . A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of
God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually appraised.

/

Webers_Home · Sep 1, 2017

-
Ways To Describe Grace

● 1Cor 1:3 . . Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord
Jesus Christ.

I seriously doubt that John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer have an adequate
concept of grace. I suspect that most are under the impression that grace is
somehow a quantifiable substance like butter and gasoline; but in regards to
God, grace is an abstract noun that expresses personal qualities apart from
substance.

The New Testament Greek word for "grace" is charis (khar'-ece); which
means: graciousness.

Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will,
generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial,
affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.

"Cordial" stresses warmth and heartiness

"Affable" implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to
conversation or requests or proposals

"Genial" stresses cheerfulness and even joviality

"Sociable" suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others

"Generous" is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous,
kindly, and liberal in giving

"Charitable" means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz:
benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.

"Altruistic" means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others;
viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels
good to do so.

"Tactful" indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain
good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary
conflict.

"Compassion" defines a sympathetic awareness of others' distress, coupled
with a desire to alleviate it.

The Old Testament Hebrew word for grace is chen (khane); and means the
same as charis (e.g. Gen 6:8).

When you put all those lovely attributes together, you get a pretty good
picture of the bright side of God's personality. There's a dark side too, but
grace doesn't go there.

/

Quickies

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads