Mayhem

I will pass on what I heard from Rabbi Lapton, Lapton goes into the oral non written history.

What He says make complete sense to me.

God told Noah and his sons to multiply and fill the earth, when Noah got drunk Canaan castrated him. Canaan wanted to keep his one third of the earth he did not want more brothers to take a cut of his pie.

Noah cursed Canaan’s 4th Son because Noah would never have a 4th son and Noah lived another 400 years without another son.

I never could figure out what Canaan could have done to his father, Noah wakes up from his drunk and sees what?

I have heard many say that Canaan performed some perversion, How would Noah know if he did? And then how do you make sense of cursing the 4th son why not curse Canaan?

As far as I know there is no proof what happen here but Lapton makes the most sense.

… won’t be no waiting till the morning, that’s for sure.

Given that my take, masterofthemirror’s take and Truthseeker’s take are all conjecture what sort of mind jumps straight to the dark side? Like it automatically had to be something sexual. Thanks, am123, for taking the “Grandpa” angle, i was too damn angry to deal with the obvious and went straight for the meat.

No excuse offered, masterofthemirror, you are absolutely correct about me calling you a liar. Obviously you have your material to hand and i’m making this up as i go, so, if you’ll not get too hung up on my infractions we will proceed with best speed. Now then.

What comes after Lot? David committed adultery and tried to have Uriah killed or Saul, of Tarsus, was a bad man before his conversion? The Bible gives many examples of men who fall short of the Glory of God. We’re not told, for certain, why God chose to use them but i think it might be part of the lesson.

The Biblical account of Lot, in my opinion, very clearly states that it was his daughters who seduced him, that he was unaware of their identities and in no fit state to be turning down a bit of stray. He probably thought it was his birthday, twice in a row, when another bit of strumpet turned up the next night and got jiggy with him. I wonder if this is part of the original sin that we all share.

As it happens you’re not the first to accuse Lot, masterofthemirrors, indicated by 2nd Peter having to make it very clear that God had forgiven Lot (ch2 ‘Destruction for False Teachers’).

You write very well and put your arguments thoroughly and i will definitely enjoy debating you. What say you, Sir?

Is he sleeping?

Perhaps he went on a journey.

Maybe he’s studying for the test.

“Why didn’t Noah take Grandfather Methuselah along with him on the ark”

How about an even better answer…

Methuselah was dead. (Methuselah dying before the flood is based on the Masoretic Text of Genesis 5):

And all the days of Methuselah were 969 years.

Methuselah: “Man of the dart/spear”, or alternatively…

“his death shall bring judgment”

Buck up for the suds boys, and put your game faces on. Master of the Mirrors is a slip knot.

Bring your best.

Methuselah did die in the year of the flood.

That’s my read.

But the Hebrew name-meanings spell it out for us, as they so often do.

And often so precisely.

First he dies… then comes the flood.

Just maybe we can goad into actually being a man of his word, he who said:

“…if you’d like to enter into a debate about any aspect of the Bible, bring it on.”

And once taking “great offence” at being called a liar, has swiftly confirmed the verity of the charge against him by shrinking from the gauntlet he himself has thrown down. There’s still hope, of course, that the man is just busy and will eventually return to this board to finish what he started. But the air grows thick with the old familiar stench of self-righteous hubris, and, once finding himself surrounded with no fewer than three Scripture experts, I imagine his taste for the tango has gone a little sour, and “precipitated (his arrogance) into shrinking, along with (his) presence.”

Mayhem wrote:

“Your attempted deception is more offensive than a bit of mudslinging, in my opinion.”

That’s why I salivated when I saw that this fellow had reared his head again on this forum. The man is advertised (mostly by himself, but not exclusively) as being recondite and erudite. He sells himself as an expert in his field, and a teacher with authority. Which is why he would make for a very convincing defeat in the arena of debate. But unfortunately, the answer to Mayhem’s question:

“May i presume that you’re new around here?”

…is, no, he isn’t. And, in identical fashion to the other liars who make it their business to so energetically ‘filthify’ an already filthy BIN, he has been dealt with here before, only to melt away into the weeds and re-emerge elsewhere, as if his dignity were, in fact, intact.

Care to prove me wrong on that point, Mr. ‘Master’? Do you have enough time to tangle with the likes of am123, BEEF or Mayhem? I have time for you. I expect the others do as well. Your challenge, hoss. Our answer. And as Mayhem already suggested, the only material we’ll be sourcing is Scripture. You think you know it?

What’s that? Your ‘beef’ is with Mayhem alone? Well you say. But I think it fair to warn you you’ll find yourself isolated in the ring with a Mike Tyson who can actually think even better than he can fight. At least with am123 and BEEF occasionally getting in the way, a man like ‘Master’ might find himself lucky enough to take the occasional breath. Your call.

Mayhem wrote:

“…your ability to mislead folk with your word mongering has been stolen away.”

That’s the problem with tangling on a website where people can actually answer you and you have no editorial control over their commentary. Shouting profanities into a vacuum is a much safer pastime for ‘authoritative authors’ like ‘Master.’ “You should have taken the money, Tombs.” And been content therewith. Your problem is that you’ve actually become convinced of a few of your own lies. Reality doesn’t like it when you do that, ‘Master.’ Here, in Big Boy land, the echo actually likes to shout back at you.

So you can do what you do, and skulk off into the shadows…

…or you can stand tall and finish what you started.

And if you’re beginning to get the idea that there are more than a few sets of eyes on you right now, that’s because there are. The traffic spike at your website will confirm that. Too bad most of those numbers will be people examining your house of mirrors from the inside out, with a view toward dissecting every single structural flaw. They won’t have far to look.

Your move.

@Beef Supreme and @Mayhem, just because I don’t return to the ring as fast as you would wish does not mean I have retreated with my tail between my legs. On the contrary, I work for a living and I write in the evenings. I don’t surf the web throughout the day to seek out the mindless in an attempt to make myself feel better. I honestly do not care. However, it is occasionally amusing to stop by once in a while to see ignorance in action.

If you wish to do battle with me, you better start here with the following article:

http://www.mastersofthemirror.com/TheMastersOfTheMirror-Remastered-supp-8-TheGreatDeception.pdf

Read it. Yes, it is long and, no, it cannot be synopsized into a few paragraphs to match your microscopic attention spans. If you wish to seek the truth embedded in the dream that surrounds us, you will have to do some work on your own.

Unlike you armchair anarchists, I have devoted over 6 years of my life into an intense study of the “fauxality” that pretends to be our “reality” and into the very meaning of existence. I have written two books and I am currently 600 pages into my third and final book on the subject. I truly do not care whether you or anyone else reads them. I wrote them to assist myself in understanding. They are, in essence, my own personal ark. Indeed, there are literally hundreds of pages of research not found in my current book that are freely available on the web to assist others in a similar understanding. I have no need or desire to mercilessly pimp what I write, unlike our hostess.

Have either of you written a book, by the way? It’s a lot of work – especially when the goal involves a lofty attempt to solve the mystery of our existence.

Read the article and then see if you can find any preacher or rabbi who can refute what I have written. Go on. I dare you. But don’t expect me to come back here and babysit you children just so you can continue to parrot the same old drivel espoused in church. I’ve heard it all before. Arguing with you does not benefit me in any way.

I’ve done all the work. If you want to learn, the truth is out there. Otherwise, I’m sure your Cheetos and beer awaits…

From… “if you’d like to enter into a debate about any aspect of the Bible, bring it on.” ….. to….. “don’t expect me to come back here… Arguing with you does not benefit me in any way”….. without a hint of the ridiculous. It’s all good, mastersofthemirror, i’ll just put you down as a minus one.

From your link… “I hope you see fit to purchase the book” and from your post… “I have no need or desire to mercilessly pimp what I write”. Hypocrite.

Like I said, it was interesting. {chuckles}

Proof that it is possible to dispatch an opponent in absentia.

DECEPTION ALERT!!!!!

Here is Exhibit A from the link provided by mastersofthemirror:

“The moniker “God the Father,” used in the New Testament, is not once used in the Old Testament.”

So in trying to prove that the God of the New Testament is not the God of the Old Testament, exhibit A is the claim that the moniker “God the Father” is not used once in the Old Testament. While that exact phrase is not used in the Old Testament, there are several Scriptures that describe God as our father. Here are but two examples:

“But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.”

—Isaiah 64:8

“He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.”

— Psalm 89:26

So given that Isaiah for example calls God “our father”, is masterofthemirror being forthright and honest in his book?

I didn’t even read past exhibit A, but why should I when right out of the gate such dishonesty is used?

@Mayhem

“I wonder if CrowPie read down to the section where Women are blamed for everything bad in the world or the part where he explained the menstrual cycle and how it related to waking up piss-proud?”

No. I don’t suffer fools for very long……and thankfully was spared what was surely conjecture on his part.

@CrowPie. According to the author; women wear makeup to assist their role in deceiving Men. Then he wrote about men having no part in the reproductive cycle. While i’ll admit that 3 minutes of sweating and grunting doesn’t equate to giving birth i do think it takes two to Tango.

Thanks for the synopsis. It absolutely made my day.

Three minutes indeed. While I never successfully bore a blessed child, I have to say that a great deal more care, time and effort entered into the process of the creation of my failures. (Men don’t participate…….what does he think takes place then?)

“Your reactions, of course, were entirely expected. After all, you have no choice but to act precisely as your predecessors acted.”

Very good. Now how about actually ANSWERING a few of the objections which were raised by your opponents? Given the dim view you hold of our intellects, jointly and severally, it should be no problem for you to rebut the objections, point-by-point, to the satisfaction of all reading this exchange.

“For your consideration: Last time, the ark was used to facilitate the resurrection of the physical. This time, the ark will be used to help convey the spiritual back home. That being said, what form will the new ark take? If so few recognized the ark for what it was the last time, what do you suppose will happen this time?”

You might be in a terrible hurry to rush past the point we presently find ourselves in this ‘debate’, but others of us are in no hurry whatsoever. Rather, we might like to take our time and actually address the issues which have been raised. Do you think yourself capable of doing that? I’ll believe you to be capable once I have seen you do it. Until then, I doubt you absolutely. And at least try to remember that none of your tactics for avoidance or evasion are any new thing in this forum. To this point, you’ve proven to be nothing but another fast-talking, logically-challenged purveyor of bad information.

“Lies dominate every other aspect of our reality so why would the Bible be magically off limits?”

That’s a very good question. Here’s the answer: The Bible is off limits from the corrupting hand of liars and deceivers because THE CREATOR SAID that the Bible is off limits to them. He warned what would happen to anyone who added to or subtracted from what was written in Scripture. Furthermore, He promised to protect the work which He has inspired. This is not to say that certain corrupting influences have not left their mark upon the written Word – quite the contrary. But the body of writing has been held intact over the millennia, and has been transmitted to us across time, LARGELY uncorrupted, so that a careful examination of both the work itself and the early history of the work, will make detecting and compensating for the few corruptions extant a readily achievable task.

“The important part, therefore, is to analyze the symbolism from all sides to determine the truth that lies beneath.”

Aptly expressed. Your problem is the vain posturing which leads you to believe you are the only one doing so. We, amongst whom you presently find yourself, have become adepts at the skill you just described. None of us are here because we have some pastor or priest hissing into our ears on Sundays. Rather, most of us utterly eschew all modern forms of any organization or institution calling itself ‘church.’ Only once you leave off thinking we are quantifiable by your insulting and patronizing metric, will you actually become able to comprehend any of the words being written to you.

NOW THEN: Having read your profile on the website you advertise, one would not be unreasonable in assuming that you actually possess the ability to address DIRECT questions and/or objections raised against your work. Here is my question to you…

Given the fact that the Ancient Hebrew word PANIYM is very often applied in a figurative sense, is there not sufficient doubt introduced to weaken your claim that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God cannot be the same entity, for the reason that Moses ‘talked’ with God ‘face to face’?

I will expect you to address this question directly and sincerely. How do you account for this objection which has now been raised twice?

Why?

What if you’re wrong.

“Now how about actually ANSWERING a few of the objections which were raised by your opponents?”

How about answering to at least exhibit A, where you have falsely portrayed the God of the OT, making Him out not to be our Father who art in heaven?

@Beef Supreme, did you actually read the entire chapter or did you simply skim it? If you did actually read it, then, since my points were correctly and adeptly made, the answer should be easy to comprehend. Deuteronomy specifically states that the god of the Old Testament knew Moses face to face, yet, in the New Testament, John clearly states that no man has ever seen God. This is pretty simple to understand. Is it a contradiction? On the surface, it seems so. The only way it isn’t a contradiction is if two DIFFERENT gods were being referenced. End of story. By your own argument, the Hebrew word for face may be used figuratively but is also may be used LITERALLY. Ergo, since it can be either, we must defer to the way it was translated in the King James version.

@am123, did you find one reference to the moniker “God the Father” in the Old Testament? No. That was the statement that I made. Is the god of the Old Testament made out to seem male? Of course. However, as I showed you over and over and over, it cannot be male.

@Mayhem, that crack about women being blamed for everything is patently false. It proves, without a doubt, that you never read the chapter. I specifically stated the following:

“This analysis is not meant to be sexist in any way nor is it a blanket assertion that all human women are somehow ‘evil.’ It is simply a statement of fact. We have all been replicated in the image of the gods and we all play the roles that are assigned. Women simply represent a fractal echo of the Great Temptress while being part of ‘mankind.’”

All of you make the mistake of picking a SINGLE area and pouncing – vainly believing you’ve found some major hole in my theory that will save the precious image of your murdering god. However, it is the culmination of ALL the points in my dissertation that seeks to prove my thesis. Do you understand? In order to disprove it, you have to deconstruct it point-by-point. Finding a single possible hole here or there is not sufficient.

That particular chapter was meant as a critical analysis of the symbolism inherent within the Bible. If you dig deep, you will find that the Bible encodes the secrets of existence and, in particular, of the mirrors in time of which I speak.

Yes, I’m here arguing these points because I strongly believe in them and because my theories have been proven over and over again in practice. This chapter represents the first tiny step up a very tall mountain. However, you have to be willing to take such a journey with open minds. You have to be willing to see the symbolism for what it is.

I will, however, concede one point: I was acting like an arrogant prick. For that, I do apologize. It’s difficult to remain emotionally vacant when under attack. However, it did get you to read the chapter. The ends don’t justify the means but sometimes they can be beneficial. That said, I hope you will return to read it again with an open mind.

You’ve got moxie, Master. Contestants generally have fled the field by now. Answering questions can be tedious, especially when one believes himself to have previously answered them in a book he’s gone to the trouble of writing and publishing. And the fact that you’ve actually taken the time to address direct questions posed to you by us speaks to your integrity. But enough of that.

You wrote:

“Deuteronomy specifically states that the god of the Old Testament knew Moses face to face…”

So it does.

“…yet, in the New Testament, John clearly states that no man has ever seen God.”

So he has.

“This is pretty simple to understand.”

Let’s just see about that.

“Is it a contradiction? On the surface, it seems so. The only way it isn’t a contradiction is if two DIFFERENT gods were being referenced. End of story.”

I have an axiom to share with you, Master: You will suffer traumatically, each and every time you try to quantify the written Word like you just did. All you will accomplish once you believe yourself to have arrived at the final correct answer, is to limit your ability to view all scriptural material as multi-dimensionally as possible. “End of story” means you have arrested any possible furtherance of the process. The examination of Scripture is the process. And given the merest CHANCE that what you are handling when you handle Scripture is material inspired by an immense intelligence, a modicum of respect is in order, no? If you peruse and parse the written Word with as cavalier an attitude as you’ve put on display here, then what possible chance have you given yourself to succeed? Pride like yours is only and always an obstacle. It NEVER ends well.

So here we have a dilemma: On the one hand we have a body of work so unique that it demands absolute perfection. So certainly does it demand absolute perfection, that if any flaw were ever found in its fabric, that flaw, once proven beyond all reasonable doubt, would destroy any hope of our claim that the Scriptures are the inerrant, flawless work of ancient authors directly inspired by God Himself. So devastating would it be to our cause if ANY flaw in Scripture, as originally written, were ever proven to exist, that conversations like the one we are now having would, in short order, cease to occur. And if YOU, dear Master, have exposed a flaw in the written Word, then you are the FIRST to have done so since the earliest Books were inscribed and circulated many thousands of years ago. I must say, I don’t like your odds.

On the other hand, if there is an “End of story” here, it exists only in your mind, where you have presumptuously imagined yourself capable of dispatching the word of God with great ease. You know that better men than you have tried to do exactly that, and have failed utterly and miserably. And if you DON’T know that better men than you have met with failure where you vainly imagine yourself to have succeeded, then let me be the one to tell you – they have. But not for a lack of effort on their part. Your arrogance is not an affront to us only… it is an affront to the Most High. You have failed to first consider the POSSIBILITY that Scripture IS precisely what it claims to be. And if it is, then there can be no contradictions.

But you continue:

“By your own argument, the Hebrew word for face may be used figuratively but is also may be used LITERALLY.”

I agree that the Hebrew word PANIYM may be used literally.

“Ergo, since it can be either, we must defer to the way it was translated in the King James version.”

If there’s a word for what you just did, for the logical fallacy you just attempted to deploy, its name escapes me at the moment – if I ever knew it at all. What sort of lunacy is this? In what world must we defer to the King James Version for our final answer in any of this? Preposterous nonsense, Master. A shameful attempt at deflection. Whatever your fractured reasoning may be in this case really is a moot point. But just for curiosity’s sake, I would love to hear your explanation for why you think the KJV is an authority to whom we owe our obeisance.

If this paltry excuse for an answer to my objection is any indication of the caliber of your arguments to come, I fear for the proverbial wounds you may incur here in this arena, should you persevere in the defense of your indefensible product.

You haven’t even attempted to address my objection, Master. I’m looking at the Hebrew Manuscripts and making my arguments based on widely accepted lexicons and concordances. I flatly expect something BETTER from you than a limp suggestion that we should bow at the altar of King James Onlyism.

The objection I raised is yet unanswered by you.

” It’s difficult to remain emotionally vacant when under attack.”

Excellent point.

A lesson easily lost when ones fundamental beliefs are challenged.

I also accept responsibility for brash behavior. I apologize.

On a side note : Mr. SUPREME could write statistics for the melting of ice cubes in igloos and still make it read like poetry. I do hope Mr. Master will ( since he is also a gifted writer will do us the honor of answering the question that Mr. SUPREME here raised.

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkHvI3haJlQ