Muslim-style Prayer in the OT &amp; NT

Quote runner

Thanks(0)

Quote

Topic: Muslim-style Prayer in the OT & NT
Posted: 29 March 2006 at 4:35pm

For our Muslim friends who may not be fully acquainted with King James & the Authorized Version of the Bible and for those discussants who choose to ignore the complexity of James rule, I recommend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_I

It appears his mother was Catholic, but he was raised Protestant. During his rule he was characterized by Protestants as too Catholic, and by Catholics as Protestant, and at times was targeted by one, then the other.

It appears that he didn't harbor strong feelings either way, and seemed to want to be on whichever side seemed useful (or less threatening) at the time.

fredifreeloader View Drop Down

Guest Group

Joined: 17 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 456

Post Options

Quote fredifreeloader

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 29 March 2006 at 7:26am

bismarck - let us briefly consider the "great high priestly" prayer of Christ in john 17. look at v.1 - "these words spake jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said......." --- now it is clear that he could not lift up his eyes to heaven in the posture of prostration that you have specified, with his nose and forehead touching the ground. incidentally, (and i do not have the reference for this) but i am 99.9% sure that muhammad said (reportedly in the hadith)that if you lift up your eyes to heaven at prayer, they will pop out of your head!! now this from john 17 really does close the case as far as im concerned, your case has not been proven, and this disproves it

now noone is saying there are no mistakes in the av. there is no translation without mistakes and wrong options. what i will say is this, the av was by far and away the best effort up to that point in time, in any language (?) other translations may have surpassed it for accuracy since (and many have fallen short of its excellence) how do you define a good translation, btw?

for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16

Bismarck

Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 286

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 28 March 2006 at 11:50pm

fredifreeloader wrote:

bismarck - as im sure ive already
said, i already frequently prostrate myself at prayer, both flat out,
and eastern christian style

also - we are clearly commanded to pray in the scriptures - try 1chr16:
11, mt7:7, mt26:41, lu18:1, jn16:24, eph6:18, 1thess5:17, jam5:13 -
now where is the clear commandment that prostration is the way?�
noone is denying that prostration is there in the scriptures, or that Christ
practised it.� it does not say he always did as far as i know.� the very fact
that acceptable prayer is made in the scriptures when different postures
are in operation indicates that different postures are acceptable

yes the pharisees stood so as to be seen by all and sundry, but
that is not why the publican was standing - luke18: 13 - and
yes they gave money so as to receive honour from men, but that is not
why the poor widow gave two mites - mark 12: 42.�
incidentally we are as prone to ostentation prostrate as we are when
on our feet

now to return to the question of the av.� you have still to give any
evidence that james was roman catholic.� you have still to give
any evidence that the king in any way tampered with, or that the
translation work was in any way tainted with any aspect of his beliefs,
actions or personality.� why would he accept the epistle dedicatory
which clearly attacks the very beliefs you accuse him of having and not
accept what you would see as the "correct" translation of the scriptures?[/
P]

The publican's prayer was accepted, you are saying. And he was
standing. Alright.

But who is a better example to follow, the Publican (who stood) or
the Messiah (who prostrated)?

Again, there are times in the OT and NT where people pray, earnestly, in
other body positions.

But the pillars of Belief -- Abraham, Moses, Joshua, the Messiah --
all prostrated.

Almighty God is Merciful and Kind Hearted. If an untrained publican
(toll taker) was truly and earnestly praying with a pure heart, then, yes,
Almighty God would seemingly surely hear his prayer.

But the pillars of Belief, the best and tallest-standing embodiments of
Belief in Almighty God... they all prostrated.

I read this to mean that prostration is a "higher standard", and, perhaps,
even expected of those who are trained and educated in the
Holy Writings and Belief.

Do you or I, mortal men, chastize a first grader for, if you will, sloppy
handwriting on his Math quiz if he does get the basic fact that 2+2=4?
Surely not! But you do not expect a University Professor to write
Academic Journal articles with sloppy handwriting, do you?

Another thing I thought of is, if you are against the "ritualization" of a
standardized prayer posture, then why do you (?) go to Kirk (Church, Old
Style) every Sunday? If it's all what's in your heart that counts, why bother
going? I say its the very committment of time and energy that shows your
sincerity.

Prayer with an Earnest Heart is the beginning of Belief in
Almighty God... I offer that it is not the end-all and be-all. You do
not scold a child for learning that 2+2=4, even if his handwriting is
sloppy. But by the time they reach middle school and high school, you do
expect more.

I accept that Almighty God surely may in His Great Kind-Heartedness hear
the earnest prayers of "novices" in "pagan ignorance" as much as any of
His children in this Creation.

I also think that the former-sinner Toll Taker in Luke 18:13 cannot
possibly trump the Messiah himself.

Again, when the Messiah prayed, he prostrated (Mt 26:39). So,
when the Messiah prayed, or says "pray", he means prostrate. For a
Christian, the NT is the "Unerring Word of God", and every single word[/
I] speaks with the Thunder of Almighty God. I hear you say that "there is
no evidence that the Messiah never practiced other types of prayer
besides prostration." That is true -- we do not have a complete video
recording of his whole life that we can look at and see if every single
single single time the Messiah prostrated.

But the evidence given says he prostrated. How much more do we
need? If you say, "just because it's not in Scripture, doesn't mean it didn't
happen", you could technically accuse Holy Men of any sin you wanted! I
say, maybe there's a reason it's not in Scripture.

And see how much sense it makes? The Messiah is famous for his clear
inversions in his riddles and sayings. The clear implication is that for
Yeshua the Messiah, the word "pray" means "prostrate". And that totally
agrees with Matthew 6:5-6 -- "do not STAND as the hypocrites in the
OPEN before MEN.... PROSTRATE ("PRAY") in PRIVATE before GOD."
Incidentally, the Messiah often spoke in 3's, in triple. For example, there
are 3 types of Unbelief (seed that falls on the wayside, on rocky soil, and
amongst thorns in fertile soil) and 3 types of Belief (30, 60, 100 measures
per acre) in the parable of the sower. (Note: 3 = 1+2, 6=1+2+3,
10=1+2+3+4.) The Messiah did this as a MEMORY AID.

So this TRIPLE INVERSION, STAND -> PROSTRATE, OPEN -> HIDDEN, MEN
-> GOD would be exactly that type of wording. To deny the first part of
that trilogy would, in fact, ring discordantly with a known stock and oft-
used mneumonic of the Messiah.

Any earnest prayer is good.
Correct earnest prayer is better.

Regarding James:

James grandson, Charles 2, and second son, James 2, were both
Catholics
James and his son allied with, and married into, the
Catholic bloc
James 1 and his son Charles 1 were increasingly
oppressive to, hated by, and heaped troubles upon, England's staunchest
Protestants
James 1 and Charles 1 gradually rolled back the gains
of Protestants under Elizabeth, re-introducing Catholic-style ritualisms
and idolatry
James 1 & Charles 1 aided and abetted, and were aided
and abetted by, Catholics -- including conspicuously during the 30
Years War when Catholic armies were ravaging Deutschland so horribly
that, on average, as many as 250,000 Germans died per year, every year,
for 30 years -- a Holocaust estimated at 7.5 million Germans KIA; as
the Lutherlands were assaulted, James & Charles aided and abetted the
Catholics, at first by dragging their feet, and then openly...[/
LI]
especially during the English Civil War (1642-48) when Charles 1
invited Catholic armies from Ireland and France to invade England! This
was why he was tried for treason!

James associated with, aligned with, gained by and from Catholics. He
son was even more obvious.

The only reason James didn't openly declare himself a Catholic was for
the same reason George Bush, for example, would never admit to being a
Communist -- if he did, it would spark Civil War! It eventually did
anyway, as Protestant Puritans fought the King's "High Anglican" Royalist
forces... and their Catholic allies! And the Second English Civil War, the
Glorious Revolution of 1688, was sparked exactly by James 2 openly
ruling as a Catholic!

I say James 1 was a Catholic for exactly the same reason I say Alger Hiss
was a Commie Red. Hiss never freely volunteered a "confession of the
tongue"...

but does not his giving half of Europe to Stalin at Yalta, and then
travelling to Moscow, the Capital of Communism,
where he was wined and dined with high-ranking Communist party
bosses equal a "confession of the hand"?

Deeds speak louder than words. James never admitted he was a Catholic.
And well he didn't, because if he had, he would have been ousted just like
his son... years before they could have finalized the roll-back of the
Reformation in England! James never said he was Catholic. But he
walked, talked, squaked with and like Catholics. He gained by and to
Catholics. And only a fool would have openly admitted anything...

In short, people lie, yes they do, hence the folk saying embodying
hundreds of years of Folk Wisdom, "deeds speak louder than words".

It is a ridiculous burden to the prosecution to impose upon them the
requirement of a freely volunteered confession -- at Law, many criminal
defendants are convicted after pleading not guilty. Reasonable Men in
the jury conclude they were just lying, and convict anyway. Alger Hiss
was a traitor Commie Red... and James was a traitor Catholic.

(Not of course to claim that the Catholic church is in any way linked to
Communism, or anything like that..)

I infer, with cause, that James was a Catholic. He own son and
grandson were known to be. Etc. How much admittedly circumstantial
evidence do I need to pull the trigger and convict?

I infer that James accepted the Epistle Dedicatory because he had to.
Bear in mind that he had just flat out rejected every other Puritan
petition... and these were the exact same militant Puritans who 40 years
later had enough steel to oust, and execute his son... James had to throw
some bone to the Puritans, or else they would have rose up even earlier
than they did.

As for errors in the AV, please see:

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/translte.html

which I think is good.

fredifreeloader View Drop Down

Guest Group

Joined: 17 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 456

Post Options

Quote fredifreeloader

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 28 March 2006 at 12:28pm

also bismarck - if james was roman catholic, why did guy fawkes and his catholic terrorist gang try to blow him up?

for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16

fredifreeloader View Drop Down

Guest Group

Joined: 17 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 456

Post Options

Quote fredifreeloader

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 28 March 2006 at 3:32am

bismarck - as im sure ive already said, i already frequently prostrate myself at prayer, both flat out, and eastern christian style

also - we are clearly commanded to pray in the scriptures - try 1chr16:11, mt7:7, mt26:41, lu18:1, jn16:24, eph6:18, 1thess5:17, jam5:13 - now where is the clear commandment that prostration is the way? noone is denying that prostration is there in the scriptures, or that Christ practised it. it does not say he always did as far as i know. the very fact that acceptable prayer is made in the scriptures when different postures are in operation indicates that different postures are acceptable

yes the pharisees stood so as to be seen by all and sundry, but that is not why the publican was standing - luke18: 13 - and yes they gave money so as to receive honour from men, but that is not why the poor widow gave two mites - mark 12: 42. incidentally we are as prone to ostentation prostrate as we are when on our feet

now to return to the question of the av. you have still to give any evidence that james was roman catholic. you have still to give any evidence that the king in any way tampered with, or that the translation work was in any way tainted with any aspect of his beliefs, actions or personality. why would he accept the epistle dedicatory which clearly attacks the very beliefs you accuse him of having and not accept what you would see as the "correct" translation of the scriptures?

for i am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - romans 1: 16

Bismarck

Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 286

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 27 March 2006 at 11:39pm

If I might be so bold, I think we don't need to rag on FF.

I do think I have the stronger case, else I would not make it.

But, to be blunt, I do not see that ridicule helps bring folks to Almighty God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.

I do not see it.

Bismarck

Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 286

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 27 March 2006 at 11:33pm

As an aside about the Hypocrit pharisees, there is a reason why they trumpeted their "goodness".

And that reason is that they were Roman collaborators and were selling their countrymen out!

So you can take it to the bank that they trumpeted their "goodness" publically, for all to see! That was the whole point! "Hey, look at me, over hear, yeah yeah me, see me doing good, everybody see me, everybody see, alright good yeah I'm such a law-abiding patriot!"

The Pharisees were beholden unto Rome through Rome's control of the Mediterranean trade routes from which they profitted. Rome had their wallets by the balls, and it is written in the Mishnah that there were 7 flavors of Pharisees, and only 1 were any good. (That 1/7th would be those of the Gamaliel and Nicodemus type.)

All the rest were traitors to their countrymen...

But to mask that fact...

They trumpeted their so-called goodliness...

so that none of the poor peasants would wise up and get a clue...

Their "charity and alms-giving" was nothing more than "social camoflage" designed to cover and conceal their de facto political and economic warfare, on behalf of Rome, against their own country.

Social camo paint, camoflaged uniforms to "blend in" with all the God-fearing Judeans and not get spotted as the sell-outs they really were.

So, they did good "in the open"... and "evil in their hearts and in private".

Blatant hypocrisy indeed, and hypocrisy with grievous political ramifications in 70 CE, when more sell-outs such as Josephus got hundreds of thousands slaughtered. (And then moved into luxurious villas for their efforts.)

All their CAF (Charity - Alms - Fasting) was nothing for them but war-paint and camoflage.

Bismarck

Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 286

Post Options