Prayer clothes?

So... If He didn't send His disciples out to do a thing then, by your logic, it wasn't a practice meant for US to use. Hmmm...

So, by your logic if Christ didn't do something in all instances, then it is not something that we can consider.

I can. However, according to your statement "...any object used to facilitate prayer, is an idol”, if I use a kneeler to facilitate prayer, then I must be an idolater. Either that or your position is based upon a false premise. I believe it is the latter.

WM

 

David:

I think you have gotten to my underlying premise - that the intent of the word as well as its usage dictates the context in which it to be understood. Clearly, the KJV translators didn't intend to confer divinity upon St. John. Yet, according to many here, a legalistic view of scripture demands that they DID infer divinity upon John just by using the word - irregardless of their intent. Just as the Catholics use the word pray to mean different things, so did the KJV translators use the word "divine". And that IS in the "biblical sense."

I suppose I am asking for some consistencey from our dear posters in this regard.

WM

 

I agree. It is not essential to kneel to pray. In the bible, we see various "postures" for prayer: In Mark 11.25, Jesus talks of standing to pray. 2 Samuel 7.18 has David sitting in prayer. Moses and Aaron "fell on their faces" in prayer - to me, that means more than simply kneeling.

If a Christian does kneel to pray, then a hassock or kneeler might make it more comfortable , but then, so do things like central heating, air-conditioning, double glazing, and so on. But neither these things nor kneelers are requirements for prayer. As Ann says, if you make an object essential to prayer, that object IS an idol for you.

 

Thanks, WM, but I must say again that (at least, as far as I am aware) the titles of the books of the bible are not inspired. I came across the following at the Bible Gateway site (emphasis mine):

Few Bible readers are aware that most biblical books did not originally have titles at all. They simply began, said what they had to say, and ended. The titles were added in very early manuscripts, but the authors themselves did not bother to attach them. There are a few possible exceptions, depending on how the opening words are interpreted. Some have argued, for example, that "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ" in Mark 1:1, and "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" in Matthew 1:1 (KJV) are titles. Revelation is probably the clearest New Testament example of a work that does give itself a title. Its title is not "The Revelation of John," for these words were supplied by later scribes who copied the manuscript. The real title is very long, like some obscure eighteenth-century religious tract. It is emphatically not a catchy title. In fact, it comprises all of the first three verses of chapter 1! If there is a short title, it has to be the simple phrase with which the longer one begins, "the revelation of Jesus Christ."
​

So yes, I am sure the translators of the 1611 AV knew the biblical meaning of the Greek word yeiov which they translated into English, sometimes as "divine" (as in 2 Peter 1.4) and sometimes as "Godhead" (Acts 17.29). But they were translating into English, a language where the word "divine" has, as I said, several meanings.

But my main point is that the book titles of the 66 books of the bible, like verse and chapter numbers, were added later, and were not inspired.

 

I'm not following the relavence of this statement to your original premise.

Yet Peter and Paul did use items like this on occasion.

Yet, this is not part of your original premise that "any object used to facilitate prayer is an idol." Now you are saying that "...If you cannot pray without the object, then it IS an idol." which is a rediculous statement as directed at the Christian. The Christian can pray without anything - I often pray silently during the day at my desk. However, this was not your original statement and not the one that I challenged you on. If you now wish to modify your position to your last statement, then I would concur with that - but not your original statement.

WM

 

Unfortunately, the above quote was not the one to which I responded.

I completely disagree with this sweeping statement.

WM

 

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing,] seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (Acts 17:24-25)

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. (Acts 17:29)

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)

Consider the above verses. The ones in Acts were spoken by Paul on Mars Hill. Here are some truths that he points out:
1. God has need of nothing. God does not need anything, including prayer cloths or any other such inanimate object.
2. God does not dwell in anything made by gold, silver, or in any object made by man. He does not need man's "things."

Then that great truth of worship that Jesus himself teaches us in John 4:24, God must be worshiped in spirit and in truth. Objects have nothing to do with worship. He is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth. Objects are associated with paganism. Christians do not use objects as a crutch for worship. That belongs to paganism. Our God is worshiped without such things; he is worshiped in spirit and in truth.

To refute this position, you must stay within the confines of the NT. Our Great High Priest is Jesus Christ who is a Priest after the priesthood of Melchizedec. The Levitical Priesthood, with all of its ceremonial attachments has been done away with. It has been replaced with Jesus Christ who offered himself once and for all.

 

Sorry, WestminsterMan. My mistake. I was actually replying to Ann's post 123 on this thread, not yours. I confused matters by writing: "As Ann says..." I was replying to her post, so I should have put: "As you say......" I do apologise for that.

I wonder if through my own careless wording you might have misunderstood what I meant. Just in case, I'll try wording it differently:

If we say that any physical item (like special clothing, a hassock, a special building) is essential to prayer, that item becomes an idol to us, in the sense that it comes between us and God - it must do if we say that we cannot pray unless we have that particular item.

But if all you meant was that for one who prefers to kneel when praying, something soft to kneel on is more comfortable than kneeling directly on to the floor, then no problem. (And I am sure you don't mean that you believe a hassock is essential for prayer, because you wrote in a later post: "The Christian can pray without anything - I often pray silently during the day at my desk.")

 

True, Paul was describing the nature of God to those pagans who believed that their god(s) were actual objects made of silver, gold, etc. Clearly as you stated "...God does not need anything, including prayer cloths or any other such inanimate object." However, this discussion is about what people need and not what God needs. Some people do need items, especially me. I need a kneeler - I have bad knees. It is patently illogical to hold that because one kneels on a kneeler to facilitate prayer (or a concrete slab for that matter) then one is necessarily an idolater. Let’s examine this logic (so called):

Original Premise:

I kneel when I pray.

The item I use to facilitate prayer is the concrete slab upon which I kneel.

Since the concrete slab is an object (item, whatever) and I need it to facilitate prayer (otherwise I would need an anti-gravity device) then...

Conclusion:
The concrete slab is an idol and I am an idolater.

Listen to yourselves people!:BangHead:

I completely agree that God should be worshipped in spirit and in truth. I can do that using my kneeler. I can also do that without using my kneeler.

I'm not attempting to refute you position; had you read my post you could have saved yourself some time. Here is the statement that I disagree with...

My kneeler is an "item". I use said item to facilitate prayer. According to Ann's statement that makes me an idolator. If one thinks that using a kneeler to facilitate prayer is paganism, then one has taken legalism to the radical extreme. IMO...

Yes. However, Jesus also said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

WM

 

Jesus never came to fulfill the Levitical system; the ceremonial system, etc. The prophets (their prophesies) is what he fulfilled. Don't use this verse out of context.

No one is speaking of a "kneeler" or even a prayer rug like the Muslims use. Try a rosary, a bottle of water blessed by Peter Popoff, a prayer cloth offered by some other tele-evangelist, or any other "similar" aide to help a person in prayer. I have a hardwood floor in my living room and a carpeted floor in my office. Guess where I like to pray? Should I conclude that carpet "facilitates" my prayer. That is not the subject here.

 

You completely missed out on the original premise.
Here is the OP. We will state it again:

 

And you are convenitently ignoring the statement to which I responded. Nice...

WM

 

Yet Ann's statement (with which you and others seem to agree) states that:

Either you agree with her statement and its logical absurdities, or you do not.

Hey - it's not my position.

WM

 

It appears as if you are derailing the thread which is against the rules.
If you want to pray on your bed situated on three pillows, be my guest. That is not the topic of this thread. Read again the OP, and make your posts relevant to the OP.

 

Who among you here would have a problem praying with a talit? Often when my kids bother me and since I don't have a prayer closet, I tell them when they see me pray with a talit that is my prayer tent and they should leave my room and leave it quite for my time with God. Is this an issue among you?

 

I am not derailing this thread. I am responding to a statement by Ann with which I disagree - an action that is not against the rules. It only violates the rules when you decide that it does. Clearly, as an admin. this is your right. However, I think this behavior is indicative of how often people here make blatant off the cuff statements which they cannot reasonably defend.

WM

 

Well, I quoted you verbatim and I have not ignored that. If you want to amend it, I wouldn't have problem with that either.

WM