[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Vain repetition includes praying something over and over too much. We may ask, seeking guidelines, how many times is too much? and three then becomes a guiding principle. To say there is no limits, means that repetition is not a problem.

And so far you have provided only two examples of particular prayers have happened 3 times without any comment on the number other than that it was recorded has happening three times yet without even a hint that the number was significant. Yet there are numerous examples of a single prayer. And a spoken commendation to someone who "prayed" over and over until an answer was received.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't believe everything has coded messages, but such use of three-time prayer cannot be coincidence.

It would need more that two extremely separate times with respect to two different persons, at least one of which is known to have prayed many things without any reference to number (and likely only once in many of those cases) to arrive at something being coincidence. If every reference to Jesus praying was clearly an event in which he prayed three times about whatever it was, and then the same thing were noticed about Paul, then it would be reasonable to say that it was not a coincidence. But two independent records out of many that happen to have the same number is too contrived a view at the data to even be called coincidence. Doesn't matter whether you don't think there are coincidences. This does not rise to the level of even wondering about coincidence.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christ's actions mean something. The fact he prayed 3 times is telling.

Only if it is observed as a regular thing. It is not. Instead, it was a somewhat peculiar event in terms of number because there are essentially no other recordings of Jesus' prayers being 3 times concerning anything.

You are making non-events into important principles. That is way beyond what the record can support.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You did not merely disagree with my interpretation of the number 3, you seem to denigrate the whole bible's use of numbers and almost insult the bible's Author who designed it so.

You evidently did not actually read or understand what I said. Or alternately you make more out of numbers (3 or any other) that what might legitimately be applicable.

I did not denigrate the "whole bible's usage." I challenged the kind of inferences you made from the existence of any numbers relative to what the mainstream of thought among Bible scholars is. I admit that there are some that take very seriously all kinds of numbers. Some even get into numbers beyond what are actually recorded in the Bible. But most primarily stick to metaphorical meanings overlaid. Like numbers of completeness and the like. They do not generally find numbers and presume because the number is recorded that rules (or even merely principles) that are about the number itself are presumed. Your vain attempts to discredit everyone who takes exception to your ideas is quite comical. As if we cannot see through what is either your lake of knowledge on the subject or your lack of respect for the intelligence of your readers.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I never put it like that and I don't think you have understood the difference between a rule and a principle.

But the importance that you are placing on your alleged "principle" is too extreme to stand as a principle. It must be a rule. If violating it turns your prayer into vanity, then it is well beyond principle.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And I hope you apply the same principle of "biblical clarity" to Christmas if you or your church celebrate it.

I hope that you apply the kind of Christian charity to any such celebration that might arise in some for observing days. Paul would have you out behind the woodshed getting an metaphorical thrashing by epistle for writing such a thing.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have recorded instances of many people including Christ praying no more than three times.

Many eh? start listing. Don't bother mentioning the two that are already in the discussion. I want to see "many" that you come up with.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have no record anywhere in the Bible of anyone celebrating Christ's birthday.

Something that, whole recorded in the gospels, was not even on the discussion radar until most of the time of the writings of the scripture had ended.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's because we know that Jews didn't celebrate birthdays.

Irrelevant as to whether such a practice should or should not occur. The amount of irrelevant minutia that you grasp hold of while ignoring that your positions are nothing without extreme conjecture.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We also know that numerology was prevalent in Judaism and likely the driving principle behind why Christ prayed 3 times only.

You are using an un-established principle as the reason that what you want to turn into a principle is a principle. Classic begging the question. The student has learned well from his masters (Nee and Lee).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nice, even, whole numbers often repeated don't always have significant meaning?

The key phrase is "don't always. . . ." I have provided some examples where there is no stated number, but there is a clear pattern of number. But there is not understood why the number occurs that way in the particular case (at least by the writers I was reading at the time).

Further, when you say "significant meaning," it is clear that your version of "significant" is very great. So much so that the mere presence of a certain number in 2 out of many times rises to the level of a "principle" that is so significant that failure to abide by it results in serous consequence. If it were only a principle, there would be no such extreme consequence. It would be a rule to provide such consequence.

I have never said that the fact of praying 3 times has no meaning. But the meaning it has is about the particular prayer, not prayer in general. How can I say that? Because the one who is most qualified to create such principles did not follow it in the vast majority of the prayers of his that are recorded, and he commended the actions of one who went way beyond your supposed maximum as an example of how to persevere in prayer. It doesn't just put a pin-hole in your principle, it drives a Mack truck through it.