Should Christians fast more?

[historia]

As I write this, we are in the midst of Advent, a time when historically Christians fasted.

That practice is still observed in the Eastern Churches, but is not obligatory in the West. Even during Lent, many western Christians don't really fast, instead just refraining from a single type of food or a particular activity. To my knowledge, Evangelicals and many sectarian groups don't encourage fasting at all.

Question for debate: Should Christians fast more?

[JehovahsWitness]

d from modern Bible translations.

Jesus said 'When' you fast, not 'if you ever decide to try it out.'
Matthew 6:16

The Greek word employed (otan) means "whenever" as in how to behave IF one finds oneself in a particular situation and should not be confused with a command.

To illistrate: imagine a FIRE SAFETY manual said " when you see flames which are out of control, leave the premises immediately and alert emergeny services." Would you take the "when" to be an instruction to burn your house down?

In a similar vien, the "when" of Matthew 6:16 means "in the event of" "should you" "whenever you ..." , not placing an obligation upon the listener to initiate the action.





JW


RELATED POSTS

Does Jesus saying "when" you fast (rather than "IF" you fast) amount to a command to fast?
viewtopic.php?p=1108569#p1108569

Were the words about fasting found at Matthew 17:21 part of the original text?
viewtopic.php?p=1108575#p1108575

To learn more, please go to other posts related to ...

FAITH , FOOD, and ...CHRISTIAN FASTING

[Runner]

d from modern Bible translations.

Jesus said 'When' you fast, not 'if you ever decide to try it out.'
Matthew 6:16

The Greek word employed (otan) means "whenever" as in how to behave IF one finds oneself in a particular situation and should not be confused with a command.

To illistrate: imagine a FIRE SAFETY manual said " when you see flames which are out of control, leave the premises immediately and alert emergeny services." Would you take the "when" to be an instruction to burn your house down?

In a similar vien, the "when" of Matthew 6:16 means "in the event of" "should you" "whenever you ..." , not placing an obligation upon the listener to initiate the action.

This would be the bare-minimum Christian's explanation for that verse; the modern mainstream believer who is taught that none of Scripture is a must; that we should just do what feels best to us in every instance and God will be happy with that.

Correct?

Can we see your Greek interpretation for Matthew 17:21 please?

[JehovahsWitness]

Can we see your Greek interpretation for Matthew 17:21 please?

It is generally accepted by most bible scholars that Matthew 17:21 was not part of the original text.





FURTHER READING : Why is Matthew 17:21 missing or only a footnote in my Bible?
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/q ... -in-bible/





RELATED POSTS

Does Jesus saying "when" you fast (rather than "IF" you fast) amount to a command to fast?
viewtopic.php?p=1108569#p1108569

Were the words about fasting found at Matthew 17:21 part of the original text?
viewtopic.php?p=1108575#p1108575

To learn more, please go to other posts related to ...

FAITH , FOOD, and ...CHRISTIAN FASTING

[Runner]

Can we see your Greek interpretation for Matthew 17:21 please?

It is generally accepted by most bible scholars that Matthew 17:21 was not part of the original text.

A very sterile and generic response. Wouldn't you say?

Is that not a reply that can be placed anywhere one doesn't care to, or isn't capable of, addressing in a Biblically-demonstrable way?

I think we would agree.

Try again.

[JehovahsWitness]

Can we see your Greek interpretation for Matthew 17:21 please?

It is generally accepted by most bible scholars that Matthew 17:21 was not part of the original text.

A very sterile and generic response. Wouldn't you say?

I would say it was a factually sound, truthful one, wouldn't you ? If not, why not?

Is that not a reply that can be placed anywhere one doesn't care to...?

Not justifiably, no.



FURTHER READING : Why is Matthew 17:21 missing or only a footnote in my Bible?
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/q ... -in-bible/

[Runner]

Can we see your Greek interpretation for Matthew 17:21 please?

It is generally accepted by most bible scholars that Matthew 17:21 was not part of the original text.

A very sterile and generic response. Wouldn't you say?

I would say it was a factually sound, truthful one, wouldn't you ? If not, why not?

Because it is a go-to, wild card, that is used to rebuke any verse from Scripture that doesn't support your position.

You can't claim you desire to have an intelligent debate if you don't even agree with the basis that is the foundation of said debate. If the Bible is so disjointed in your perspective to have every single verse be thrown into question as to its authenticity from the original text, there is no possibility of having a working, structured, debate with someone who rightfully embraces Scripture as the foundation of their beliefs. True Christians cannot cherry-pick only the parts of the Bible that support their preferred beliefs, they must take the Bible as a whole in order to understand exactly who God is and what He presents as the Truth.

You are not here to discuss the Truth if you do not adhere to the very handbook that defines what Truth is.

In that case, you are not here to debate, you are here to deny.

[2timothy316]

Can we see your Greek interpretation for Matthew 17:21 please?

It is generally accepted by most bible scholars that Matthew 17:21 was not part of the original text.

A very sterile and generic response. Wouldn't you say?

I would say it was a factually sound, truthful one, wouldn't you ? If not, why not?

Because it is a go-to, wild card, that is used to rebuke any verse from Scripture that doesn't support your position.

You can't claim you desire to have an intelligent debate if you don't even agree with the basis that is the foundation of said debate. If the Bible is so disjointed in your perspective to have every single verse be thrown into question as to its authenticity from the original text, there is no possibility of having a working, structured, debate with someone who rightfully embraces Scripture as the foundation of their beliefs. True Christians cannot cherry-pick only the parts of the Bible that support their preferred beliefs, they must take the Bible as a whole in order to understand exactly who God is and what He presents as the Truth.

You are not here to discuss the Truth if you do not adhere to the very handbook that defines what Truth is.

In that case, you are not here to debate, you are here to deny.

Said the pot to the kettle?

[Runner]

Said the pot to the kettle?

Well, a kettle and a pot are not the same exact thing.

They are both containers, as God tells us that we are as people. We all contain information that we believe, a type of faith. But that information is not the same for everyone. Some containers contain Truth, others contain lies/untruth.

So, ... yes.

That would be an accurate description of our discussion, I guess.

[JehovahsWitness]

Can we see your Greek interpretation for Matthew 17:21 please?

It is generally accepted by most bible scholars that Matthew 17:21 was not part of the original text.

I would say it was a factually sound, truthful one, wouldn't you ? If not, why not?

Because it is a go-to, wild card, that is used to rebuke any verse from Scripture that doesn't support your position.

By far the majority of bible texts are undisputed, those that are are usually for factualy sound reasons. The verse in question is not to be found in available earlier text which indicates a addition. If you wish to present an exposé as to why you think the verse is an authentic part of the original gospel, feel free to do so. Preferebly without the implied ad hominem.


JW

[Runner]

FURTHER READING : Why is Matthew 17:21 missing or only a footnote in my Bible?
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/q ... -in-bible/

Unfortunately, we really don't have much to discuss if you only adhere to the newest, most modern, counterfeits of Scripture.

There is no foundation for us to stand upon together to discuss different perspectives.

Not all Bibles contain the most consistent Truth. And it is those that are closer in their dates of publication to the original source of the data that are the most accurate, not those that are further away as modern mainstream churchianity would have us believe.