Fasting is mentioned multiple times in the Bible. Some passages that I remember: > [Joel 2:12-13 ESV] 12 “Yet even now,” declares the Lord,  “return to me with all your heart, **with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning**; 13 and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster. > [Luke 2:36-37 ESV] 36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, 37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, **worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day**. > [Matthew 4:1-4 ESV] Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 **And after fasting forty days and forty nights**, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘**Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God**.’” > [Luke 4:1-4 ESV] And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. **And he ate nothing during those days**. And when they were ended, he was hungry. 3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” 4 And Jesus answered him, **“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”** > [Acts 9:8-9 ESV] 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, **and neither ate nor drank**. > [Acts 13:2-3 ESV] 2 While they were **worshiping the Lord and fasting**, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after **fasting and praying** they laid their hands on them and sent them off. > [Acts 14:23 ESV]  And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, **with prayer and fasting** they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. > [Matthew 17:20-21 KJV] 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out **but by prayer and fasting**. > [Matthew 9:15 ESV] And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, **and then they will fast**. > [Mark 2:20 ESV] The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, **and then they will fast** in that day. > [Luke 5:35 ESV] The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, **and then they will fast** in those days.” I'm seeking book recommendations on Christian fasting, **written by Protestant authors**, encompassing both its theoretical and practical aspects. Specifically, I'm interested in resources that explore the spiritual dimensions of fasting within Christian spirituality, including its influence on prayer, worship, fostering a closer relationship with God, combating sin and temptation, subduing the flesh, and strengthening the spirit. Additionally, I'm looking for practical tips and suggestions on how to integrate fasting into daily life, discern when to undertake longer fasts (e.g., 21 days, 40 days), and understand the Holy Spirit's guidance regarding fasting (as we see in Luke 4:1 and Matthew 4:1). Thank you.

I know that all Protestants consider prayer and Bible study to be important, but what about other spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, participating in an all-night vigil, practicing silence and solitude, or engaging in ascetic practices like giving up certain foods, refraining from entertainment, living simply, or voluntarily limiting material possessions, as is often seen in monastic life? For example, Jesus fasted for 40 days and often withdrew to solitary places to pray, such as when He spent the whole night in prayer on a mountain (Luke 6:12). Related to this, this question discusses the biblical basis of twelve spiritual disciplines: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3469/117426 Do Protestants believe in spiritual principles or laws that make some or all spiritual disciplines effective or beneficial? I understand that Protestants value prayer as a way to communicate with God, and Bible study as a way to receive guidance from God (while not necessarily excluding the possibility of extra-biblical communication). This clearly explains the centrality of prayer and Bible study in Protestant practice. But do Protestants also have a theological or spiritual framework that sees fasting or other ascetic practices as spiritually useful? If someone does not practice fasting, for example, are they missing out on something important? Do Protestants believe that certain spiritual disciplines—beyond prayer and Bible study—can have specific spiritual effects, such as aiding in spiritual warfare or bringing about other spiritual benefits? I recognize that Protestantism encompasses a wide range of perspectives, so I am interested in an overview of them.

I have a multi-part question. - Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest? Genesis, Chapter 4 tells us about Cain and Abel. Genesis, Chapter 5 tells us about Seth and "other sons and daughters". I highly doubt that our species began with many acts of incest (not just for religious/legal/moral reasons but biological reasons as well), so how did humanity continue? As a Christian, am I obliged to accept one of the following? 1. Adam and Eve's progeny mated with descendants from another lineage that the Bible (through no apparent malice) failed to describe. 2. The story of Adam and Eve is just that - A story. It is a story that was passed down by way of oral tradition. It was never meant to describe actual historical events.

William of Tocco, O.P., mentions in ch. 5 of his biography of St. Thomas Aquinas (pp. 33-4) that: >once he [St. Thomas] had reached the age of five, they sent him to the [Benedictine] monastery of Monte Cassino in the arms of his nurse. […] Very soon, this child began to receive his education in the monastery under the diligent instruction of a master to whom he showed clear signs of his future advancement. Dom Delatte's commentary on *St. Benedict's Rule* ch. 59 (p. 406 ) says: > children [were] received into the monastery temporarily as *alumni*, to be educated there in contrast to "children [who were] given permanently and devoted to the religious life", which was later forbidden by the Council of Trent session 25, ch. 15: "Profession Shall Not Be Made Except After One Year’s Probation and on the Completion of the Sixteenth Year". Why did the Benedictines stop admitting such young boys to their monasteries for educating them?

In the past there have been reports that Christians are persecuted in Afghanistan. Is this still true?

In studying the 1830 publication alongside the 1966 publication, I've discovered a lot of changes in words and phrases. If a Book is purported to be inspired by God (such as the Bible) is it not logical to expect it to not need "improvements?" Does not the existence of these changes demonstrate that indeed neither the original 1830 version nor the 1966 version are inspired or God breathed? And if one does believe that God can change his revelation to man, how then can we know and trust that it won't change again and again like shifting sand? Isn't God by nature immutable? And therefore shouldn't his word to us also be unchanging?

In Luke 20:36, Jesus says: *“Those who are worthy of the resurrection from the dead into glory become immortal, like the angels, who never die nor marry.” (TPT)* And in Matthew 22:30 He adds: *“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (ESV)* Some translations use the wording “become like angels.” Does this mean that believers will be transformed into the same form as angels — perhaps even having wings — or is Jesus only referring to other aspects of angelic existence (such as immortality and not marrying) rather than physical form?

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a new heresy, opposing established orthodoxy, and by gaining many followers. The term "Arianism," by itself, implies that it is something developed by Arius: > Britannica defines Arianism as: “A heresy **first proposed by Arius** of > Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created > being.” > > Arianism is “a heresy of the Christian Church, **started by Arius** ... > who taught that the Son is not equivalent to the Father (όμοούστος = > consubstantialis), thereby provoking a serious schism in the Christian > Church” (Jewish Encyclopedia ). (Note that this quote explains "equivalent" as "same substance" (homoousios).) > > “Athanasius' account begins by presenting Arius as **the originator of a > new heresy**” (Ayres, p. 107). In other words, Arianism is something that Arius developed. He developed a new theology or heresy, which caused the Controversy because many people accepted it. However, Archbishop Rowan Williams, in a recent book on Arius, described him as a conservative, meaning that he defended the tradition, which would mean that he did not develop a new theology: > “Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a > conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, 175). > > “A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality > has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his > supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured > tradition” (Williams, 21). > > “In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology” > (Williams, 233). Other authors added: > “Arius … represents a school … and the school was to some extent > independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with > respect and awe as its founder” (Hanson, 97). > > “Arius too, far from being an original thinker, was simply one more > adherent of the dyohypostatic (two hypostases) tradition” (Lienhard ). > > “My second theological trajectory is the one in which we locate Arius > himself. This loose alliance I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this > term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with > either of Arius' most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or > Eusebius of Caesarea” (Ayres, p. 52). One comment is that those two things can be true at the same time. How would that be possible? Arius either developed a new theology or he did not. If he were a conservative Alexandrian, he was defending the traditional Alexandrian theology. Ken Graham says: "Would be better to quote Christian definitions rather than those of non-christian sources." Ken, if you knew anything about this subject, you would have known that the guys I quote are the world experts in the field, and they are all Catholics in good and regular standing. The problem is that people do not want to accept the revised account of the Arian Controversy: > “The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been > like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting > shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer > and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around > the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95-96). Dottard commented: > Arius initiated the new teaching that was rejected by the council of > Nicaea. The "controversy" arose because many recognized his teaching as > different from that of the NT which Nicaea was called to resolve. (It > did so because it essentially tried to meld Greek philosophy with > Biblical teaching which has always been a disaster. Dottard, you start by saying that Arius developed a new teaching. That is exactly what the experts are saying is not true.

I am currently reading up on of apocryphal and pseudopigagraphical literature, and I see on a list that the Testament of Hezekiah is enumerated as one of them. However, I cannot locate a source or any short blurb on its date, origin, and content? Do any of you know? Thanks!

According to Catholic theology could God command someone to kill himself? If the answer is yes, is this considered a suspension of the natural law?

There are two mentions of Jonah prophesying in the Bible, once in 2 Kings and once in Jonah. Were those two separate prophecies for two separate kings? I am curious if both passages refer too the same prophecy or if there were two separate prophecies which did not come to pass. I have always been told that Jonah did not want to go to Nineveh because he despised Nineveh and wanted to see it destroyed. I am wondering if it could be accurate to theorize that part of the reason Jonah fled is because his pride was hurt as a result of unfulfilled prophesy and he did not want to be proven wrong again? Jonah 4:2

I was wondering what the different names of the various hours mean in the liturgy of the hours? Where did they come from and what is their significance? They sound badass, but it would be nice to know why they are called what they are called. The hours: - Matins - Prime - Lauds - Terce - Sext - None - Vespers - Compline (I have a hunch that "None" is etymologically related to the english word "noon", seeing as this hour is prayed close to noon)

When the verse is read in the Vulgate it sounds like it refers to the faith/faithfulness of the one who hears, however in the Greek of my Septuagint, the LORD says "my faith/faithfulness," referring to the LORD's own faith/faithfulness. >[Hab 2:4 VUL] ecce qui incredulus est non erit recta anima eius in semet ipso iustus autem in fide **sua** vivet >[Hab 2:4 LXX] ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς **μου** ζήσεται Also note: >[Hab 2:4 Dead Sea Scroll] 4 Behold, his soul is puffed up. It is not upright in him, but the righteous will live by **his** faith. >[Hab 2:4 NASB95] "Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by **his** faith. >[Rom 1:17 VUL] iustitia enim Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem sicut scriptum est iustus autem ex fide vivit >[Rom 1:17 NKJV] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." >[Gal 3:11 VUL] quoniam autem in lege nemo iustificatur apud Deum manifestum est quia iustus ex fide vivit >[Gal 3:11 NKJV] But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God [is] evident, for "the just shall live by faith." >[Heb 10:38 VUL] iustus autem meus ex fide vivit quod si subtraxerit se non placebit animae meae >[Heb 10:38 NKJV] Now the just shall live by faith; But if [anyone] draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him." The Jewish rendering looks like this: >Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright in him; but the righteous shall live by **his** faith. {S} So whose faith are we really talking about?

According to Catholic theology, could God permit someone to engage in unnatural sex acts (contracepted sex acts, sodomy, etc)? There is some background to this in McHugh, O.P., & Callan, O.P., *Moral Theology* , but unfortunately they use other examples: >303. According to the manner in which they oblige, the laws of nature are twofold, namely, absolute and relative.
(a) Absolute laws are those that oblige for every case and condition, because the matter with which they are concerned is intrinsically good or bad in every instance (e.g., the laws forbidding marriage between parent and child, the law against polyandry).
(b) Relative laws of nature are those that oblige except in case of a most grave public necessity, because the matter with which they are concerned is generally and of its nature very becoming or unbecoming (e.g. the laws forbidding marriage between brother and sister, the law forbidding polygamy). >311. Is God able to make a decree which sets up a most grave public necessity opposed to the observance of a law of nature?
(a) If there is question of absolute laws (see 303), this cannot be done, for God cannot deny Himself by making a disposition contrary to His Eternal Law. Example: We do not read that God ever sanctioned polyandry or marriage between parent and child, and it seems that He could never permit such things as lawful.
(b) If there is question of relative laws (see 303), the decree in question can be made by God; for the unbecomingness of that which is forbidden by a relative law passes away in the face of a great need. Example: Since God desired the propagation of the human race from one man and one woman, marriage between brothers and sisters was not against the Natural Law at the beginning. Since God desired the speedy multiplication of the chosen people after the patriarchal era, polygamy was not repugnant to nature among the Jews of that period. So for example, God permitted the patriarchs to practice polygamy, but He could not have permitted them to use artificial contraception or engage in unnatural sex acts?

Billy Graham is often quoted as saying that the Bible is “God’s love letter to us.” What did he mean by this? Is there a biblical basis for calling the Bible a “love letter,” or is it more of a pastoral metaphor?

So how do they know the angel of the Lord is Michael? How do they reconcile this since Michael in the Bible at Daniel 10:13 is described as "one of the chief princes?"

***This might usefully take us back to what the [first question in this series](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107548/10672) pointed to – Paul’s explanation to Christians*** in Galatians 3:10-12. That last verse is connected to Leviticus 18:5. And perhaps 1 Peter 3:18 might show God’s plan of saving humanity from this curse of the law. But I don’t want to cramp your answers, just so long as they actually stick to the confines of this last series of questions – if you don’t mind! Is it reasonable to suggest that justification cannot be obtained through human efforts; that faith in the work of Christ avails for salvation, and that reliance to any degree on works excludes trust in the finished work of Christ? This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

I don't know where to post this, but I am trying to remember the name and author of a Christian rock song from around the 80's or 90's. It had something like spoken lyrics about a Satan figure defeating Jesus; then there was a wrestling-style countdown from ten to one, then an announcement that Jesus had come back to life; concluding with a theme possibly involving the lyrics "he's alive!" or similar. It may have been by Petra or similar.

I have read several books that identify archaeological evidence in support of hundreds and hundreds of biblical places, cultures, and historical events. What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica says > The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century. Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a Bishop? Also, are there any non-biblical 1st-century historical accounts that mention his being the Bishop of Rome?