GotQuestions.org has an article entitled [*Why did Jesus say that the demon could only come out by prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29)?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/only-come-out-by-prayer-and-fasting.html) , which I’d like to quote to motivate this question: > Later, the disciples privately asked Jesus why they could not cast out the unclean spirit (Mark > 9:28), and Jesus replied that this particular kind could only come out > “by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29, KJV). It is only the King James > Version (and NKJV) that records Jesus saying the demon could only come > out by prayer and fasting. Other translations (ASV, NASB, ESV, NIV, et > al.) leave out *and fasting* and only mention prayer. The difference is > due to a textual variant. The two oldest and most reliable Greek > manuscripts omit *and fasting*. > > While there are many variants in the Greek manuscripts of the New > Testament, it is remarkable that none of the variants create any > significant doctrinal challenge—they are usually minor and don’t > impact the message of a passage at all. Mark 9:29 is one of the more > significant variants, as the differing translations make it unclear > whether the demon in Mark 9 could only come out by prayer and fasting, > or whether prayer alone would work. It is worth noting that in the New > Testament fasting was simply prayer so focused and intense that a > person did not give attention to things like eating or drinking—so > either way, Jesus is emphasizing that the demon in Mark 9 could only > come out by intensive prayer. > > As Jesus explains to the crowd, the key was the faith of those > involved (e.g., Mark 9:19, 23). So it is evident that prayer rooted in > faith in Jesus Christ is effective (see James’ assertion that the > prayer of a righteous [believing] person is effective, James 5:16b). > Jesus was challenging the crowd, the boy’s father, and the disciples > on the importance of believing in Him as the One who could accomplish > what would otherwise be impossible. Whether one accepts the *prayer and fasting* variant or the *prayer only* variant, it is clear that, in either case, a special kind or a higher degree of prayer is required before attempting difficult exorcisms. Unfortunately, Jesus’s recorded words are quite vague on this point, as He does not provide a more precise protocol, leaving several questions unanswered, such as: - How can one determine if an exorcism will be particularly difficult? - What factors contribute to the difficulty of an exorcism? - How much time should be devoted to prayer in preparation for a difficult exorcism? - Is fasting ever necessary, at least in extreme cases, and if so, for how long? Or is prayer alone always sufficient? Are there any Christian denominations or traditions that teach a more detailed protocol for preparing for difficult exorcisms?

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.

Relative to research I'm doing, I wanted to pick the brains of the community at large and see if anyone had an answer to a question. Josephus states that Pompey took Jerusalem in the third month (Sivan) of 63 BCE during the solemn fast. He then later states that Herod captured Jerusalem in the third month, on the same day, also on the solemn fast, in 37 BCE. >**Taken by Pompey:** [...] the city was taken on the third month, on the day of the fast, upon the hundred and seventy-ninth olympiad, when Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero were consuls [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66) >**Taken by Herod:** This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls at Rome, on the hundred and eighty-fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.487-88) To head certain responses off at the pass, Josephus did not say that it was the Day of Atonement (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66, 487) as some are wont to suggest. In a careful examination of both instances, that of Pompey and Herod, you will find, first, that Pompey started his war with the Jews in the spring (Joseph. *AJ* 14.38). It was a three-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of fasting (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66; *BJ* 1.149). In the case of Herod, he started his siege toward the end of winter (Joseph. *BJ* 1.343; *AJ* 14.465). It was a five-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of solemn fasting (Joseph. *BJ* 1.351; *AJ* 14.487-8). In the case of Pompey, a three-month siege beginning around the “beginning of the spring” would have had its conclusion in late spring, coincident with the third month of the Jewish ecclesiastical calendar. In the case of Herod, a five-month siege, which he began in winter, puts the fifth month likewise in the vicinity of late spring. So, to be clear on the subject, by context, neither instance can be even remotely construed to have occurred in autumn, which is where Tishri and the Day of Atonement fall. Concerning the third month, Sivan, I can find no record in any of the Jewish literature to pinpoint what fast this might have been. Nor can I definitively establish a day of the week. For the fast, the 23rd of Sivan is the closest example I could find, observed in modern times as the fast for omitting the offering of the first fruits in Jerusalem during the days of Jeroboam (*Shulchan Arukh*, Orach Chayim 580.2). However, it is suspect, since the circumstances surrounding the incident of Jeroboam interfering with the sacrifice of the people in Jerusalem looks to be coincident to Tabernacles rather than anything occurring in Sivan (1 Kgs. 12:25-33; Joseph. *AJ* 8.225-230). The earliest reference I could find to corroborate such a fast was the *Shulchan Arukh*, by Joseph Karo, 1563, as noted. Meanwhile, his most significant predecessor, Maimonides, made no mention of this fast in his *Misneh Torah*, c. 1168-1178. Nor are there any such references in the Talmud. I did find another reference to weekly fasts on Mondays and Thursdays (Tosef. to Ta'an. 2:4), but I couldn't determine their origin in terms of date, whether this was a regular practice in the first century BCE, or if it was something that came in vogue much later, as so many other observances did. For the day, there is an inference that Pompey took the city on the sabbath (Joseph. *AJ* 14.64), but regular, ritual fasting is prohibited on the sabbath (bErub. 41a, bTa’an 27b), so this inference is likely just a coincidence of wording. Dio Cassius also tells us that Jerusalem was taken on the Day of Saturn, or Saturday, in the instances of both Pompey and Herod (Dio Cass. 37.16.1-4, 49.22.2-5). However, I suspect, because of the prohibition against fasting on the sabbath (apart from occasional exceptions), that he merely inferred the Day of Saturn because of Pompey's tactics. Soooooo, I'm at a bit of an impasse. I can live with the conclusion that there was some unnamed fast in the month of Sivan if I can't find an answer. That Josephus says there was one is proof enough for me that a ritual fast in the third month existed in the first century BCE. The lack of a specific answer will neither make nor break the conclusions of my research. However, I've seen some intelligent people on here already. I'm hoping someone might be able to point me in the right direction to discover the identify of this enigmatic fast. It would be nice icing on the cake. And I would be much obliged if responses were confined to the question. I know the temptation is great to expound upon the various death of Herod hypotheses. But I just want to know about the fast if anyone can provide me with some useful information. The relevance of this question concerns the birth and life of Christ. It is part of a greater study on the death of Herod, which has a direct impact on the nativity, and by extension the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Many moons ago, I was surfing through the ocean of Wikipedia and found the page for "[Great Lent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent) ." While reading, I found [this quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent#:~:text=The%20Church%20Fathers%5Bwhich%3F%5D%20have%20referred%20to%20fasting%20without%20prayer%20as%20%22the%20fast%20of%20the%20demons%22%5Bcitation%20needed%5D%20since%20the%20demons%20do%20not%20eat%20according%20to%20their%20incorporeal%20nature%2C%20but%20neither%20do%20they%20pray.) : > "The Church Fathers have referred to fasting without prayer as "the fast of the demons" since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray." I have absolutely fallen in love with this idea but have completely failed to find where it came from. I have a feeling it is hidden somewhere in the depths of the PG or PL and even the most advanced AIs can not find it. Does anyone happen to know where this quote has come from?

According to Catholicism, how long can the main meal during Lent last for (time wise)? Most Catholics who fast regularly know how to fast and abstain on fast days, especially during Lent. But, is there some guidance or rule in the writings of Catholic theologians or Canon Law on how long (duration in time) the main meal of a fast is permitted to be? For example, are Catholics permitted to make the unique meal of the day last one, two or perhaps even three hours? Are there any historical references that deal with this subject matter? Naturally we must avoid gluttony even on fast days!

NPR ran an interesting piece about [the saga of whether or not Catholics could eat alligator on Fridays during Lent](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/27/175058833/forget-fish-fridays-in-louisiana-gator-is-on-the-lenten-menu) . According to the story, an alligator merchant by the name of Jim Piculas advocated in a letter to [Archibishop Gregory Aymond](http://www.arch-no.org/aymond) for permission to consider alligator as seafood, and thus exempt from the prohibition on Friday meat consumption. Now, aside from the giggles on the matter, what authority does the Archbishop of New Orleans have to set out the orthopractic model of Catholic belief in New Orleans? I understand that the Bishop of Rome has the authority, when speaking ex cathedra, to promulugate doctrine - but I've never heard that other Bishops have this right. In declaring a reptile equivalent to a fish, the Archbishop seems to have made a fairly significant theological interpretation. What gives him the authority to do so?

I've been putting together an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/85857/50422) to my own question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85850/50422 . While doing this exercise, I realized that many of the conditional promises in the Bible depend very strongly on the individual's faith. The one that stresses this point most clearly is the promise of wisdom in James 1:5-8: **The promise of wisdom, to those who ask for it in faith.** > 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 **But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind**. 7 **For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord**; 8 **he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways**. [James 1:5-8, ESV] James couldn't have been more clear and emphatic: if you don't have faith, forget about receiving anything from God. Period. Unfortunately, this can be quite disheartening for someone who yearns to enjoy God's promises but lacks at the same time the faith that is necessary to actualize them in their own life. Fortunately, hope shouldn't be lost, since there are other promises that are specifically aimed to increase a person's faith. The one I want to bring the reader's attention to is the following: **The promise of faith, to those who pray and fast. And the promise of miracles, to those who have (enough) faith.** > 20 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” *21 **But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting*** [Matthew 17:20-21, ESV] I personally believe this promise is very powerful. It not only promises that a person can significantly boost their faith through prayer and fasting, but also that they might even possibly attain a miracle-working faith, a faith that can move God to do anything for them (within the boundaries of God's will, of course). And there is even more: with such a level of faith, all the other promises that have faith as a necessary condition should just unfold naturally, like a ripple effect. In other words, someone with this level of faith should be able to enjoy all of God's promises. **Question**: Do any Christian groups or denominations believe that miracle-working faith can be attained through prayer and fasting, thus enabling the believer to enjoy all of God's promises that have faith as a necessary condition?

To the best of my knowledge, when Jews fast they either have - a **minor fast**, where they don't eat or drink anything at all, not even water, from sunrise until what they traditionally consider the next day, that is, sunset, OR - a **full fast**, in which, again, total restraint from all food and drink, from sunrise until sunset, and *throughout* the darkness of the "next day", so that is a full 24-hour day in our modern understanding. When Jesus fasted for 40 days in the desert (*cf*. Matthew 4:1-11), did he not have anything to eat or drink at all?

There is a question on here about the importance of fasting. But this is different because I want to know what denominations don't believe in fasting and why they think that its not important. I personally have great faith in fasting and in the power of fasting such as found in Mark and Matt, when the 12 have tried to cast out a devil but failed. > Mark 9:28-29, 28, (end of verse)...Why could not we cast him out? >29, And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. > >Matt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting. Which is a clear example of where the disciples could not do something unless they fasted and prayed for the power to do it first. Edit: Changed as per the comments.

According to mainline Protestantism (Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Methodist) what is the reason why Jesus fasted for 40 days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11): > Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] > by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was > hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of > God, tell these stones to become bread. [...] Does Jesus teach us here that we should fast as a discipline? Why did Jesus do this?

Does water with ice cubes in it count as ordinary water, or is it different enough (because ice is not the same form as water) to count as breaking the eucharistic fast? For clarification, this scenario is focused on the 1hr eucharistic fast before mass.

I read from a little book called the *Manual of Catholic Devotions* (by Regina Press, with an imprimatur dated 24 July 1963) that the rules for fasting and abstinence in the United States at that time were: > Abstinence alone is prescribed every Friday, unless a holiday of obligation falls thereon. > > Fasting and Abstinence are prescribed in the United States on the Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent and Holy Saturday forenoon (on all other days of Lent fasting alone is prescribed and meat is allowed once a day), the Ember Days, viz., the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday following the First Sunday of Lent, Pentecost or Whitsunday, the 14th of September, and the Third Sunday of Advent; the Vigils of Pentecost, All Saints, Immaculate Conception, and Christmas. > > There is no fast or abstinence if a Vigil falls on a Sunday. Whenever meat is permitted, fish may be taken at the same meal. The same book defines fasting and abstinence as follows: > Abstinence forbids the use of flesh-meat and of the juice thereof (soup, etc.). Eggs, cheese, butter and seasonings of food are permitted. The Law of Fasting forbids more than one full meal a day, which must not be taken before noon. Based on the description there doesn't seem to be much difference between the Ember Days in Lent and the other days in Lent: both fasting and abstinence are required on Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent, so the Lenten Ember Wednesday and Friday appear to have the same rules as any other Wednesday or Friday in Lent. Therefore only Ember Saturday appears to have an additional restriction of abstinence compared to other days in Lent. Is this correct? If so, is the similarity between the Lenten Ember Days and the other days of Lent at this time (early 1960s) due to the relaxation of fasting/abstinence rules over time, or were they always so similar?

Before going to communion I took a sip of water, realizing afterwards that it may have been water to which drops of minerals to prevent cramping had been added the night before. It was too late to spit out. Should I have refrained from receiving communion. I'll mention it to the priest in my monthly confession.

First, I want to clarify that I don't like using the word "fasting" to describe this concept because it is a novel term used for people trying to lose weight, but this is the term that describes this concept in English so I will use it. For us, Eastern Orthodox fasting means to stop eating anything that comes from the interior of an animal: meat, milk, eggs, etc. Honey is permitted because it is not coming from the bees, but bees transform the flower pollen into honey, but the honey is not a substance that is produced by the bee's body (even if they dissolve the pollen with their saliva). During the Christmas fasting (which started on 17 November and ends on 25 December), we can eat fish and seafood once a week. I know that as you move to the west, fasting is not a thing anymore. Catholics can't eat meat but can eat milk, eggs, etc. It is worth mentioning that fasting is not related to food exclusively, it also means praying a lot more than usual and keeping your body away from any earthy pleasure (partying, shopping, alcohol) And if you move more to the west fasting isn't a thing at all. What is your denomination and do you believe that fasting brings a Christian closer to God in any way? There is also a type of fasting that we call "black fasting" where you can't eat anything at all. You can drink just water.

Lent is presently the only period of fasting binding for Latin Catholics. However, I have come across other times for fasting that bind to one degree or another at various times (some being purely voluntary, others always obligatory, some changing with time). So far I have seen: * St. Michael's Lent * Advent * "Summer lent" or St John the Baptist's lent * Rogation days, vigils, and Ember Days Are there any other periods of fasting that have been customarily observed by Latin Catholics throughout history?

What information do we have about early Lent fasting practices? I saw an interesting reference to Ramadan having grown out of Syrian Lent practices, but aside from that, I haven't found any good descriptions of early Christian fasting methods outside of 7th century Syria. Generally when I read about early Christian fasting I just assume they were abstaining from food and drink for the entire period referenced but they obviously couldn't do that for 40 days and 40 nights. If the practices are poorly documented during the early church, at what point does something resembling a standardized Catholic 40 day/night fast begin to emerge?

>Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after he had fasted for forty days and forty nights, he then became hungry. Matt 4:1-2 Jesus was hungry - says nothing about being thirsty, which would usually be a more urgent need. This example of perhaps the most significant fast in the bible, appears to have been of food only. Further we read that the first temptation was, >If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become *bread*. Is there a definite description of what kind of fasting God requires - specifically when he *requires a fast* as opposed to a time without food etc for other purposes or reasons.

There are some things that I've been told since I was kid that I'd like to ask about regarding fasting. I'm a of Catholic Maronite Rite and I'd like Catholic answers. - Are we allowed to eat whatever we want on Sundays? I've been taught not to fast on Sundays, therefore we can eat whatever we want on Sundays all day long. - Are we allowed to drink? I've been told that we can drink water, only Muslims don't drink water while fasting. Some Christians do it, but it's optional. - Is Saturday or Sunday the last day of lent? I believe it's Sunday, meaning you cannot eat on Holy Saturday, my friend is a Catholic too and he believes that he can eat on Holy Saturday. - What about fish and egg? I don't eat meat in the first and last week. however, I eat fish and eggs. Is it allowed? I've been told so.

I recently watched a [testimony](https://youtu.be/Ch6EOVJSYM4) that reports the results of a 40-day water/juice fast (no food). The individual claims to have been addicted to drugs for 22 years, including marijuana, cocaine, mushrooms, LSD, ecstasy, prescription pain pills and alcohol. He went cold turkey, abstaining from both food and addictive substances during the 40-day fast, after which he reports complete freedom and no relapses. I find this testimony quite impressive, both for the amazing results and the endurance required to accomplish such a long fast, but I also find it kind of extreme. I know that Jesus is reported to have fasted for 40 days too in Scripture, but to be honest, fasting for such a long period of time is not something you commonly hear about. How common is it to fast for 40 or more days among Christians? What are the typical reasons Christians give for the decision to fast for 40+ days?

It would make sense for an enemy nation with knowledge of the Catholic or Orthodox systems of fasting to attack during the fasting seasons, when the faithful were not well fed. As a corollary, it would make sense for a Catholic or Orthodox nation to abstain from war during a fasting season. Are there any recorded instances, or perhaps some Catholic canon law or Orthodox economy, regarding the suspension of Lenten or other fasts during times of war?