Spiritual Warfare: Why Is "Fasting" Omitted In Some Bible Translations?

I’m not sure about your 1880 date, but the Bible interprets itself . . .

Regarding "about 1880" it is not "my date." It is the era that a text (click here) thought by scholar-authors Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort to be older--hence better--was introduced. It is synthetic, cobbled together out of three text traditions. All modern Bible New Testament translations (excepting the New King James Version) have followed it.

Jesus was himself fasting for forty days in the desert, when He had victory over Satan; . . .

Prersonally, I don't think that fasting ave Jesus any greater power, since already having the attribute of omnipotency there is nothing that could make Him any more powerful should He choose to exercise it.

Whom do you think is to do the fasting? The exorcist? And why is that supposedly necessary discipline is left out of modern additions?

Again, I think this has little to do with the outcome of the election that is now upon us as a nation. Now we will get what we numerically deserve, be it a good or evil outcome. But prayer and alignment with God's view of it can affect how we handle the results, going forward.

You didn't look at my cross referenced link, I guess?

Anyway, Jesus was not omnipotent while He walked the earth; if He was, His death on the cross would be meaningless.

Rather, Christ lived and walked in the fullness of the gifts of the Spirit, which were poured out for all men after the Ascension at Pentecost. Walking in the fullness of the gifts of the Spirit is not the same as being omnipotent, but it is the way modern day Christians are all supposed to live, as Christ did.

If Christ was omnipotent while in human form, why did He cry out at His death on the cross “Eli, Eli, why has thou forsaken me?”

Jesus did NOT walk on earth as God, but as Man, to show us how we are supposed to live.

Likewise, Jesus’s fasting in the desert for forty days would have been meaningless, and the angels would not have to attended to Him, if He just zapped Himself into some sort of supernatural state where He wasn't hungry, etc.

No, Christ walked in the fullness of the gifts that were poured out on all mankind, in fulfillment of Joel's prophecy as Peter spoke of on that day at Pentecost.

Christ said that the disciples could not cast out the demon because of their unbelief... and then said that this kind comes out only by prayer and fasting... meaning somehow that fasting is a part of gaining faith and overcoming unbelief.

Remember, Christ demonstrated true spiritual warfare while fasting in the desert for forty days, and He showed how to overcome the devil in so doing.

You have to understand that being demonized is not like catching a cold or being infected with something physically.

The reason people are demonized is because they have given access or come into agreement with some vile lie or distortion or deception of Satan, the father of lies.

Fasting, as demonstrated even by Daniel when he was in the Chaldean court, sharpens the mind and the spirit. Jesus wanted the disciples to understand how to gain victory over the devil.

When David's child by Bathsheba was dying, he fasted and prayed to God before he knew the outcome.

Fasting and prayer is the clarion call for us on election day.

You didn't look at my cross referenced link, I guess?

I did, and it is a nice little site, but it does not answer the question of fasting regarding the verses you gave. But the quotes from Adam Clarke that I gave you did.

Anyway, Jesus was not omnipotent while He walked the earth; . . .

Your theology here is in so great an error as to be an insult to the Holy Spirit, indicating that your knowledge of the Christ of the Bible is so minute as to call into question whether you have been saved.

It is not possible to debate with you on this. The Holy Ghost says in Colossians 2:8-9, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (AV; my emphases in bolding and color).

For greater detail, you can check out this issue in Declarations of Christ's Deity: His Divine Attributes (click here) as well as in the article The Attributes of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are Equal (click here).

FRiend, what you said puts your soul in danger. Your theology is either that of an unspiritual adherent, professing but unsaved; or of a new-born babe in Christ still carnally-minded, as yet undiscipled (1 Cor. 3:1-3a; cf 2 Pet. 3:14-16, "unlearned" = undiscipled in the Gk.).

In summary:

Jesus had all of the attributes and power of God the Father while always acting according to the Father's will.

By all means, this reply is not intended to be an insult, but rather a clear admonition and warning by a concerned disciple of Christ. You need to improve your grasp of the Holy Scriptures.

Indeed.

From Dr. Gary Butner as posted some time ago here on FR. Some of the Greek may not come out in the forward of this, so here is the link (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3109550/posts?page=164#164)

***Important - Godhead. This word appears three times in the New Testament, Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; and Col. 2:9. The one word “Godhead” is the translation of two Greek words which have a real distinction between them, a distinction that grounds itself on their different derivations. In Rom. 1:20 we have the word theiotes (θειοτες). In this word, Trench says that “Paul is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may everywhere trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these aids: He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in His Son; but only His divine attributes, His majesty and glory … and it is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and less personal word, just because he would affirm that men may know God’s power and majesty, His theia dunamis (θεια δυναμις) (divine power) (II Pet. 1:3), from His works; but would not imply that they may know Himself from these, or from anything short of the revelation of His eternal Word. Motives not dissimilar induce him to use to theion (το θειον) rather than ho theos (ὁ θεος) in addressing the Athenians on Mars’ Hill (Acts 17:29).”

In Rom. 1:20, Paul states that the invisible things of God, here, His eternal power and His theiotes (θειοτες), His divinity, namely, the fact that He is a Being having divine attributes, are clearly seen by man through the created universe. Man, reasoning upon the basis of the law of cause and effect, namely, that every effect demands an adequate cause, comes to the conclusion that the universe as an effect demands an adequate cause, and that adequate cause must be a Being having divine attributes. It was as the creator of the universe that fallen man knew God (v. 21). Perhaps the word “God-head” is the best one-word translation of theiotes (θειοτες) in Rom. 1:20. But the term must be explained as above for a proper exegesis of this passage. The same is true of Acts 17:29. When Paul speaks of all men as the offspring of God, he uses the word theos (θεος) for “God,” the word that implies full deity as Paul knows God. But when he speaks of the Greek’s conception of God or of what they as pagans might conceive God to be, he uses theiotes (θειοτες), for the Greeks could, apart from the revelation of God in Christ, only know Him as a Being of divine attributes.

***In Col. 2:9 theotes (θεοτες) is used. Here Trench says, “Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulLness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the apostle uses theotes (θεοτες) to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son.” Here the word “divinity” will not do, only the word “deity.” It is well in these days of apostasy, to speak of the deity of the Lord Jesus, not using the word “divinity” when we are referring to the fact that He is Very God. Modernism believes in His divinity, but in a way different from the scriptural conception of the term. Modernism has the pantheistic conception of the deity permeating all things and every man. Thus divinity, it says, is resident in every human being. It was resident in Christ as in all men. The difference between the divinity of Christ and that of all other men, it says, is one of degree, not of kind. Paul never speaks of the divinity of Christ, only of His deity. Our Lord has divine attributes since He is deity, but that is quite another matter from the Modernistic conception.

I'm sorry if you don't understand how to use a concordance...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_795.cfm

Check out the Greek on Kenosis. Jesus emptied Himself to become fully Man.

If Christ was not fully man (as well as fully God) the crucifixion would be pointless.

I'm sorry you don't believe the Gifts are for today, because that's why I think you are feigning such offense at this post and at me over fasting and prayer when confronting the demonic realm.

Quit going over the top with your phony critiques of my faith, it's obnoxious.

You have explained nothing that proves that Christ did not say prayer and fasting to aid the disciples when dealing with the demonic, and you have done it in a sick way on this election day, when we all need to be praying and fasting.

May the Lord rebuke you.

To continue the thought of your reply in Post #47, here is what the Holy Ghost, speaking through Beloved John, had to say:

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (2 Jn. 1:9 AV).

Beyond question, the doctrine of The Christ is founded upon the bedrock that Jesus is God incarnated in human flesh, being both fully God and fully man, inseparably united in one, never separated from His attributes as The God.

To claim and believe that Jesus was not omnipotent during HGis earthly ministry means, according to the above verse, that the person has neither the doctrine of Christ nor The God of the Bible.

That should cause one to pause for a moment of self-examination, eh?

The reason this is important to understand how Christ was fully God, but did not walk in Him omnipotence while on earth, is so that we can understand the nature of what He accomplished here on earth.

There is a tendency to say to oneself, “Oh, Jesus was God, so remaining sinless, doing the miracles, fasting for forty days in the desert, hanging on the cross for three days, being scourged and crowned was not a big deal. He was God, so it felt different for Him than it would for us.”

Wrong. My point is that Christ’s deity can not detract from His humanity. His suffering was real. His ordeals on earth were not mitigated by His divine nature. He literally sweated blood in the Garden... as a man. (there is scientific basis for sweating blood, btw).

It’s important to remember the truth that He was tempted as we are in all things, and yet overcame that temptation in His nature as a Man...NOT because He was God and therefore it was easier for Him to do so.

Ultimately this can give the spirit-filled Christian encouragement, to remember He could overcome what we are facing in our daily lives, so therefore we can, too!

Jesus was not “walking in” His omnipotence while He was on earth.

This is why He did not call down His angels to avenge His arrest.

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

Then said Jesus unto him:

“Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”

Jesus could not fulfill His anointing if He “walked in” i.e. comported Himself in the manner of omnipotence. He chose to walk fully in as a Man, in the flesh while He was on earth.

There is encouragement for us to understand this, and not dismiss the miracles of Christ's time on earth as “easy” because He was God. He suffered, willingly, as a Man for our sakes.

I am clarifying what I wrote on #42 that “He was not omnipotent when He walked on earth” by stating that He did not “walk in” his omnipotence while He walked on earth.

I would maintain the importance of this is an often overlooked point:

Because He did not “walk in” His omnipotence or the fullness of His deity,
this means He did nothing in terms of miracles or overcoming sin nature that we ourselves cannot do ourselves today, if we are filled with His spirit, the Holy Spirit, as He therefore lives inside of us to help us.

This partially explains what He meant when He told the disciples:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.”

(Key here is that Jesus had to go to the Father for the Holy Spirit to fall at Pentecost, and that people who lived after the Ascension will also have “greater faith” than the disciples in one sense, because they believe on whom they cannot see in the flesh.)

While this all has nothing to do with the necessity of fasting and praying, thank you for this interesting interchange. The Lord is Good! Bless you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.