youngalexander

Solo, why not just Google Fasting? Tis amazing the extent of human extreme.


There is perhaps something in this claim. They are both so emphatic in the necessity of a mythic expression for the troubles of our times and yet approach Xianity from seemingly opposite poles. One from Catholicism and the other from atheism. Could it be, the marriage of true minds upon the only possible reality?:Cheeky:

Solo

I did Google fasting. But I also did a little research into the issues while back. Two different things.

Jiri

Solo

As someone said here, nothing is impossible. The question here how probable is 40-day fasting (and both you and I meant full fast; that is just water) under the circumstances described in Matthew. I believe it is hugely improbable.

The hunger strikes that you cite do not compare, as a test of endurance, for a number of reasons, first of which is that Jesus was fending for himslef alone, in the wilderness. Angels ministering to him (Mark) then would have had to, as a minimum, compensate for the lack of sheltered environment. I suppose that would mean supplying also the daily calories needed to maintain bodily temperature. Further, the text of Matthew indicates some fairly robust physical activity performed by Jesus during the fast: walking with the devil to Jerusalem (and presumably back), and then climbing a "very high" mountain. This would have been a huge stress on his organs. So, the challenges combined would have brought the "human" Jesus to the brink of fatal exhastion well towards the lower limit that dr. Sheldon indicates in the article you supplied: 17 to 76 days.

To my mind (and given the alternative wording by Luke) it is much more fitting to interpret the lack of intake of food, as indifference to feeding, and living on scraps, during the struggle.

Jiri

aa5874

You need to understand that Jesus never had a struggle with the devil, therefore the recorded fictitious 'fast' symbolizes nothing.I have studied the NT's account of the fasting of Jesus and it appears to me to be that the reason for the 'fast' was to fulfill part of the criteria to be called the Christ.

Are you now telling me that fiction in the Bible is considered to be 'a complex religious symbologem of an ordeal?'

Solo

Luke did not insist it was a fast, and Mark (Q) did not think it was at all important. Hardly then a qualifying criterion for a Messiah in most early traditions.

No, what I am telling you is that there is difference between fiction and complex religious symbology.

Jiri

jakejonesiv

Whatever, neither should be confused with history.

Jake Jones IV

The Bishop

Er....... what?

Solo

The ability to read the cognitive content of the texts, its import and function(s), surely predicates the ability to read them as history.

Jiri

Gamera

God knows everything, so recourse to his not needing to know something doesn't get us anywhere.

The test wasn't to show God, but presumably to show us -- hence it was written down and appears in the gospel narrative. I presume anything in the narrative is meant for the readers, not for God, who doesn't really need further illumination on the subject.

The test went beyond food, as you would know if you read it carefully. Presumably, the nature of the test is figurative of the test Christians face in living by the gospel message. That's the general structure of the trials underwent by Jesus. They prefigure the tests Christians will undergo. Jesus even comes out and says so, by refering to taking up one's cross.

emphryio

It was a book link, not an article. And what you've said was refuted in it in terms of physical exercise (some people have gone on long distance walks while doing long term fasts) and 17 being the "lower limit." I'm not interested in regurgitating the book for you further as you don't seem to have anything to offer in return plus seem closeminded on the issue.