Sis, what do you mean?

Why thank you. You too!

I think it is a stretch to call Eve's sin the breaking of a "fast." The term fast meant the abstention from food entirely, not merely the abstention from one or more specific types of food. Given the interpretation you provide here, the Jews "fasted" every day of the year, when we know from history and tradition that they didn't view themselves as fasting every day. Just a point of clarification.

Hmmmmmm. I can't say that I agree with the bolded, Scott. That is the common, modern way of thinking about fasting (no food at all), and it IS one of the fasts that you see in the Scriptures, but it hasn't been the only practice throughout church history. In this context, we must define "fast" through the church and the early church fathers did see what God had imposed upon Adam and Eve a "fast," and that the breaking of it was the first sin. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they developed the regular fasting practice of the church accordingly. In the ancient church, there are times when we have a partial fast such as what the Holy Spirit describes in Genesis (where we're not asked to deny all food, but just certain foods), and there are times when we have a total fast (where do not eat or drink anything at all). Both are biblical and both are traditional, and they are distinguishable from each other.

_________________
Warmly, Darla Juliana
"Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" (Philo of Alexandria)

I haven't had any, that's why I asked. As a child I was brought up Catholic, but we rarely went to church we moved alot. My dad had a problem with liquor. Mom wanted no part of church. As an adult I have Agoraphobia but have tried several churches, but Mike works Sunday mornings and i can't go by myself, even with the kids. Now,Mike and I do our own studies. So, I am just letting everything absorb. Just no arguing lol

_________________
Married 21 years, 3 kids 20, 16 and 15

Sorry to hear that things were so difficult for you as a kid, Alex.

Given your situation, you might find it helpful to find a webcast Church service for Sunday mornings. Our Church has one on its website, as do many other Churches.

If for some reason I am unable to attend on Sunday morning (like our little one is sick, but I am fine) - then I can still enjoy *some* connection with the Church. It's not like actually being there, but it's still a help.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

I do not know of a single place in the Scriptures where abstaining from certain foods is called fasting. In fact, if this was the case then the Jews would have been "fasting" every day of the year (when Scriptures indicate that they were not). Can you direct me to any Scriptures that indicate that "fasting" meant abstaining from certain foods?

As I said, "we must define 'fast' through the church [not through a personal understanding of the word] and the early church fathers did call what God had imposed upon Adam and Eve a 'fast.' They also taught that the breaking of this 'fast' was the first sin," and then I provided an instance in Scripture that indicates an abstention from a certain type of food (Genesis).

You could probably liken it to the word "Trinity." It's not in the Bible, but the principle is there (and understood) and the word and its definition was added to the faith later by the Church. That's okay, right?

The early church did begin calling partial abstention "fasting" and meant a certain thing by it, and prescribed a specific practice of it. If there were a wide variety of practices and meanings to this partial abstention, and if it was used on different days and at different times from parish to parish, or if it was taught as optional by some and not optional by others, I could see a cause for concern. But to ALL Orthodox, now and throughout time since the practice was established, this partial fast has meant one thing (abstention from all animal products, as well as alcohol/wine and oil), has been practiced at the same times (specific days of the week and periods of the year), and has been taught throughout the Church as good and effective for the putting off of the "old man" in us. Don't you find that kind of amazing? The lack of change for 1600-1700 years? I do.

Same with the Divine Liturgy. All the Orthodox throughout the world have been doing the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in their churches on most Sundays of the year for 1600 or so years. No priest ever, ever "wings it" and does something different. On the Sundays we don't use St. John Chrysostom's liturgy, we all use St. Basil's Liturgy instead (same Sundays). Wow. That's unity. And that's what I missed and longed for when I wasn't Orthodox. I didn't like us all doing our own thing from church to church with a great amount of both doctrinal and practical variety. It was very confusing (not to mention time consuming and energy-zapping) to me.

Again, I'm not at all saying the Protestant church is bad -- just truthfully saying it doesn't have this kind of unity, which is the kind of unity spoken of in John 14.

_________________
Warmly, Darla Juliana
"Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" (Philo of Alexandria)

That said, I submit the following:

From the Thayer's Lexicon:
νηστεύω [the word translated "fast" in the New Testament)
1) To abstain as a religious exercise from food and drink: either entirely, if the fast lasted but a single day, or from customary and choice nourishment, if it continued several days.

From Dictionary.com:
1. to abstain from all food.
2. to eat only sparingly or of certain kinds of food, especially as a religious observance.

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
1. Abstinence from food; properly a total abstinence, but it is used also for an abstinence from particular kinds of food, for a certain time.
2. Voluntary abstinence from food, as a religious mortification or humiliation; either total or partial abstinence from customary food, with a view to mortify the appetites, or to express grief and affliction on account of some calamity, or to deprecate an expected evil.

_________________
Warmly, Darla Juliana
"Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" (Philo of Alexandria)

The problem here is that there IS a word fast that is used in Scripture and it is never used to describe what you are describing. There is NOT a word trinity, it is a new extra-Biblical word that describes a concept present in Scriptures. That is a significant distinction. This would be like "the church" declaring that "baptism" meant something else or that "prayer" meant something else. You can define new words and give them conceptual meanings, but you can't take already existing Scriptural terms and ascribe them new definitions.


The problem I have is that the church hierarchy as it exists today is clearly not what existed in the 1st century. The claim that either the Catholic church or the Orthodox church of today are the same as the 1st century church established by the apostles is inaccurate. From whence do the current church leaders derive their authority? How do they choose successors for departed leaders? We know how the apostles did that the one time they replaced a deceased apostle.


Once again, there is no Scriptural authority for this. I know, you don't recognize Scripture as authoritative unless your church declares it to be so, but this is why others question Orthodox churches.


We have this kind of unity. We have unity with Scripture, which is the Truth that Jesus ordered us to worship in. Jesus never said worship according to tradition or worship according to liturgy, He said to worship in Spirit and in Truth and that God's word is truth. That is the standard I and many others use - the Word of God alone (which is Truth).