Is Nudity Viewed as private in the Bible?

[BrianM]

It is clear that many instances of nudity is in the Bible, and we have discussed this to death. It does seem that many commandments, not just the top 10, but many other shall nots in the Bible, are geared toward preserving mankind and to prevent the spead of disease. In many cases, clothing's purpose is just that, a protection, and we can all think of instances and reasons that it would be required. One particular set of passages that references the phrase "uncovering the nudity of" is in Lev 18 verse 6-19, is condemmed for family members. One Bible with comments, says taht this is talking about who you can marry. In all cases it is talking to man, not women, but in verse 7, it says the ....father or mother. Obviously you cannot marry your father, so what does this mean?

[BrianM]

It is clear that many instances of nudity is in the Bible, and we have discussed this to death. It does seem that many commandments, not just the top 10, but many other shall nots in the Bible, are geared toward preserving mankind and to prevent the spead of disease. In many cases, clothing's purpose is just that, a protection, and we can all think of instances and reasons that it would be required. One particular set of passages that references the phrase "uncovering the nudity of" is in Lev 18 verse 6-19, is condemmed for family members. One Bible with comments, says taht this is talking about who you can marry. In all cases it is talking to man, not women, but in verse 7, it says the ....father or mother. Obviously you cannot marry your father, so what does this mean?

[Burntbuns]

Is this where you want to have your Bible study group? Anyway, it seems to me that circumcision wouldn't have been selected as a "sign" if the sign wasn't seen somewhat regularly. This leads me to believe that at least male/male nudity was common. I think also that many passages like the one you quoted do have to do with distinguishing with whom sexual contact is permitted.

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Burntbuns:
Is this where you want to have your Bible study group? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought this was a religion and Nudity section???
But I think you are right in your points about circumcision and the nakedness question. After pondering this question again, I think that Lev 18:7 means that anyone that is kin to your father or mother as a generality, then it goes into detail about sisters, cousins, in-laws, etc. So a father's nakedness would mean anyone that the father is related to.

[Leighton]

Brian M,

About your question regarding the Leviticus term "uncover the nakednes of" - when I was in theological college studying for my BTH they taught me that this phrase is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The translators of the Kings James Version were evidently embarassed to mention sexuality so they used a phrases that they knew would be understood by the readers of the time. The instruction, then, is aimed at thise who might be tempted to fornication or adultery.

Leighton, My understanding is that the scripture mentioned refers to incest. "Uncover the nakedness of----" means that no one is to have sex with relatives. This scripture doesn't mean that seeing the nude bodies of ones relatives of the opposite sex is wrong. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[RalphVa]

The "uncover the nakedness of..." in Leviticus is about not have sexual relations with. The modern translations say it that way.

Most comments about sexual relations in the Bible talk about keeping it covered, e.g. private. Whereas, pure nakedness was open. People often would strip to work because they didn't want to damage their clothing. That was the case with Peter, why the female lover in Song of Solomon was all brown after working in the vineyard, Jesus working in the garden after his resurrection and reappearance, Isaiah doing his work for 3 years naked, etc.

Ralph

[BrianM]

Would anyone agree that while it is not condemned, nudity was associated more to poverty and low class work, whereas clothes dressed up and covered the person? Also, would people of status commonly be seen nude? I understand the instances that possibly Jesus was nude on occasion, and others, but weren't those people trying to come down to the level of the lower class by doing this? I am not trying to prove that nudity is viewed as wrong, just trying to understand the way clothing was viewed in the Bible. A better understanding for us help us to talk through these issues with people who condemn nudity for religious reasons.

[David77]

From what I recall, I don't think that the Bible condemns nor praises nudity, but I think it was probably a non-issue morally.

[David77]

This is in response to your mention of "poverty", "low class work" and "people of status" and nudity back then.

First it must be remembered that almost everyone was of the lower class and lived in relative poverty. There was no such thing as "middle class". ("Middle class" is a relatively new phenonoman in history).

The tax collectors, working for the authority of Rome, squeezed ever bit of tax they could from the people there, leaving them very little for themselves to live on. The tax collector got a "cut" of the taxes he collected, and the rest went to Rome for administration and to support the people who lived idle lives in Rome. Except for the slaves in Rome, no one else in Rome worked, but amused themselves at government expense, so were very much dependent on the taxes collected from these poor people.

The persons of any wealth in Jesus society were officials sanctioned by Rome and treated well so that they would remain loyal to Rome. Did these favored ones always wear fine clothing and never went nude? I don't remember reading the answer to this question. I have read, however, that the Roman and Greek cultural ways had a great influence on the society of Jesus time. In Rome and Greece they were not "prudes" when it came to nakedness. They bathed in the open and sat on stone toilet seats in the open, side by side, male and female, and socialized verbally while sitting on the toilets in the open. I suspect that some of this culturally "free" attitude regarding nudity did influence Jesus society, just as the foreign language usage was adopted and used somewhat.

The poor people then did not have a wardrobe of changes of clothes. (just as the people during our great depression in the 1930ties hardly had a change of clothing.) Anthropologists tell us that while working in the fields in Jesus day, sometimes they would remove their clothing to work nude. It conserved their possible only garment they owned, and was more comfortable.

We know that it is said in the Bible that Jesus came upon the boat of fishermen who were working nude and came aboard. He did not lecture them about being naked! He probably "stripped down" himself as they were, and as was their custom.

All this is what I remember I read in books, but my post here is certainly not intended as any authoritive statement, as I have no special training in this. If I got some "history" wrong or you have a different view, fine!

[C]

Is it possible that many cases of being naked referred to being in ones undergarments?

Some people consider being in just underwear as being "naked". When I was 17 or 18 I was in my bedroom changing my clothes. A five-year-old niece saw me in my underwear and ran downstairs and shouted to everyone that she saw me "naked".

I saw a little bit of a sitcom once as I channel surfed on the TV. In one show there was a young boy in socks, T shirt and underwear standing on the stairs saying he couldn't find any clean clothes.

The mother said to the dad, "You need to take care of our son. He seems to be naked." "Naked" is in the eye of the beholder--to paraphrase an old saying. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Kibble]

There were some very good answers out there, Brian. I personally don't trust inaccurate translations of the bible, and only consider it a general history of the times. A few courses in cultural anthropology may help clear up some lingering specific questions on various societies at various times.
If you're only interested in Mid-east cultural mores around the time of Jesus, you might want to seek out a local biblical scholar.

[NudeTrain]

I seem to recall in Isaiah chapter 20/21 where God commands Isaiah to walk around naked for 3 years, which with the phrase "even buttocks uncovered" indicates he wasn't in underwear. Plus when David danced around the ark, he was in his underwear and the Bible didn't say he was naked.

[Dale B]

If I may comment on these posts that I have read here........may not anyone think I am putting them to shame.

I saw a few remarks of "I think..."
I don't think we should be discussing or argueing about what anyone of us thinks. We should all be reading the scriptures as though God is speaking to each of us, and changing our own thoughts, deeds and hearts accordingly. This is what scriptures is for. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

May I also quote what verse 6 says: NIV
"No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord."
And the rest of the chapter does into detail as to "who is" a close relative. This chapter is best read in its entirety, not select parts of it. One verse that did catch my eye was the 22nd. I believe this talks about homosexuality being "detestable".

I do not either rely on any inaccurate translations. It has been said to me that the NIV is as trustable as the KJV. The NIV is just written close to the way we speak today, so as to be well understood by us today.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dale B:
If I may comment on these posts that I have read here........may not anyone think I am putting them to shame.

I saw a few remarks of "I think..."
I don't think we should be discussing or argueing about what anyone of us thinks. We should all be reading the scriptures as though God is speaking to each of us, and changing our own thoughts, deeds and hearts accordingly. This is what scriptures is for. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And that is thought, so people post what they think.... it is opinion only, not based in any kind of fact. If the bible consisted of only fact there would not be all those different interpretations of it to begin with. Each version was written in a biased fashion,each to his own cause when translated. How can they all be the "one word of god"???

This is where christians get into trouble. They start thinking that the opinions they have formed from reading the bible are not opinion but fact. This means you have closed your mind to other interpretations. Closed minds will never think outside the box and consider other ways of thinking.

The writers of the bible had their own opinions and so do every one of it's readers. There are as many interpretations as there are readers and writers.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dale B:

May I also quote what verse 6 says: NIV
"No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord."
And the rest of the chapter does into detail as to "who is" a close relative. This chapter is best read in its entirety, not select parts of it. One verse that did catch my eye was the 22nd. I believe this talks about homosexuality being "detestable".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dale didn't identify the verses, but they are from Leviticus chapter 18. Most of these are repeated in chapter 20 with the addition of a death penalty.

The danger of using Mosaic law as a guide to modern day Christian living is that you absolutely have to pick and choose among them. many are just plain irrelevant, illogical, inconsistent with other laws, or downright evil.

Leviticus Chapter 19 verses 27 & 28 apparently prohibit haircuts, trimming beards, and tattoos (but not genital piercing). Sorry smoothies.

Leviticus Chapter 25 starting at verse 44 authorizes and regulates slavery.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 tells us to stone disobedient children to death.

I think such scriptures demolish the authority of those who insist on Biblical innerancy.

Lots of other groovy things are in Mosaic law. Many of which are not even followed by the most fundamentalist of observant Jews since they are inconsistent with a just and reverent life. A Christian must ask whether such scripture is consistent with the redemptive love of Christ.

-Mark

[Trailscout]

"Is nudity viewed as private in the Bible?"

I believe that there were elements of body shame in Hebrew culture. The climate of Israel requires clothes at times and it was a mark of shame to be unable to protect oneself from the colder months. Some people in that culture began to equate all nudity with shame, just like they do in our culture.

I do believe that God deliberately thumbed his nose at body shame with the examples already cited about Solomon's wife with the allover tan from working in the fields, David's romp in his ephod (underwear), King Saul prophesying in the nude, Isaiah's three year nude preaching campaign, and Jesus washing the disciples' feet in the nude at the conclusion of the Last Supper.

God was frequently at odds with Israeli culture and he did not approve of their body shame any more than he does ours.

If you go right to the beginning of creation when everything was as it should be, we were nude and it pleased God.

One of the most commonly used verses to condemn nudity comes from the account of Adam and Eve's attempt to cover their physical bodies with fig leaves to cover a spiritual shame. For us to see shame in the body would repeat their error.
God could have stripped off their fig leaves and commanded them to remain naked, but he chose to work with their self-percieved image and he clothed them. However, there was no commandment to be clothed from then on. One can conjecture that God eventually showed them that the body was not shameful. It is entirely possible that humanity learned its lesson and returned to God-given nudity. Animals were sacrificed as a sin offering, but nowhere is there any teaching that we had to wear the skins of the animals used for sacrifice. Our souls need a sin-covering, not our bodies!

Later in history there came the event of Ham mocking his father Noah's nakedness while drunk. This passage has also been cited as proof that nudity is sinful, but context is everything. Was clothing customary by then? The Earth's climate at that place and time might have required clothing for warmth, unlike the tropical splendor of Eden. At any rate, Ham was punished for his mockery of nudity, not Noah for being nude!

Regardless of when body shame developed in human culture, it seems plain that God had nothing to do with it. Nudity was his original plan and remains so, barring bad weather and hostile people.

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dale B:
.....I saw a few remarks of "I think..."

....."I believe" this talks about homosexuality being "detestable".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for your input, but you just committed yor own crime. I think, and I believe are the sme thing. Gotcha /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dale B:
[qb]
I think such scriptures demolish the authority of those who insist on Biblical innerancy.

Lots of other groovy things are in Mosaic law. Many of which are not even followed by the most fundamentalist of observant Jews since they are inconsistent with a just and reverent life. A Christian must ask whether such scripture is consistent with the redemptive love of Christ.

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, how does modern Judeo / Christian authorities answer these questions? Has anyone ever gotten a good answer for this?

[Trailscout]

Quite simple really:
Law was not meant to exist without mercy and grace. Noah by way of the ark offered a way out for people in his day, Abraham petitioned God for any souls who might be saved from Sodom, Moses stood between the wrath of God and the children of Israel when they sinned.
Jesus as Messiah came to fulfill the debt of sin for all those who believe in him.
The whole point is to lead mankind back into relationship with the Creator, not to kill the sinner, but to restore him to peace and fellowship with God.

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Quite simple really:
Law was not meant to exist without mercy and grace. Noah by way of the ark offered a way out for people in his day, Abraham petitioned God for any souls who might be saved from Sodom, Moses stood between the wrath of God and the children of Israel when they sinned.
Jesus as Messiah came to fulfill the debt of sin for all those who believe in him.
The whole point is to lead mankind back into relationship with the Creator, not to kill the sinner, but to restore him to peace and fellowship with God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure this begins to answer that question, the question of why "Biblical Law" has been allowed to change over time, yet the "Bible" remains unchanged (yet some may disagree about changes). We find many "laws" in the Bible demonic, yet we say that it is the work and word of our all mighty God. We do not follow those laws, but say we follow the word of God, and deny that Gods word has changed or that man has any say in Gods will. Now if you say that it has been Gods will to reform, ill just say that is nothing but double talk, and any self prophet can claim that. Either it is right or its baloney, no in between.

[Trailscout]

BrianM said: "I'm not sure this begins to answer that question, the question of why "Biblical Law" has been allowed to change over time, yet the "Bible" remains unchanged (yet some may disagree about changes)."

Trailscout: Your premise that the law has changed is wrong. Biblical law, that is the law of God, has not changed. It remains in effect even now, in spirit.

You are correct in assuming that the enforcement of that law has changed. In my previous post, I said that the law has never existed apart from mercy and grace and execution of the law has often had an intercessor. Law was never meant to exist on its own. There are some commandments regarding religious ceremonies that can only be obeyed in the context of the ancient nation of Israel with the temple on Mount Zion intact and in the context of a system of animal sacrifice. Jesus came to fulfill the sacrificial system with his death. The law for blood atonement still exists, but rather than being fulfilled by the continual sacrifice of animals in a very specific manner, it is fulfilled once and for all by Messiah Jesus.

BrianM said:"We find many "laws" in the Bible demonic, yet we say that it is the work and word of our all mighty God."

Trailscout: You are making a value judgement on the laws of God. You must consider that some of the laws were civil to be carried out by a religious nation that no longer exists and these laws were often overruled on a case-by-case basis by God's mercy. Of course law without mercy is demonic! "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more!", Jesus said. There are other laws that are ethical in nature: laws about helping the poor, showing compassion on animals, laws requiring you to love your neighbor, to love God. Laws of an ethical nature can and should be obeyed by all of humanity. Ceremonial and civil laws teach ethics so even if they cannot be applied literally outside of ancient Israel, they are still in effect in principle.

BrianM said: "We do not follow those laws, but say we follow the word of God, and deny that Gods word has changed or that man has any say in Gods will. Now if you say that it has been Gods will to reform, ill just say that is nothing but double talk, and any self prophet can claim that. Either it is right or its baloney, no in between."

Trailscout: I answered some of those objections, but let me go on to say that God has revealed his will for mankind progressively from creation through Moses and the prophets, then Jesus and through the Holy Spirit in the time of the apostles. God is not the weaker vessel and does not need to reform his teachings. We are the weaker vessel and the Lord has worked with us progressively, gradually, especially through the Jews, for thousands of years before humanity was ready to receive the teachings of Jesus, the Messiah.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BrianM:
[QBI'm not sure this begins to answer that question, the question of why "Biblical Law" has been allowed to change over time, yet the "Bible" remains unchanged (yet some may disagree about changes). We find many "laws" in the Bible demonic, yet we say that it is the work and word of our all mighty God. We do not follow those laws, but say we follow the word of God, and deny that Gods word has changed or that man has any say in Gods will. Now if you say that it has been Gods will to reform, ill just say that is nothing but double talk, and any self prophet can claim that. Either it is right or its baloney, no in between.[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some believers have developed complex hermeneutics to explain away the parts of Bible that seem inconsistent with the modern vision of a sane and loving God without calling them false or in error.

Others are willing to take on the Bible in the manner its authors and contemporary readers intended, and to draw what lessons we can in light of our own times and circumstances.

Many, even most truths are eternal, but our understanding of the world has vastly changed.

Some believers are willing to look at the Bible as a living document recording a developing understanding of the divine and humankind's proper relationship to both the world and that beyond.

We don't have to accept the stoning of disobedient children as part of God's law (even if now superceded by the new covenant). We just have to accept it as an early stumble in our rambling journey towards understanding God's will.

-Mark

[Trailscout]

Mark,

It doesn't take "complex hermeneutics" to see that the civic and ceremonial aspects of the law of Moses have no other context but ancient Israel. This is not rocket science!

As for a "modern vision of a sane and loving God" Anyone can easily find instances of God's mercy from the first chapter of Genesis to the last book of the prophets.

I am one of those people who as you say,
"..willing to take on the Bible in the manner its authors and contemporary readers intended, and to draw what lessons we can in light of our own times and circumstances".

I think where nudists run into opposition is from people who can't stand wholesome sensuality, can't stand the sheer beauty and goodness of the human body, and subconsciously consider all pleasure to be sinful. People like that will look for anything negative that happens to mention the word nudity without seeing the broader context.

I have gone to churches where this mentality rules the roost and it keeps people pretty meanspirited and miserable. It it easy to sit back and take potshots at people caught up in this negative approach to life, but it takes a lot of love and patience to help people break out of that way of thinking.

As for your remark, "We just have to accept it (stoning of disobedient children) as an early stumble in our rambling journey towards understanding God's will".

The fact that we recoil in horror at stoning does not mean that Moses guessed wrong about God's will when he allowed it for extreme cases.
If you look up the verse cited, you'll see that stoning was not for a child with his hand in the cookie jar, it simply allowed the death penalty for an incorrigible youth, a near adult. U.S. troops still (rightfully) shoot youthful assasins in wartime situations.

God takes no pleasure in the death of a sinner. It should always be a last resort But cruel people will work within the law to do evil. Jesus said, "He among you that is without sin, let him cast the first stone".

Mark I don't know about you, but I ain't going anywhere near that pile of stones.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Mark I don't know about you, but I ain't going anywhere near that pile of stones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, that reminds of the parable my mother (the pastor's wife) used to tell:

As a large crowd gathered around the elders came to Jesus and said "Teacher, this woman was discovered in adultery and admits her sin. What shall we do?"

Jesus knew this was a setup, for the law was clear that the punishment was stoning, and they wished to trap him into defying the law. He drew in the dirt as he considered his response. Finally he stood up and said to the mob and the elders, "If there is among you one who is without sin, let them cast the first stone, otherwise leave in peace."

Suddenly a huge rock comes flying over the crowd and hits the woman in the side of the head.

Jesus turns and sees a little old lady way in the back.

"Mother! You spoil EVERYTHING!"

[Jochanaan]

A brief note about translations: A totally "accurate" translation from Hebrew and Greek to English would be unreadable, as sentence structure differs greatly between the three languages and many words in one language do not exist in the others.

Hebrew, like English, has several words for the state of being unclothed. "Arom" or its variant "eyrom" refers to simple nakedness and is used in Genesis 2:25 for Adam and Eve's pre-sin state. But the word in Leviticus 18 is "ervah," which has the additional connotation of something shameful. In this passage scholars generally understand it to be a euphemism for sexual intercourse. So family nudists can relax!

[Trailscout]

It would not have been sexual intercourse.
God told them earlier to be fruitful and multiply.
The only way they could obey that commandment would be to have sexual intercourse.
Please don't try to persuade anyone on this forum that sexual intercourse is sinful for a man and his wife to engage in.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:

Please don't try to persuade anyone on this forum that sexual intercourse is sinful for a man and his wife to engage in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The context of the word "ervah" (uncover the nakedness of) in Leviticus 18 is not intercourse between man and wife, but between close family members who are not man and wife.

[Jochanaan]

(This got longer than I had anticipated. I apologize in advance.)

When talking about "the Biblical law" it may help to distinguish between the great moral commandments, health regulations, and ceremonial and punitive regulations. The ten commandments, and a few others, are the great ones. (But really the two greatest, as Jesus points out, are Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18: "Thou shalt love the LORD thy God..." "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.") The moral laws seem to have been built into the universe "in the beginning;" the punitive regulations were added later. It is the penalty of the law that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled by his death--and then, as Paul says in Colossians 2;15, made it a laughingstock by raising himself from the dead! These laws no longer have to burden us, since Jesus paid the fine in full. So now we are free to live as our conscience tells us we must, for we have the Spirit's power--if we trust Jesus' sacrifice and God the Creator's love for His creation.

Further, no law was ever meant to be applied without love, or to substitute for love between God and humans or between humans and humans.

Here's an analogy from the arts: There may be musicians who are technically perfect, or as nearly so as possible, but leave the listener cold because there's no fire of life. But others, who may or may not be technically perfect, have a power and warmth of spirit to stir the listeners' hearts and heal their souls. In the same way merely obeying the law does not make one a good citizen, either of an eartly nation or the heavenly Kingdom. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity...I am nothing." (I Corinthians 13:1-2) But "By this shall all men [and women and children] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35) And love "thinketh no evil," or as a modern translation renders it, "keeps no record of wrongdoing." (I Cor. 13:5)

I have seldom heard of anyone became a Christian by examining the fine points of the law; but many, many have come to Jesus when they experienced His love.

So where does that leave us regarding the law, or the Law? Well, since it is physically impossible for most of us to follow every rule and regulation, we must trust to God's love and grace rather than the law. And really, the Bible spends more time and more beautiful imagery praising God and His attributes, and calling for His people to love Him, than condemning sin. So love everyone, and you'll probably keep all the laws you need to keep.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
It would not have been sexual intercourse.
God told them earlier to be fruitful and multiply.
The only way they could obey that commandment would be to have sexual intercourse.
Please don't try to persuade anyone on this forum that sexual intercourse is sinful for a man and his wife to engage in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Believe me, I wasn't! I don't see any verse even in Leviticus that prohibits a man and his wife from enjoying sex.

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
These laws no longer have to burden us, since Jesus paid the fine in full. So now we are free to live as our conscience tells us we must, for we have the Spirit's power--if we trust Jesus' sacrifice and God the Creator's love for His creation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not disagreeing with this statement, but wouldn't you have to say that most mainstream denominations preach that one must strive to live a sin-less life, since it was God's preference for man to do so. Also, that the "free-spirit" type as you refered to would not be viewed favorabably to most denominations (assuming that this free spirit liked to run around naked at the nude beach, maybe enjoy a few beers, occasionally says a few naughty words, etc...not the "model Christian") What scripture refers specifically to this (anyone know)?

[Trailscout]

I hope others will chime in, but let me get things started by saying that nudity in the Bible occured with both good and bad events.
Jesus cast a demon out of a man who went naked in a graveyard and cut himself with stones. Then man then returned to sanity and put on some clothes and talked quietly with Jesus. Now I have heard a preacher on the radio say that people who go naked are liable to be possessed by demons. The only problem with that is, Jesus himself was nude (emulating a servant) when he washed the disciples' feet at the Last Supper. The apostle Peter went fishing nude in the Sea of Galilee. King Saul was filled with the Holy Ghost and took off all his clothes, lay down on the ground and prophesied nude all day long (like all other prophets of his day)! God told Isaiah to preach in the nude for 3 years. Adam and Eve were nude on the last day of creation. God called his creation complete and good and yet humanity was nude and not ashamed. I don't think God has a problem with nudity. Now if I go to Minnesota in a blizzard in January and run around nude, I promise you I am stark raving looney. Please have compassion and call for the men in the white coats to come get me.

A few beers? There was no beer in ancient Israel, but they did have wine. The apostle Paul advised Timothy to drink a little wine for a troubled stomach. Jesus went to parties where people drank wine and it was not grape juice no matter what these crazy preachers tell you. Grape juice ferments pretty quickly at room temperatures without pasteurization. Now the Bible does warn against drunkeness. I don't know why moderation is such a hard concept for people to grasp.

Saying dirty words? The Bible urges us not to curse other people, but to bless them. The apostle Paul specifically said not to engage in course jesting (dirty jokes). But if you say something, like "damn that beer is good!" I can't imagine anyone taking offense except for some goody two shoes whom no one wants to be around. Is there a Bible verse on this? Not exactly, but Jesus put a lot of heat on the Pharisees who "strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel" in other words, they were nit picky about all the wrong stuff. He called people like that hypocrites.

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
....for we have the Spirit's power..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where specifically does the Bible say that common man may receive "the Spirit's power". I need to read more, but I have read that there is some disagreement about this in scripture, but that essentially, Jesus gave the Apostles this power, but after the New testement was completed, the powers were withdrawn to never be given back until his return. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not present at all times, but that there is no need for new prophets, internal spirits within people to give them guidance and inspiration since the scripture was written for this purpose. The reference used this scriture to make that point.
"From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
This means that there is no need for other sources of inspriation for man, since the Bible is the complete information set one need for salvation. Any other ideas?

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Jesus cast a demon out of a man who went naked in a graveyard and cut himself with stones. Then man then returned to sanity and put on some clothes and talked quietly with Jesus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to agree with you, the crazyness on this mans part was that he was cutting himself with stones in graveyard at night. He would need to remove his clothing to effectively accomplish his purpose. His putting on his clothes was to either protect him from the climate and or to protect his wounds from insects, etc.
Some people like to lie with statistics, or by using ill logic to prove a point, such as saying that "A Black man has been seen stealing, thus all all Black men must steal". I this case, it was "a demon possessed man has been seen nude, thus all nude people must be demon possesed". This just shows how stupid people can be. (I know, I'm judging, but I never said that I was without sin)

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BrianM:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
These laws no longer have to burden us, since Jesus paid the fine in full. So now we are free to live as our conscience tells us we must, for we have the Spirit's power--if we trust Jesus' sacrifice and God the Creator's love for His creation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not disagreeing with this statement, but wouldn't you have to say that most mainstream denominations preach that one must strive to live a sin-less life, since it was God's preference for man to do so. Also, that the "free-spirit" type as you refered to would not be viewed favorabably to most denominations (***uming that this free spirit liked to run around naked at the nude beach, maybe enjoy a few beers, occasionally says a few naughty words, etc...not the "model Christian") What scripture refers specifically to this (anyone know)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Certainly we should free ourselves from sin more and more with the Holy Spirit's help, and strive to obey all the laws we can. But notice that I did not say we do not need to obey the laws--merely that their burden does not rest primarily on us but on Jesus who bore the ultimate penalty. Certainly Paul refutes the argument that "we should continue to sin that grace may abound," and Jesus himself said "Think not that I have come to destroy the Law and the Prophets." But we no longer have to do it alone; nor do we have to pay the full penalty--death--for not following all regulations.

The Old Testament Law, and whether Gentile Christians have to obey all of it, has been discussed ad infinitum et ad nauseum for two thousand years; I don't think we'll come to a conclusion here. But we should not condemn others who may not see the laws as we do. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." (Romans 14:1, KJV)

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BrianM:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
....for we have the Spirit's power..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where specifically does the Bible say that common man may receive "the Spirit's power". I need to read more, but I have read that there is some disagreement about this in scripture, but that essentially, Jesus gave the Apostles this power, but after the New testement was completed, the powers were withdrawn to never be given back until his return. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not present at all times, but that there is no need for new prophets, internal spirits within people to give them guidance and inspiration since the scripture was written for this purpose. The reference used this scriture to make that point.
"From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
This means that there is no need for other sources of inspriation for man, since the Bible is the complete information set one need for salvation. Any other ideas? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Peter, in his Pentecostal sermon in Acts 2, says, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." (vs. 16-17) There is a difference between prophetic inspiration and divine help. The test for any "prophecy" is whether it agrees with Scripture, which contains all the information needed for salvation and is the ultimate authority for a Christian's actions. But, if I read this passage rightly, the Holy Spirit's power is available to everyone who accepts Jesus as his/her Savior. Certainly the Pentecostals and other charismatics claim, with some reason, that their ordinary people can do extraordinary things with God's help and under His authority. "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." (John 14:12)

[Jochanaan]

I just reread my post and realize I left out an important point: The Spirit's power is not given to give "new interpretations" of divine truths; that would make God at war with Himself! It is given to assist us to live according to His ways, that do not change throughout the world and history.

[caspian]

"If there is among you one who is without sin, let them cast the first stone, otherwise leave in peace."

Suddenly a huge rock comes flying over the crowd and hits the woman in the side of the head.

Jesus turns and sees a little old lady way in the back.

"Mother! You spoil EVERYTHING!" [/QB][/QUOTE]
Mark,
The Word of God says that everyone is sinner exept Jesus. You quoted joke about Marry. By this you show that you are influenced by Roman catholic theology. The Bibloe tells us that all had fallen short of God's glory. All people need the Redeemer.
I see that insted of speaking about nudity in Bible there iss discussion about Bibles innerancy. I am not English speaking man. I am from Old World.
One thing I know that If you do not seek in scriptures for Christ than you will find many embaracing places.
Bible consists from reports about stories of people and God in their lives. Then most important parts are the Law and the Gospel.

The Law is God's demand for people to be holy.
The Law breaking is with consquences.
The wage of a sin is death. That is fully discovered in mosaic, propheteic and New Testament Laws, admotions, commands.
From this we understand that we are not holy and need God's mercy and grace.
Then I poor siner came to God I hoped in God's mercy and grace and asked forgivenes. God said to me that Jesus Christ is only way how to escape from wage of sin.
"I am ressurection and life everlasting." Jesus said.

So Gospel about God's grace saved me and all other people. No one will love God who punishes people. God Himself knows that we cannot be holy by ourselves. He also cannot made His law less important. So resolution is Jesus Christ who was apointed to be Savior even before Creation of the World. God loves people more than we can understand. But He is also more Holy than we can understand.
Law shows Holiness of God andhow to be holy and punishes for not beeing holy.
Gospel shows us love of righteous God and promises us salvation evryone who believes in Christ.
God is King, Judge - thats why He need to keep all in order, but also His is Heavenly father who loves His creation and wants to save them. That's written in Bible.

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
...I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." (vs. 16-17) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My understanding is that this was only given for the present and next generation, not from generation to generation. The purpose was to spread the gospel, while the new testiment was being completed. Once the new testiment was completed, there was no need for human prophets, visions, etc. This is a popular argument against many of the charismatic Christian religions that you spoke of, Pentacostal, more specifically.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BrianM:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
...I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." (vs. 16-17) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My understanding is that this was only given for the present and next generation, not from generation to generation. The purpose was to spread the gospel, while the new testiment was being completed. Once the new testiment was completed, there was no need for human prophets, visions, etc. This is a popular argument against many of the charismatic Christian religions that you spoke of, Pentacostal, more specifically. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where do you find that understanding in Scripture?

[Jochanaan]

Welcome, Caspian! Your understanding of salvation is completely accurate and I have no doubt I'll meet you in heaven if not on earth. Were you named, or did you choose your handle, after Prince Caspian in C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles?

[Trailscout]

Even most pentecostals agree that the canon of scripture is closed, concluding with the Apocalypse of John (book of Revelation).

The premise that all prophesy and visions must be new revelations from God that are to be added to the Bible is a false assumption.

In the book of Acts, for example is an account of two sisters who were prophetesses. Their prophecies were not included in the canon. The message from God to them was of local importance, not universal, nor did it reveal new doctrine.

The consensus is: now that we have the Bible, prophecies, words of knowlege, words of wisdom and visions are specific direction from God to individuals or small groups. These revelations must be harmonious with God's universal word to us, (the Bible) or they are false. It is also generally assumed in charismatic or pentecostal circles that no new doctrine is revealed, but that occasionally God gives us deeper insight into existing scripture.

Even an ultra-dispensationalist would not argue that we cannot pray for deeper insight into God's word!

[Trailscout]

If we can agree that deeper insight into God's word is possible, can we not also agree that one of those insights for the church could be a fresh appreciation for the goodness of simple platonic nudity?

There is a widespread apprehension of not doing things the way previous generations have. We almost have a reverent nostalgia for the dress, customs and manner of worship of our grandparents
I affirm the Bible and essential Christian doctrines, but I can assure those few here who have reservations about embracing nudism, that our grandparent's prudery is not an essential Christian doctrine and has no divine origin. Body shame may seem like a time-honored attitude in many churches, but in actuality it is a warped Greek philosophy that was awkwardly patched onto the fabric of the gospel.

So one does not need a new chapter in the Bible to understand the goodness of nudity. You merely need to allow for the possibility that God can give you deeper insight into scripture than your parents or grandparents had, using the same verses they quoted, but with deeper understanding.

[Stuffed Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Even most pentecostals agree that the canon of scripture is closed, concluding with the Apocalypse of John (book of Revelation).
...snip...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Even further, for most Christians, the deposit of faith (what we know by belief rather than fact) closed about that time. Of course, Buddhists, Muslims, Kabbalists, Mormons and others, have differently timed deposits of faith.

For all religions, the deposit of FACT is still very much open. Every day God is revealing awesome new facts about Creation. God even permits these new revelations to be tested to insure their truth as of the present day.

Because God's facts are revealed to guide us in making sound decisions in our present day, God clearly intends them to override directions to peoples of an earlier age, however sacred and esteemed we hold those traditions.

Every age has received new directions from God. Ignoring them in favor of tradition has always led to destruction. Embracing them has always led to the joy of doing God's will. Many sacred texts tell that story over and over. God expects leaders to accept that and punishes those that do not.

It is a fact that interpreting any part of the natural human body as obscene is harmful. God expects us to act accordingly and will not accept excuses based on bygone traditions. Naturism is an expression of this.

God has humbled every religion that has stood for tradition against fact. It is not up to religions to judge Naturism. Every religion must align with the facts Naturism is expressing or face God's wrath.

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
Where do you find that understanding in Scripture? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>see this link, this website approaches religious translations from a scriptural standpoint, and has many "critiques" of several common denominations. This is a subsection on pentecostal. Go back to the the root of the address to see what it is about. I just ran across it while searching for info on various denominations.
http://www.bbie.org/english/Study02TheSpiritofGod/0203GiftsoftheHolySpirit.html

[Stuffed Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BrianM:
...snip... this website ... has many "critiques" of several common denominations ...snip... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Brian, thanks for the URL. I enjoyed the well reasoned expositions. OTOH, there was misinformation as well.

For example, in critique of Catholics it says: "...No need for personal Bible reading - in the past, Catholicism has discouraged and even forbidden this. Trusting in men rather than having to make the effort to verify things for oneself..."

This is total nonsense. Catholics have always read extensively from the Bible at each and every service and taught it in their schools. They had often preserved it at the cost of their lives long before the Reformation was necessary.

What is in contention for Catholics is the *interpretation* of the Bible by self-appointed authorities. The issue is not one's personal beliefs, but the authority to teach others dogma.

For us, I believe these should all be non-issues.

Today, in my city like many others, God has revealed to us the fact that our infrastructure is crumbling. For example, our water and sewer systems have outlived their useful lives and are leaking tens of thousands of gallons of water every day. Yet we have people who could fix that unemployed. See this prophesy:

http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/water_crisis.html

Where do you think God wants us to spend our mental energy - interpreting the minutia of how God's spirit moved us in the past or accepting the inspired word of God today to insure our grand-children have low cost water to drink tomorrow.

[Dale B]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
[QUOTE]And that is thought, so people post what they think.... it is opinion only, not based in any kind of fact. If the bible consisted of only fact there would not be all those different interpretations of it to begin with. Each version was written in a biased fashion,each to his own cause when translated. How can they all be the "one word of god"???

This is where christians get into trouble. They start thinking that the opinions they have formed from reading the bible are not opinion but fact. This means you have closed your mind to other interpretations. Closed minds will never think outside the box and consider other ways of thinking.

The writers of the bible had their own opinions and so do every one of it's readers. There are as many interpretations as there are readers and writers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What I say in my postings in this thread does stem from scriptures because I believe it to be all truths and facts that come only from God (to mankind) and because the scripture mentioned below says so. To your thinking that the writers of the Bible had their own opinions, which maybe true, they didn't include their opinions into the written and published Word of God. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says, <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This means that Scripture comes from God and God alone. No human interpretation was included in the Scriptures. If human interpretation is ever included, then the scriptures become faulty because humans have fault, and God doesn't. And religion would also be worthless because of it not having a solid foundation that never changes. We as humans can change our thoughts and hearts, but God will never change. That is His way of being a solid foundation, because He never changes.
I have only closed my eyes to the "so called" bibles that haven't been correctly translated and the ones that have been added to and taken away from it, to ensure my foundation and faith in God.

[Chocolate]

My mother, who is a very strong christina, seemed to not mind when I told her I'd visited thenude camp. Not even so much of a christian bible reference or anything. She just sorta shook head...she knows I'm always doing something weird. ;-) I think most christians, besides relying on any bible references, would probably view it as being someting one step away from an orgy. Beig modest and shameful of the body and not putting it all out there so not to tempt anywone into sexual thoughts, probably would be the way the conversation would flow more than likely. I was highly impresssed when I did visit the camp site that during the tour, we walked by a room and the tour guide said that they were in there having church service (It was on a Sunday). I was HIGHLY impressed.

[nekkidgene]

I was just reading some of the messages here which I find interesting, especially having an interest in theology/naturism. I found a website that discusses the customs of dress/undress during biblical times. The link is:

http://www.tekline.co.uk/natjesus.htm

Enjoy!

[nude in wheelchair]

Amen to that artical this could be a suirmen at any resort on sundy mornings for those who are willing to learn more want the word of God really says.