Is God a Nudist?

[nudebynature]

In looking for various defences for nudism in the Bible, I started thinking. Always a dangerous pastime for me....

In the Garden of Eden, God met with Adam and Eve face to face. We know that Adam and Eve were nude prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It says in Gen 3:8 that God walked in the garden in the cool of the day. It is clear that he was physically there, because Adam says that he heard him.

Some people say that God is a spirit and not corporeal. This verse would suggest otherwise. A spirit would not walk nor would it make noise.

If God was in the habit of meeting with Adam and Eve face to face, would he likely be clothed or unclothed? The Bible doesn't say.

We know that He made us in His image. We know that He made us naked and the He was pleased. We know that He allowed us to be naked in His garden.

When He met with Adam and Eve face to face was He clothed? If so how would He present that to Adam and Eve? And as soon as Eve saw that there was something called clothes wouldn't she want to go shopping for some? LOL

If God was nude, was He a man or a woman?

We are not likely to find out, but sometimes it is fun to speculate.

Was God a nudist in the Garden of Eden?

[nudebynature]

In looking for various defences for nudism in the Bible, I started thinking. Always a dangerous pastime for me....

In the Garden of Eden, God met with Adam and Eve face to face. We know that Adam and Eve were nude prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It says in Gen 3:8 that God walked in the garden in the cool of the day. It is clear that he was physically there, because Adam says that he heard him.

Some people say that God is a spirit and not corporeal. This verse would suggest otherwise. A spirit would not walk nor would it make noise.

If God was in the habit of meeting with Adam and Eve face to face, would he likely be clothed or unclothed? The Bible doesn't say.

We know that He made us in His image. We know that He made us naked and the He was pleased. We know that He allowed us to be naked in His garden.

When He met with Adam and Eve face to face was He clothed? If so how would He present that to Adam and Eve? And as soon as Eve saw that there was something called clothes wouldn't she want to go shopping for some? LOL

If God was nude, was He a man or a woman?

We are not likely to find out, but sometimes it is fun to speculate.

Was God a nudist in the Garden of Eden?

[Ben_m]

Interesting thoughts/'speculation'. I tend to agree with where you seem to be going with your thoughts. More importantly, however, I'm glad to know I'm not the only person that has thought along this line.

I personally suspect that Adam (and Eve) would have had to have been an idiot(s) to have not noticed if God was clothed while he was not. I see no reason to believe he was an idiot. I suppose it's possible he noticed and didn't mention, however. Although, if, he looked to God like we would look to our own parents, I see this as unlikely.

O.k., now I'll quit too, before I get myself into (more?) trouble.

[hm0504]

"Some people say that God is a spirit and not corporeal. This verse would suggest otherwise."
God can be anything he wants to be, except non-God. A human incarnation is certainly possible.

Would God be clothed or unclothed? God could have met Adam and Eve in any form, even one not obviously corporeal. Would God appear unclothed in a human body. Sure. In the Christian tradion, God (as Christ) dies naked on a cross.

Thinking of God as either male or female is insensible. Maleness and femaleness is a specific biological condition which, though obviously glorious creations in themselves, are creations not an intrinsic part of being God. When I use "He" as a pronoun for God, I use it in the non-gender-specific sense.

For a detailed discussion of the Bible and Nudity, see
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nu_bibl.htm

Based on the numerous references to being nude before God, one comes to the conclusion that there is a significant spiritual importance to nudity.

So yes, God is a nudist. As expressed so eloquently in the Garden of Eden narrative, clothing is symbolic of our undue fear of, and separation from, God. Adding all the more importance to the symbol of God dying in the nude to restore that relationship.

[REDCHIK]

If you read Genesis 3:7-11, you may have a better understanding, or see it in a different light. In verse seven, it is then both Adam & Eve realize that they are in fact naked. In verse ten, when Adam is called out by God, he says to Him that he was hiding because of his nakedness. Finally in verse eleven God says," Who told you that you were naked?" He then goes on to ask if they had eaten from the tree.

These verses imply to me that God was offended by the couple clothing themselves. Hence, case closed. If original sin had never incurred, we would all still be living in paradise...NAKED.

[NuTex]

While an interesting question, IMHO, it's a non-issue. This only becomes a problem from a creationist view. There are of course many theologians and clergy who find no conflict between evolution and the bible.

I don't believe Genesis to be a literal description on the origin of life so there isn't a reason to think of God walking through a actual garden.

BTW, well said hm0504.
NuTex

[namedun]

I agree with you NuTex, even though I'm an athiest, it seems that alot of the old testiment stories (mostly the ones tought in sunday school) are pretty much just metaphorical, and not to be taken literally.

Namedun

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NuTex:
I don't believe Genesis to be a literal description on the origin of life so there isn't a reason to think of God walking through a actual garden.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Most biblical scholars and theologians don't consider the creation stories to be literal (although a sizable and very vocal minority do). That doesn't mean they are meaningless, these stories are the cultural, social and ideological foundation of a great people, and all those who trace their cultural roots to them. As creation stories the two accounts in Genesis have less to do with explaining how the world actually began than with illustrating what our relationship to the creator is and should be. It is entirely appropriate to search for answers within the context of the lesson.

-Mark

[namedun]

It's just a shame that the story of genesis has provided us with a little time bomb.

[hm0504]

NuTex wrote:
"BTW, well said hm0504"

Thanks NuTex.

BTW everyone, I'm a theistic evolutionist and though I have no problem taking much of the Bible symbolically, I also regard themes as ultimately more important to life than plots. So actually I don't really care much if the plot of a Bible story is historically true but rather whether the theme is true, and that transcends physical reality. To me, no other short story comes close to the Jahwist narrative of Creation as far as explaining the innate spritual condition of mankind.

[hm0504]

namedun, what "little time bomb"?

[REDCHIK]

"It's just a shame that the story of genesis has provided us with a little time bomb."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I might need you to elaborate this statement for me. What part of the "story" makes it a time bomb?

[Trailscout]

I am among those who take the Genesis account at face value. I accept the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve as distinct from the creation of all other life.

I make no presuppositions about the age of the earth . And I recognize that the Bible does not attempt to describe all of pre-Adamic history in great detail.

hm0504 made a good point. The Genesis account is rich in meaning for Jews and Christians regardless of how literally they choose to take the story.

The Documentary Hypothesis (the theory of two Genesis narratives: Yahwistic and Elohistic) has been largely discredited for quite some time, but it keeps resurfacing on religious forums for laymen because some freshman scholar keeps digging up these outdated theories from a church library. Please put this thing to rest! Genesis is one account with linguistic unity.

Red, the time bomb to me is that people have read the account of God clothing Adam and Eve after they sinned and assumed that following the fall of mankind into sin, the human body needs clothes for moral reasons.

I disagree. When God clothed Adam and Eve, it was largely for their personal benefit and not their descendants. The ritual or covenant of animal sacrifice was set up to cover sin, but God did not issue a commandment that we wear the skins of the animals used in sacrifice, from then on, there was only the sacrifice.

We nudists say that Adam and Eve's body shame was misdirected. They had a spiritual problem. They should have been ashamed of what they did, but covering the body would not remedy their problem.

It does seem that a lot of textile Christians stumble over this very point and ironically make the same error in judgement that Adam and Eve did!

[REDCHIK]

In that regard, here is food for thought. If there was no physical distinction between a male and a female, ie; all genitals looked like penis', would Adam and Eve still covered up? Or would they have only covered their faces in their shame, their feet perhaps I don't know. The relavence of their covering themselves seems to be the shame in betraying Gods law, not only realizing that men and women have different parts.

[Trailscout]

Red,

Male and female genitals are not so different as you might think. For everything a woman has, there a counterpart or "homologue" in males.

I don't think that Adam and Eve were covering their genitals from each other. It seems that they felt inadequate in God's presence.

Perhaps they felt that their genitals were the most sacred part of their bodies and something terrible had happened to their bodies when they sinned. They had been told to anticipate death if they sinned, whatever death was.

Their bodies were flawless and potentially immortal as long as they ate from the tree of life. The bodies of their descendants, (you and me) are wonderful, but not perfect nor immortal.

[REDCHIK]

I agree w/ what you say. It is not a matter of covering from one another, as much as it was a kind of metaphor for their shame of the actual sin. Why the act caught on throughout generations is what baffles me. As long as you are warm, what posseses one to feel embarassed enough to put a cover on their body. "Hey, I'm hot, I think I'll go stand in the sun". Silly isn't it?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Documentary Hypothesis (the theory of two Genesis narratives: Yahwistic and Elohistic) has been largely discredited for quite some time, but it keeps resurfacing on religious forums for laymen because some freshman scholar keeps digging up these outdated theories from a church library. Please put this thing to rest! Genesis is one account with linguistic unity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The death of the Documentary Hypothesis (AKA JEDP) is far from established. But there are many interesting new approaches and refinements to this cornerstone of higher criticism.

I first learned of the JEDP hypothesis from a PHD biblical scholar, former 'Theologian of the Year', aclaimed author, pastor, teacher and family member. Not exactly a freshman scholar. I re-encountered it in University religion courses (Methodist school, and I was a Sophomore by then). It is part of just about every critical treatment of Biblical scholarship I've encountered, - just ran across it again in Karen Armstrong's A History of God.

There are those who refute it (the vocal minority I spoke of), particularly among those who feel they must harmonize the scriptures in order to satisfy the requirements of their innerancy dogma. However, the basic approach of higher criticism (a literary and linguistic analysis of scripture) remains well supported, even as various fundamentalists strive to discredit it entirely.

One interesting higher criticism that 'Scout seems to refer to is the thematic unity of the J & E threads of Genesis as described by Kikawada and Quinn in Before Abraham Was and the linguistic unity described by Rendsburg in The Redaction of Genesis. Of course the modern student of the Documentary Hypothesis does not hold that the original sources were independent documents or oral traditions isolated from each other, nor were they redacted without the imposition of a thematic and linguistic framework.

None of which seems to say much about the question "Is God a Nudist". However the lack of any text that describes God wearing any raiments in the Garden, nor any attempt to explain the lack suggests that the original readers of the scripture didn't consider it worthy of consideration. Adam and Eve covering themselves was worthy of comment. But that when God chooses to walk in the Garden in corporeal form it was not commented upon argues that God's possible (or probable) nudity while in physical form is so expected that it doesn't even merit an explanation.

-Mark

[Trailscout]

Red,

Did wearing clothing really catch on through the generations?

Who's to say that Adam and Eve did not return to nudity at some point in their lives? I can find no passage in scripture that indicates one way or the other that anyone wore clothes prior to the Great Flood.

After the Flood, people in colder parts of the earth required clothing for survival. To a lesser extent, people in the driest deserts wore some clothing for protection against the heat. In the humid tropics people in many cultures wore little or no clothing. There are still a few non-Westernized tribes that live in total nudity in parts of the Amazon, Africa and a few Pacific islands.

I have some Scottish ancestors who sometimes went nude into battle 2000 years ago according to their Roman enemies.

I can see why nudity might be a bit of a shocker to people who live in a cold climate and don't see much bare skin. It is actually surprizing how much nudity persists among people who live in very cold climates like Finland (sauna culture). Even Inuit (Eskimo) were often nude inside their igloos, sitting on fur blankets.

A lot of the body shame that occurs in Western civilization can be traced to the influence of some prudish people on the early church in the dark ages. (I won't go into the complete history of that problem).

[REDCHIK]

You make for a good point Trailscout. It doesn't say that they continued to wear clothes, the subject would be irrelevant, biblicly speaking.
Today it seems our society wears clothes in order not to offend and for a sense of individualizing themselves by fashion. But I find myself more offended by some of the clothes people have the nerve to put on. These very people who are petrified of public nudity, can put on see-through clothing, miniskirts, and worse, pervert their children with the same fashion inclanation. And somehow that's okay.
It's okay to wear lengerie in public, but not to be naked. Well, which is more provocative?

Since God walked in the Garden with Adam (but not Eve?) I assume He was in human form. Adam was nude until the Fall, and I also assume that if God wore clothes while in human form, Adam would have questioned why. I believe that if God appears in human form to someone, He appears in one similar to their own. That is why the Saviour came to the Jews as a Jew. Why are the Jews God's "chosen people"? I don't know, but that's another subject. Adam was nude so I believe God would have appeared to him as a nude human. I don't think the question is so much "Is God a Nudist?" as it is "Does God see anything wrong with nudity?" Unfortunately, clothing is sometimes necessary because of the weather.

It's apparent to those of us whose eyes and minds aren't blinded by societal brainwashing (and who believe in God and the Creation) that since God left Adam and Eve without body covering when He created them that He has no problem with nudity. He only covered them because He was casting them out of the Garden into a world that He had just cursed with thorns and other perils.

[ABE]

Amen:::: that is a relief
Have a great day
ABE

[hm0504]

Trailscout wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Documentary Hypothesis (the theory of two Genesis narratives: Yahwistic and Elohistic) has been largely discredited for quite some time, but it keeps resurfacing on religious forums for laymen because some freshman scholar keeps digging up these outdated theories from a church library. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unless I missed a major shift, the Documentary Hypothesis remains the primary viewpoint in the older (> 200 years), mainline Protestant, Anglican/Episcopalian, and Roman Catholic Churches.

From what I can tell it is generally the newer (< 200 years) denominations where one wouldn't find the Documentary Hypothesis popular.

[nunne]

Jon-Marc If God appeared in human form, and if he were unclothed, did he have male or female genitalia? I may be wrong, but the concept of God is one who is eternal, with no beginning or end. From this idea, I gather that God has no reason to reproduce, and since our genitals are organs of reproduction, I rather doubt that God has any.

"God is Spirit." So says the New Testament. I am not at all sure that God has ever appeared to humans in human form. Each incident referred to in the Bible in which God appears to someone, it seems vague and unspecific as to the form in which he/she appears. I recognize the argument that God may need to appear in some form recognizable to the human senses, but, to me, that does not necessarily mean in the form of a human body.

Jesus was God in human form, and he died naked on the cross. But it wasn't His choice to be naked. I don't think that adds too much to the argument.

Is God a nudist? Is God a Democrat? Or a Republican? Is God black? or white? or yellow?
Is God a male? or a female? Yes, he is all those things and a lot more.

This is one of the reasons (among other things) that I personally have not been able to accept the creation story as literal. I also accept it as an excellent narative which tries to show to people the relationship between them and God. I, too, agree that the truth of the Bible from an historical perspective is in its symbolism, and the instruction that it gives to people regarding their relationships with God and with other humans.

Having said that, I begin to wonder why the story is told that Adam and Eve were naked and then became ashamed. If it is not factually true, then why was it added as instructive symbolism? As the oral tradition was passed down and eventually codified into scripture, what message was intended? I can only conclude that it was meant to explain why nudity is not acceptable as a practice when dealing with our relationships to other persons.

Clearly, the symbolism is to convey a very strong message that because of our sin, we must have clothing on to hide from each other those parts of our body which lead us into the worst of sins - sex and lust. And to be Freudian for a minute, sex is the most powerful of forces.

I'm afraid that a reading of Genesis does not give any comfort to naturists in our argument that God is a nudist or that He/She intends for us to be either. Rather, it seems to say that only those who are perfectly innocent have the right to be naked. Thus, children, who are innocent from lust and sexual understanding are completely comfortable with their nakedness, but those of us who are sinners should be clothed.

I am a nudist, though going through this little exercise, I wonder why the hell I am. I have many good reasons to be one, but I don't find any comfort or justification for myself when I read the Genesis story.

nu'nne,

Since this is all speculation with no way to prove or disprove anything, it's really pointless to try to figure out any of this. If God appeared in a female form and was nude, I would ASSUME He would look like a female. The same with appearing as a nude man. However, that's something we will never know for sure.

Since we all have a mind and a will of our own, we can choose to accept or reject anything that is in the Bible, or anything that anyone tells us. Although many things in the Bible are figurative and not meant to be taken literally, I believe the creation IS real. However, it's a waste of my time arguing that point with anyone who chooses not to believe it. What is the point? What does it accomplish?

While those who don't believe in the creation find no comfort in the reading or telling of it, many of us do. If we choose to use that in order to reconcile being a nudist with our Christian beliefs, would you or anyone else propose to take that away from us? Waht harm are we doing by believing it? I find just as much comfort in the passage about God telling Isaiah to walk naked for three years. If nudity was wrong, God would not command someone to sin.

Just as you choose to reject the creation as fact, I choose to accept it. The only other alternative is evolution, and that's a load of crap.

[hm0504]

I disagree that the Creation narratives in Genesis can only be meaningful if taken as precise historical accounts of physical happenings. In my particular view of the Universe, it is the metaphysical which has primary importance and the physical is an (not necessarily "the") manifestation of the metaphysical truths. I believe the Garden of Eden narrative nicely expresses this transcendence when it describes the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and the "tree of life". Frankly, it is difficult for me to think of these trees, central to the story, as if they were physical trees like those in my yard. Indeed, it seems to me that the Garden of Eden narrative was never intended to be taken as a physical, historical account.

BTW, I believe today's ClothesFree quotation "Adam and Eve were nude but they were not ashamed. Furthermore, because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve its splendor and its beauty." attributed to Pope John Paul II, comes from the essay "Creation as a Fundamental and Original Gift":

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/catechesis_genesis/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19800102_en.html

which actually discusses the spiritual meaning of nakedness at length. And yes, it also does distinguish between the Elohist and Yahwist narratives.

[nunne]

Jon-Marc I would never try to argue with a creationist that the story is not literally true, and didn't mean to imply so. Many, if not most of the people of my particular local church are creationists, and I am therefore in the minority. These people are truly wonderful Christians, and have supported me and celebrated with me throughout my life with them. They also can't understand why I don't believe in creationism, but they also accept that I don't.

You have a good point in stating that God created the human form, and it, therefore, must be good, 'cause God doesn't make trash. I suppose that is probably the strongest reason I accept and appreciate nudism. And I agree that if God ordered Isaiah to walk naked for three years, it makes no sense for Him to require the prophet to commit sin. And, along with all nudists,I still do not accept the concept that being naked is a sin in and of itself. It is, I think, because of all the rest of the wonderful messages of the scriptures that I find satisfaction in being a nudist, and see absolutely no conflict with my Christian faith.

I am an evolutionist, and I frankly find that this strengthens my faith perhaps as much as your acceptance of the creation story does to yours. We certainly do not need to argue about it, but surely need to accept and support each other's right to believe in our own way.

[shãybare]

The bible says that God walked in the garden. It doesn't say what form he was in. Alot of people can "assume" whatever form they want but they do not know. The devil was in the form of a serpent and Adam & Eve had no problem accepting that. Maybe God was in the shape of a deer or bunny rabbit or,shall I say it, an ape. It doesn't say. No matter, Adam & Eve would have accepted it.

Also, nunne, sex is not a sin. How could it be with God telling Noah and his sons to be fruitful and multiply on the earth. He wasn't talking about long hand division here.

Shaybare,

You're absolutely correct. I for one tend to assume that if God walked with Adam that He must have been in a human form, but that wouldn't be necessary for God. If he can make a serpent talk, He would have no problem making Himself into a talking deer or whatever. There's nothing wrong with "assuming" when there are no facts saying one way or the other. It only becomes a problem when someone "assumes" that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me as long as they don't say "You're wrong". Maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. Maybe they're right, and maybe they're not. On many issues no one can say positively who is right or wrong. We can assume, but we can't be positive when there are no facts to back up our stand. Many don't believe the Bible, and using it as fact wouldn't prove anything to them.

However, I do believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I also believe that despite all the chaos in the world that God is still in control. He just allows us all the rope we need to hang ourselves.

[nunne]

Shaybare - sex is a sin, in my opinion, when it is done outside the laws God established for us in order to achieve the highest possible relationship with Him and with each other. I certainly agree that in itself it is not only not a sin, but is instead, one of the greatest and most blessed of gifts He ever gave to us.

"However, I do believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I also believe that despite all the chaos in the world that God is still in control. He just allows us all the rope we need to hang ourselves."

Amen.

[hw]

Is God a Nudist?

If man was created in God's image the answer is yes, God was a nudist. We are born nude with the most perfect fabric already attached, skin.
What manmade fabric breathes as well and stretches to accomodate growth? What manmade fabric is as comfortable? Think about it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[nudebynature]

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

"God is Spirit." So says the New Testament. I am not at all sure that God has ever appeared to humans in human form. Each incident referred to in the Bible in which God appears to someone, it seems vague and unspecific as to the form in which he/she appears. I recognize the argument that God may need to appear in some form recognizable to the human senses, but, to me, that does not necessarily mean in the form of a human body.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I call your attention to Gen 32:25-28.

God wrestles with Jacob and dislocates his hip. Can a spirit do this? Yes, God is a Spirit, but He can be anything that He wants to be.

If God was to take on human form and can take any form that He wanted, it would stand to reason that He would choose to be something that Adam and Eve could identify with. It would also mean that He would not be ashamed of any form that he would take.

My take on this is that God was indeed naked and probably male. My reason for saying this is that woman was 'of man'. He would choose the former. Also this could be the origin of the patriarchical system that existed in Jewish society.

In any case it is fun to speculate.

BTW, I hold this story to be literal. There had to be an original creation, unless you believe in evolution, which I don't.

That would be a great topic to investigate in another thread.

[HansM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nunne:
Jon-Marc If God appeared in human form, and if he were unclothed, did he have male or female genitalia? I may be wrong, but the concept of God is one who is eternal, with no beginning or end. From this idea, I gather that God has no reason to reproduce, and since our genitals are organs of reproduction, I rather doubt that God has any.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>God has appeared to people in human form in Jesus, before that I do not believe that he was seen in human form.

Genesis 3:8 *When they heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of
the garden.
They heard him moving about in the breeze, I do not believe this means in human form, but literally in the breeze. If one believes in the literal word of the Bible. Personally I do not, I also believe the Bible represents the relationship between humankind and there creator.

Christians talk even today of God's presence with us, I know that I do. I am not saying that I see God in human form, but I do feel his presence. I am confident that presence is what Adam and Eve were referring to.

I believe that God clothed man because they (Adam and Eve) insisted on wearing clothing and to survive the elements. Clothing has nothing to do with hiding our nakedness or protecting us from sin. In fact I believe just the opposite, we place false security in clothing. Many Christians feel that clothing protects them from sin and even now hides them from there own sin and prevents God from seeing their sinfulnees. Jesus warns us about believing in false protection, we can only protect ourselves from sin, from inside of us. We can do nothing from the exterior to prevent us from sinning.

I fall into lust much more from looking at partially clothed or even fully clothed people than I do naked people. The is nothing sexier to me than a beautiful woman dressed in blue jeans and a long sleeve gray sweat shirt, with very little skin showing. Take the clothes off and she may in fact be very ordinary.

Hans,

That's exactly what I've been saying. Certain clothes make a woman look sexy. Take away the clothes, and the mystery and sexiness go with them. I find a good looking woman in certain black clothing to be very sexy. There's something about black that's always done it for me.

[Outlaw]

Well, I suppose I'll ad my two (plated)coppers here in this thread.

Regarding God, Isaiah and 3 years of nakedness without commiting a sin, is war a sin? My memory of the Bible is somewhat foggy and I don't remember God telling the Isrealites to start a war but I do remember He didn't condemn them either for war against other nations in the Bible.

My belief of creation is a little different than most that I've heard or read. First,where did all the matter in the universe come from? Second, did God start the big bang? Third, if He did, how does one figure that life began if the big bang is true? It had to start somewhere and since we will only have answers after this life, is it just possible that God started life with just a virus and directed life from that point?

On the other hand, since God is who/what S/He is its just as possible that the Earth is only 4,000+ years old as believed by creationists. "All things are possible with God."

It's asking a lot to agree with creationists when I look at the geology of the area I live in. It's hard to believe man survived the making of the mountains and valleys during his first years.

And to those who have some knowledge of math, is it possible to go from a few people after the flood to the 3 to 4 or more billion people now living on the planet in such a short time?

Mike (Big Mac)

[Trailscout]

Big Mac,
The Bible did not say that Isaiah did not commit sins during the three years he was nude. It simply says that God told him not to wear any clothes and he obeyed. Most people would presume that if nudity were immoral, God would not have commanded it.

Matter came from energy. And that is not a Christian doctrine, it is what most physicists are telling us.

If there was a big bang, then God started it. He made all things (some things indirectly).

The Bible does not give the details. It simply says that God commanded that life appear and it happened. Use your imagination for the rest.

Even though the Bible teaches that God made all living things, we don't know if God created all living organisms individually or if he created fish for instance and forced some of them to mutate into amphibians, and some amphibians to mutate into reptiles, etc. Many scientists believe that major changes from one life form to another cannot occur without outside influence. Christians call that influence God.

Not all creationists believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Some do, but I am not one of them. If I am wrong, I don't think God hates me for guessing wrong.

I don't believe the descendants of Adam have been on this earth more than a few thousand years. Other types of humans may have preceeded us. The Bible doesn't have much to say about it.

The population of the earth was only 300 million at the time of Jesus, reached 1 billion in 1804, reached 4 billion in 1975 and 5.6 billion by 1996.
If we started with 8 people (4 couples) 4000 or more years ago at the end of the Great Flood, and these people lived remarkably long lives as described in the Bible and had normal fertility, they could rapidly populate the earth to the levels we see now.

[Jochanaan]

A description of how "spirits" might look is found toward the end of C.S. Lewis' Perelandra, when two angelic spirits appear in bodily form to honor the King and Queen of Venus.

We might speculate what Genesis 1:27 means: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." But that's one thing humans probably cannot know in full since we have not seen God's face, except as it was embodied in Jesus of Nazareth.

It is enough for me to realize that God loves me, including my body, naked or clothed. And of course we can't really cover our flesh from Him. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
It is enough for me to realize that God loves me, including my body, naked or clothed. And of course we can't really cover our flesh from Him. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You got that right! Just take a trip to the Denver airport and peek at the passenger screening monitors. Those screens show us for what we really are: NAKED! Clothing is an illusion.

I recall a pool party when I was in college and one of the girls wore a white one-piece bathing suit. As she stood atop the diving board after her first dive, the sunlight hit her just right and there she was in all her glory. I don't know if I was the only one to see her at just that angle or if she or anyone else noticed that her bathing suit had "disappeared". It didn't matter. No one stared. She was among friends and we all had a pleasant afternoon.

So, if mortal man is scarcely able to conceal his body from his fellow, we must face the fact that God sees our nudity no matter how dark the night nor how much we wear.

Is God nude? Well, he is the eternal being whose presence encompasses the entire universe. It is futile to speculate about the nudity of God in any literal sense.

In a metaphorical sense, God is nude in that he reveals himself to those he loves, that he needs no covering for sin, nor for warmth. When God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening, he may have adopted a human likeness. There is no reason to believe that this likeness was hidden by clothing. There was total openess between the Creator and mankind.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
We might speculate what Genesis 1:27 means: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." But that's one thing humans probably cannot know in full since we have not seen God's face, except as it was embodied in Jesus of Nazareth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've never considered that 'created in God's image' meant that God has a human physical form. I don't suppose there is any limit to what form she could assume when she wishes.

I've always considered 'created in God's image' to mean that we have a spiritual kinship with our creator. That there is some spark of God's spirit within our own minds and souls, no matter how dimly veiled we may keep it.

-Mark

I don't believe that the words "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (KJ) means that God has human features. I believe it refers to our intelligence(?), our self-awareness, our self-will, and our emotions. I could add our knowledge of a higher Being, but many people deny that fact.

The Bible says that "God is a Spirit." So what does a Spirit look like , and what exactly IS a Spirit? I suppose being a "Spirit" is one reason why He is not limited as we are.

[Trailscout]

Q: What shape is a pint of water?

A: It takes the contours of whatever container it happens to be in at the time. If it's flying through the air, it is amorphous.

Q: What does God look like?

A: Whatever he wants to, if he wants to take any shape at all. There are a few examples where God has appeared on earth as a man or as an angel. I believe such apparitions are for our benefit. An eternal God whose prescence encompasses the universe can be hard to relate to, so he temporarily adopts a form we CAN relate to.

I like Jon-Marc's explanation.

[Outlaw]

GOD DOES NOT EXIST! HEAVEN DOES NOT EXIST!

I understand that to exist means being made of atoms etc, i.e. matter. God is pure spirit or energy. He is out of time; eternal. If time is a straight line like a long parade, God can see past the beginning and past the end. It must be glorious to be able to see any point in time at any time.

Something we will never be able to see is inside the mind of God. He knew everything that was ever to happen when He created us. He knew the deceit, the sinning, that He would have to sacrifice Himself for us. And He still went ahead and made us knowing that we would sin. If you were in His place, would you do that? I know God loves me and I am His forever. I look forward to the next step in this plan that He has for me. I AM NOT AFRAID!

Mike (Big Mac)

[namedun]

(hypothically, since all the regulars here know I'm an athiest),If god is all knowing, all seeing, wouldn't that make him extremely bored? I mean how would you like to know every single event that ever happened or ever will happen down to the very interaction of every electron?

[sawdust]

Hi Namedun,
God may or may not be bored knowing every thing as He dose, but He still finds time to know and love you! Not acknowledging some one or some thing dose not mean that it dose not exist. It may only mean that somebody could be in denial. Sawdust

[Trailscout]

namedun,

If God is a bigger concept than you can wrap your arms around, that doesn't prove that he doesn't exist; it does seem to prove that you are not God.

[hm0504]

namedun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (hypothically, since all the regulars here know I'm an athiest),If god is all knowing, all seeing, wouldn't that make him extremely bored? I mean how would you like to know every single event that ever happened or ever will happen down to the very interaction of every electron? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Coincidentally, there has been significant recent discussion in the Christian community about this topic as it relates to "Open Theism", which holds that God does not know the future. This doesn't mean God doesn't know something that can be known, but either that the future is actually unknowable, or perhaps the question is simply insensible (despite our illusion that it could be known).

For the background, see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14257-2003Nov7?language=printer

For the judgement on Open Theism by the Evangelical Theological Society, see
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1232173.html

Personally, I regard humans as having a very incomplete understanding of time, and I base this on both our knowledge of physics and philosophy. When it comes to something as apparently real, yet so inpalpable as "time", I do not think, frankly, that we as humans are really smart enough to adequately understand what we mean by "Does God know the future?". If I'm not getting my point across, just ignore this paragraph.

I also rather like the work of Mr. Pinnock (though I would rarely find myself in full agreement with him), so I'm sorry to see the news.

[hm0504]

Either on this topic or others, questions were raised about why crucifixes often have Jesus with a cloth around his midriff when he was indeed naked. I have no doubt that the addition of a piece of cloth is a cultural thing.

I only mention this because as I was going though last week's newspaper (finally!), I came across a review of Nino Ricci's new book. The review included a picture of a crucifix from Florence, Italy's Santo Spirito church so I thought I'd share it with you:
http://www.artist-biography.info/gallery/michelangelo_buonaroti/191/

[Trailscout]

1 John 3:20
... he (God) knows everything

hm0504....Thanks for sharing...interesting sculpture and site

[hm0504]

Can God read Bugs Bunny's mind?

Well, since God knows everything, God can read Bugs Bunny's mind. Right? Well, the problem is that Bugs Bunny is a fictional character, doesn't exist, and so the question is not really intelligible.

What I'm saying is that time, though we conceive of it as being a real thing, even though we where watches, live our lives by the clock, and are constantly "aware" of time...from a philisophical perspective, we have hardly begun to understand what time (as a physical phenomenon is). I know such a statement may sound ridiculous but if one is going to ask a question like "Does God know the future?" then we really have to get into the details of what exactly is this thing called time, and for many physicists, what time is remains a mystery. Also, a little knowledge is often a dangerous thing for humans because as soon as we know something, we think we know it all (or almost all).

So until we have, if we ever have, a thoroughly adequate understanding of what time is, then we should accept that we cannot really know whether a question such as "Does God know the future?" is really a sensible question. I certainly think it is great and wonderful to ponder such questions, but I wouldn't get too worked up about anyone's differing opinion given how poorly we all understand this question just as one might ponder "Can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"

P.S. Thanks outdoorbare for your earlier compliment

[Bob S.]

A few comments here. First to answer the title question, no. He is not a nudist. Is a newborn baby a nudist? No. G*d may not have a need for clothes, but that does not mean that he is a nudist. He merely exists. Others here have said that He is a spirit; that means that He would really have no reason for clothing.

Clothes are for man therefore only man can be nudist as we reject the idea of being dependent on clothes.

I do have a question, though, for the Christians here. Since you believe that Jesus was G*d on Earth, how would you answer the question: "Is (Was) Jesus a Nudist?"

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Another interesting comment made here: "Does G*d know the future?"

I have discussed this here a while ago. Let us asume that G*d could forsee the future. That would have some interesting ramifications on existence, personal religions, etc. If G*d could see the future, He would have been able to see the fall of man without trying to intervene.

If He could see the future, He could see everyone's death before it happens. Now that would go into the idea of fate and destiny. Are you destined to die at a certain time in some preordained way? Do you really have free-will or is it just like the Ancient Greek mythology where they believed in the Fates who controlled everyone's destiny.

Can we control our own lives or are our lives fated to unfold in a way that G*d forsees. If so, that would be His plan and we should accept it, but if it is His plan, why would he want such suffering to go on? Why would he allow children to be raped and killed?

Asking that question "Does G*d know the future" does indeed open a Pandora's box of questions and dangerous presumptions.

Bob S.

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

I do have a question, though, for the Christians here. Since you believe that Jesus was G*d on Earth, how would you answer the question: "Is (Was) Jesus a Nudist?"

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How are we supposed to know the answer to that? I don't know about you, but I'm not 2,000 years old and wasn't there when He was on earth. I'm sure He wore clothes as society dictated, as nudists reluctantly do, but I'm also sure He saw nothing wrong with non-sexual nudity--not that there's anything wrong with sexual nudity in the right context.

Jesus stripped off His clothes, wrapped a towel around Himself, and washed His disciples' feet. I'm sure He removed the towel to dry their feet and was therefore nude at times in their presence. There were probably no women present at that time, but that doesn't mean He is against mixed nudity. However, anything we say is purely speculation if it isn't recorded in the Bible, which means nothing to those who don't believe the Bible.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Another interesting comment made here: "Does G*d know the future?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We humans are locked in time; that is, we advance toward the future at the rate of sixty seconds a minute, sixty minutes an hour, twenty-four hours a day. But the Scriptures, and my understanding of God, indicate that He is not limited in that way. C.S. Lewis explains it very well in The Screwtape Letters, Letter XXVII, when he writes that God does not remember some things as past, experience others as present, or foresee others as future; rather, He sees all in His limitless Present. "And obviously," concludes Lewis, "to watch a person doing something is not to make him do it."

(Sorry if I offend any Jews here by spelling out the word for the Divine Creator. But after all, it's really a title, not the Holy Name itself.)

[Outlaw]

Bob S.

My thoughts on the subject of 'Is (was) Jesus a nudist' are that the people of Jesus' time were not concerned or horrified by a naked body. I have read on several occasions that when Jesus and Peter went fishing on Peter's boat that they cast off their garments (underwear hadn't been invented back then) while they worked.

About time: there is a difference between "knowing" and "having a predestined time and method of any situation." If you to do anything right now it would be what you determined to do, not a planned event. Therefore it is free will. You are not a puppet.

Mike (Big Mac)

[Outlaw]

Jochanaan--

I like the last line in your piece. I've heard something similar. "God is not a name; it's a job title."

Mike (Big Mac)

[sawdust]

Hi Bob S.,
In answer to your question, "Was/is Jesus a nudsit?" I believe that the answer is, no more then what the culture of His day required of Him. The word nudist as we today understand it did not even exist during Jesus life and is a reletively new concept of the last century. This is not to say that Jesus was never nude. Indeed there were seven major events where Jesus was certainly nude. The first was His birth, the Second His baptism by John, Third His washing of the deciples feet, Fourth, Fifth & Sixth His scourging and His Crucifixion and His Resurrection and Seventh His Ascension. These though were done as was the custom of the times with no consideration for being nude as we do for comfort and relaxation. Sawdust

[Bob S.]

Don't worry Jochanaan, you have not blinded me. I don't care how you spell G*d as long as you don't care that I spell it my way.

Bob S.

[nudebynature]

I never knew why people spelled it that way.Now, I know. Silly me.

I am involved in a lengthy discussion on a Christian non-naturist board, to which I cross posted this.

The difference in attitudes is amazing. It is like, it never occurred to anyone that nudism had any Biblical basis. They don't quite know what to do with the notion. Some people want to dismiss it and hope that it will go away. How could nudism have any validity? God wants us to be clothed. End of discussion.

I have yet to have anyone defend it. Except me. I feel like a voice in the wilderness. Nobody has been outright rude, so that is at least something.

[Nude in the North]

God knows what is, was, and ever will be.
Time is not a line to God. Time is a circle where the beginning and the end meet. By "standing" at the beginning you can see the end.

God created our "universe" for us to live in. That suggests that there is another "universe" that God existed in before he created ours.
The grand size of our universe leaves us believing that it is everything. Like a fish in a lake, we have no idea what is beyond our universe.

God walks with man every day, but seldom leaves footprints in the sand. His Spirit is in the hearts, minds, and souls of those who accept him.

God gave us free will to live as, and do what we choose in our lives. He also knows what choices we will make. He is not going to force you to make the right choices. He sent his Son to pay the price when we make the wrong ones.

There is but One truth. Only by the grace of God and our admission into Heaven (Gods universe) will anyone know the truth.

Steve

[sawdust]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trailscout:

Male and female genitals are not so different as you might think. For everything a woman has, there a counterpart or "homologue" in males.

Hi Trailscout,
Your really sure about this statement? I sure hope so! By the way where exactly do guys keep their "clitoris" anyway? Sawdust

[hm0504]

What Trailscout says is true. I'm not an expert in the matter, but here is how I understand the birds and the bees.

Step 1: Genetics -- An ovum (human female egg) gets penetrated by a sperm. Ova (plural of ovum) carry XX chromosomes (gene things) and sperm carry XY chromosomes. Typically, the result is either XX (typically resulting in a female human) or XY (typically resulting in a male human). There are other possibilities such as X (Turner's Syndrome) or XXY (Klinefelter's Syndrome).

Step 2: The more proportion of Y you have, the more likely you will form testes rather than ovaries. In some cases, a the result is a mix of the two. If the testes are formed well, they produce testosterone. Testosterone, by default, results in the creation of more male features in the body, but...

Step 3: For the testerone to do its stuff, it needs to find the right receptors and some people may not have the right receptors so all that testerone floating around doesn't result in male features.

Step 4: The brain. The brain is also a powerful sexual organ and no doubt has many complex interventions in defining the gender and sexual orientation of people (in addition to the more physiologically fundamental drivers previously mentioned).

The "Gender" episode of the "Sex Files" program of Canada's Discovery network
http://exn.ca/sexfiles/Gender/Story2.cfm
has more information.

Anyway, getting a clearly differentiated gender is a complex process that does not always go according to the default route. When it does not, persons may develop as intersexed (
see
http://isna.org/
for more info).

Yes, the process of gender and sexual differentiation is maybe a bit more complex than what is taught in grade school.

[Trailscout]

sawdust,
The part of the genitals that becomes the clitoris in females becomes the penis in males. In human females, the urethra is not part of the clitoris, it opens below it. In human males, the urethra fuses with the base of the penis. So the end result is very different in appearance and size, but all the male parts have a homologue with all the female parts.

Wow! Some great definitions going on there guys.

[Bob S.]

While still early in gestation, all fetuses look the same. They are all basically female. It isn't until (I forget which month) when the testosterone kicks in that the male features (penis) show up.

There are problems for boys when the testosterone doesn't kick in at the right time. That can lead to boys being born with what seems to be a vagina, with what might even look like an enlarged clitoris.

And just another lesson in basic genetics, ova can only have an X chromosome. The sperm can have either the X or Y. So the male (sperm) is the the one who determines the sex of the child.

Bob S.

[soofreeemateomanian]

(my "E" key is not working well, bare with it) I really do not believe going to church very week or memorizing verses has anything to do with religion. I feel that being honest, sincre, and kind to a fellow human is being religious.

[soofreeemateomanian]

I take a more scientific scope of religion. After God had made all the matter in the universe, it condesed so much that all the matter in the universe was trillions of degrees and fit into to top of a needle. It exploded, and this is commonly known as the big bang. Our own Solar system was formed after a supernova created the sun. An Oort cloud made the plants through the suns gravity. While it is a fun thought of adam and eve, we must also dwell on fact. For you who do not know, a light year is the distance light travels for one year(6 trillion miles) lets say that a planet 65 million light years away from earth looks through a giant telescope to earths surface. They would see dinosaurs, because light has still not reached then because it takes 65 million years. the fact of the matter is, there is a large amount of evidence supporting the big bang. Scientists actually heard it a few years ago, and the few faint whispers of the universes creation passed. I really dont want a bunch of flames against my post, so if you dont like it, try to ignore it.

[soofreeemateomanian]

if males had a YY gene, and females had a XX gene, the offspring would be neither male or female. see how punett squares work?

[Buzzer]

Nudebynature:
I agree with you. As we were made in His, and Adam was naked, he must have been naked also.
Thank you for bringing up the fact of His bodily form being in the Garden. I hadn't thought about that before.
I do believe that the Bible has it's "vague" points for a purpose. This allows us to converse about His word, dot argue about it, but to bring it to the forefront of our conversations.

[Trailscout]

Mateo,
Normal Human males are XY; normal human females are XX.
(The rules are different for different species).
But with us, the Y chromosome is small, too small for a YY human to live. Women's eggs only have the X chromosome anyway, so there will never be a YY baby unless we attempt it in a laboratory and no living creature would result anyway. There are a few men who are XYY. This trait is associated with aggressive individuals with a higher than usual incarceration rate.
XXX and XXY kids are born from time to time, but this results in other disorders. Turner's Syndrome involves the sex chromosomes, but is too complicated to get into here. Just be glad you don't have it.

[Rex]

Mateo, and others,
You may find the serious, but very readable, book on astronomy and related subjects, The Cosmic Connection, by Carl Sagan, ISBN 0 340 19682 3, of interest.

One section of interest to nudists, would be an item included in the contents of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, launched in 1972 from Cape Kennedy, and intended to travel for the next 10 billion years,without entering the planetary system of any other star.

A small metal plate is engraved with basic mathematical and astronomical concepts, to enable a possible future interstellar reader to understand something about us, and where we are positioned, in this galaxy.

It is also engraved with "full-frontal" drawings of an adult man and woman.

The man's genitals are clearly, if somewhat diagramatically, depicted. The female genital area is blank.

Some individuals were "offended".

The Philadelphia Inquirer had a front page illustration of the plaque, but removed the man's genitalia, and the woman's nipples, because "a family newspaper must uphold community standards".

A letter to the Los Angeles Times referred to pornography in the media, and complained that "our own space agency officials have found it necessary to spread this filth even beyond our own solar system".

[Leo]

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


If God was in the habit of meeting with Adam and Eve face to face, would he likely be clothed or unclothed? The Bible doesn't say.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it does, In the book of Genesis.... God created man in his own image and likelyness. If God created man in his own image, than I would also believe that "God" is also naked. JMPO /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RedChic says:

"If you read Genesis 3:7-11, you may have a better understanding, or see it in a different light. In verse seven, it is then both Adam & Eve realize that they are in fact naked. In verse ten, when Adam is called out by God, he says to Him that he was hiding because of his nakedness. Finally in verse eleven God says," Who told you that you were naked?" He then goes on to ask if they had eaten from the tree.

These verses imply to me that God was offended by the couple clothing themselves. Hence, case closed. If original sin had never incurred, we would all still be living in paradise...NAKED"

However it was predetermined before the creation of the world that there should be a fall-and with that clothes..

Ephesians 1:4:

For he chose us in him BEFORE the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

To predestine a Saviour means to predestine a Fall-for the one depends on each other-therefore we are intended to have clothes..

[shãybare]

God was never offended by Adam and Eve being unclothed (unleafed?) before. Why would he be offended be their being naked after Adam and Eve ate from the tree? Why would Adam and Eve believe being physically naked would offend God since he made them that way and had seen them that way from the time he had created them? When he was preparing to toss them from Eden, God said things would change. No more Mr. Nice Guy. God cursed the ground and said it would bring forth thorns and thistles. Adam would have to work growing his own gardens if he wanted to eat. God made clothing from skins for them. These clothes were NOT made because God was agreeing with Adam that being physically naked was wrong. The clothing was made so Adam and Eve would have some protection from those thorns and thistles. Surely Adam and Eve wasn't ashamed to view each other naked because they had been naked together all the time. The only thing that would make sense for wearing clothes would be for protection and not modesty.

Is God a Nudist? God is a spirit and neither male nor female. On a spiritual realm what difference would it make then for clothing?

Shaybare,

There is an account given of the sheeps and the goats in what is called the Last Days that says:

Matt 25:35:

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I NEEDED CLOTHES and YOU CLOTHED ME, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord when did we see you hungry and feed you or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger, and invite you in or NEEDING CLOTHES and clothe you?

"The King shall reply, 'I tell you the truth, WHATEVER you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me

It continues verses 41-46 and it is clear from this CLOTHES are considered a neccessity of life-on the same order as food..

It's scriptural to wear clothes...

You make an interesting observation:

"God was never offended by Adam and Eve being unclothed (unleafed?) before. Why would he be offended be their being naked after Adam and Eve ate from the tree? Why would Adam and Eve believe being physically naked would offend God since he made them that way and had seen them that way from the time he had created them?"

Apparently Man gained knowledge after eating from the Tree of Life (I would have grabbed it immediately!) because when we read Gen 3:21:

"The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, "Thus man HAS NOW become like one of us, knowing good and evil.."

From this, I take it God wears clothes-there's some other references-when I get a chance I'll look them up..

[Trailscout]

Sandy, clothes not always a necessity and sometimes they interfere with daily life even for most textiles. (bathroom functions, bathing, lovemaking, aerating skin and absorbing sunlight). We have examples from the Bible where people did without clothes for periods of time and did not break any laws of God.

There are times when we need clothes for protection from excess sun, heat or cold. There are times when we want to shield our bodies from strangers who are conditioned to lust over nudity or who simply hate nudity.

If the environment is favorable and you are surrounded by friends and safe acquaintances, then you have no more need for clothing, do you?

Perhaps you would feel the need for clothing for modesty, but I just got through saying that you were among friends and safe acquaintances, so what's to hide?

[sawdust]

Sandy K,
I don't think that any nudist would argue with you that there is a need for clothing, even for them. If you live a noramlly cold climate people most certainly need clothing and should have them. When it comes to physical necessity, what ever that necessity is, clothing is a good and necessry thing. On the other hand, if the necessity is not there and physical comfort mandates or allows for the lack of clothing then being nude or lightly clothed is the way to go. Just as a loin cloth would be totally inappropriate for the artic, so too would a fur parker be for living in the area of the equator.
Being nude is not a thing of being defiant to God or to ones culture. It is just being as comfortable as you can be where ever you are. Nothing more and nothing less. Sawdust

Trailscout says:

"If the environment is favorable and you are surrounded by friends and safe acquaintances, then you have no more need for clothing, do you?"

I just prefer clothing-I would probably just stay clothed..maybe not..it would just have to depend..if EVERYONE was naked..then I would consider it..

I found another reference..

Is 6:1-3:

"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted and THE TRAIN OF HIS ROBE filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings...."

I think God wears clothes-but I can't find anything that EXPRESSLY forbids nudity..

[Jochanaan]

It seems to me this thread is going nowhere fast! Whether God is naked or not, one thing is certain from the Bible: We were created in His image, naked and unashamed. That tells me He is never offended by nudity. (He sees through, or over, or under our clothes anyway. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

[shãybare]

Agreed, Jochanaan. I said there was a need for clothing but not for modesty. Nowhere is nudity prohibited.

SandyK, If God wore clothes and requires others to wear clothes for modesty, then why did he not clothe Adam and Eve in the beginning? Why did he wait until they ate the forbidden fruit? Were we set up for a fall to begin with? If that is the case, why did God act surprised when it happened? Why did he tell them not to eat of the fruit? Why would their going naked not be a sin before eating the fruit if God was wearing clothes and considered it a sin? We never had a chance. What kind of God is that?

Shay,

God is never "surprised" by ANYTHING. He knows everything that will happen and is never taken by surprise. Of course, we're given a chance to CHOOSE. Without that choice we would be mere puppets dangling on strings doing whatever He wanted.

When He asked Adam where he was, it wasn't that He didn't know, but He wanted Adam to come to Him on his own and admit to what he and Eve had done, but like all "children" Adam blamed his wife, and she blamed the serpent, and the serpent didn't have a leg to stand on! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Also, a lot of the Bible is written figuratively--like the passage in the OT that speaks of trees clapping their hands. The "train" of God's robe may or may not be literal, but no one can take that and say, "See there? It says that God wears clothes so that means we have to wear clothes." Some people base their entire religious beliefs (or anything they want to "prove") on one passage by taking it out of context.

[missouriboy]

That's right, a robe while on a throne is a badge of office, just like it is for our judges on the bench today.

Shaybare asks:

"SandyK, If God wore clothes and requires others to wear clothes for modesty, then why did he not clothe Adam and Eve in the beginning? Why did he wait until they ate the forbidden fruit? Were we set up for a fall to begin with? If that is the case, why did God act surprised when it happened? Why did he tell them not to eat of the fruit? Why would their going naked not be a sin before eating the fruit if God was wearing clothes and considered it a sin? We never had a chance. What kind of God is that?"

Shaybare, it is clear from my Ephesians quote the Fall was pre-arranged-there was to be a Fall-because there had to be a Saviour. He WASN'T surprised because God can see what will happen as well (it's in the bible somewhere-I'd have to look)-and you are right-never really had a chance.

You asked me about the Biblical God..here's what we know of him..

*He creates angels for himself-but one betrays him-and takes other angels with him-to fight against God-and these angels know in the end they will lose..

*He creates an world in 6 days-and expresses ALL is good (Gen 1:31) and has to rest..

*All isn't good (or is it?) because of the Fall as recorded in Gen3:1-21

*Man swells in numbers, and creates so much havoc, God decides to destroy the project with a Flood-but saves 8 people

*people are scattered all of the world on the basis of a difference in language

*Laws governing slavery, murder, are introduced.

*A Christ comes..but is rejected by his own people on the basis this Christ does not fulfill the Hebrew scriptures written in the Jews own language

*Christ (God himself) walks amongst man-performs miracles-and is executed

*Christ rises from the dead-is seen by 500-testified by fallen saints-but Judaism still rejects the claim..Christ ascends to be with his Father..

Shaybare asked:

"If God wore clothes and requires others to wear clothes for modesty, then why did he not clothe Adam and Eve in the beginning?"

Gen 3:6-7:

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and ALSO DISIRABLE for GAINING WISDOM, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate it. Then the EYES of BOTH WERE OPENED and they REALIZED they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves"

Gen 3:21-22:

"The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, "The man HAS NOW BECOME LIKE ONE OF US, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL."

According to this, God knows "good and evil"-and is clothing man..

[melissastarr]

I tend to think that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they learned that they are vulnerable and were ashamed of their vulnerability, which caused them to cover themselves. God, being good and kind, saw that they desired cover and gave them clothing for their emotional well-being. Also, sin had come into the world and I feel a greater ability to sin when I'm wearing clothes. For example, when I'm nude I have a really hard time lying. Don't ask me why, but I do. I guess it's because when I'm nude I feel more real and vulnerable. Others, too, are more vulnerable and I'm less likely to want to wrong them. It's interesting that this happens.

Melissa

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SandyK:
Shaybare, it is clear from my Ephesians quote the Fall was pre-arranged-there was to be a Fall-because there had to be a Saviour. He WASN'T surprised because God can see what will happen as well (it's in the bible somewhere-I'd have to look)-and you are right-never really had a chance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If we are pre-arranged to fulfill a role in a predestined playbook our choices are meaningless and faith and morality mean nothing. All evil and suffering would be directly attributable to God's will, no one else's, not even 'Satan'.

I don't buy it.

-Mark

The Fall was not "pre-arranged". It WAS pre-known by God since He knows all things. Adam and Eve had a will of their own and could choose to obey or not. God in His wisdom and mercy had to provide them with a way to choose to disobey or not. Otherwise, what was the point of them being able to make a decision if there was nothing to make a decision ABOUT?

Mark says:

"If we are pre-arranged to fulfill a role in a predestined playbook our choices are meaningless and faith and morality mean nothing. All evil and suffering would be directly attributable to God's will, no one else's, not even 'Satan'.

I don't buy it."

Mark, then explain these words:

Ephesians 1:3-5

"Praise be to the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. FOR HE CHOSE US IN HIM BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined (there's that word again!)us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ-in accordance with his pleasure and will-

You may also wish to continue till verse 15-I won't write them because it's too laborious..

Mark, the facts are, most people don't read the bible-maybe just sections-but not much of it-and don't consider what the book says..

Tell me, in your opinion, why does Judaism reject Christianity? This opens up an interesting can of worms...

Jon-Marc says:

"It WAS pre-known by God since He knows all things. Adam and Eve had a will of their own and could choose to obey or not. God in His wisdom and mercy had to provide them with a way to choose to disobey or not."

I've already demonstrated with scripture in hand, that a Saviour was formulated BEFORE the creation of the world-and there were those who were predestined to be with God through Jesus Christ. For them to be predestined-it is necessary for there to be a Fall-because both of these dogmas are linked and depend on each other. With NO FALL-there is no need for a Saviour..

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SandyK:
Mark, then explain these words:

Ephesians 1:3-5

"Praise be to the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. FOR HE CHOSE US IN HIM BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined (there's that word again!) us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ-in accordance with his pleasure and will <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This section of Ephesians is the basis for the Calvanist concept of Predestination and Election. Most churches reject this interpretation, most notably the Catholic Church. But it is growing in poplarity among end-of-time enthusiasts (the Left-Behinders).

Delving into the WWW of Christian higher criticsm I find: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The word "predestination" does not occur in the Bible. The compound Greek word "prohorizo" (derived from "pro" meaning "before" and "horizo" meaning "a boundary, limit") means "to limit or set boundaries beforehand." It does not mean to force against one's will. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Without engaging in a line by line exegesis of the text, we can say that Paul was simply assuring the Ephesians that by choosing to be followers of Christ they were assured of God's grace.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Tell me, in your opinion, why does Judaism reject Christianity? This opens up an interesting can of worms... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why does Christianity reject Muhammad?

-Mark

[melissastarr]

Sandy... are you a Christian?

Melissa

Melissa asked:

"Sandy... are you a Christian?"

Melissa, I am a freethinker..

Mark,

I asked for YOU to explain-not for a sect to explain-or attempt to explain-especially when there is no actual way of confirmation. I could post a question to 3 different theologians (I have) and get 3 different answers..

Mark asked:

"Why does Christianity reject Muhammad"

That is a neat sidestep of my question-but here is my point. Judaism is the original (might have that word wrong) of not only Christianity, but Islam as well-both of these belief systems sprang from Judaism.

Judaism denies both of these religions, though, are true to the tenets of the Torah (or OT)..and I asked why, in your opinion it does this. I want your opinion as a bible believing christian (maybe your not) as towards the reasons why..if you don't know-just say so..

Mark, I have to admit, I find it very odd both yourself and Shaybare are participating in this discussion given your views on homosexuality. Both the Torah and the New Testament are very clear on that-as a bible believer-you can't pick and choose-you have to accept that biblical conclusion as the last word-and yet you don't. That fact severely undermines your position/arguments..

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SandyK:
I asked for YOU to explain-not for a sect to explain-or attempt to explain-especially when there is no actual way of confirmation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In case Sandy is unclear on the concept, the parts I put in quotes are the words of other people. The stuff not in quotes is mine. I'm not an expert on Greek or Aramaic, so I quoted the language lesson. The exegesis was mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Why does Christianity reject Muhammad"

That is a neat sidestep of my question-but here is my point. Judaism is the original (might have that word wrong) of not only Christianity, but Islam as well-both of these belief systems sprang from Judaism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought I was succinct and clear. In my view Jews feel that Christianity is outside of their tradition in exactly the same way that Christians feel Islam is outside of their tradition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mark, I have to admit, I find it very odd both yourself and Shaybare are participating in this discussion given your views on homosexuality. Both the Torah and the New Testament are very clear on that-as a bible believer-you can't pick and choose-you have to accept that biblical conclusion as the last word-and yet you don't. That fact severely undermines your position/arguments.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You just haven't been paying attention. Been answered in extreme detail time and time again. Do a forum search on my member number (4340) to see what I had to say. Some of those threads have been removed due to spirals into homophobic hatemongering. In order to find a balanced discussion of the issues -both pro and con- go here: <A HREF="http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm" TARGET=_blank>WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
</A>

-Mark

[shãybare]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SandyK:
Gen 3:6-7:

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and ALSO DISIRABLE for GAINING WISDOM, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate it. Then the EYES of BOTH WERE OPENED and they REALIZED they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves"

Gen 3:21-22:

"The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, "The man HAS NOW BECOME LIKE ONE OF US, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL."

According to this, God knows "good and evil"-and is clothing man.. [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My point exactly. God already knew good from evil. So why did he allow Adam and Eve to go naked if it was wrong? Why would it be wrong for Adam and Eve to see each other nude? They were man and wife.

As far as Mark and I posting on this thread, we can post on any thread we wish. And I don't see what our views about homosexuality have to do with it. I try to treat all people fairly. Do you see something wrong in that?

[Elton]

Some people have said that the skins that Adam and Eve wore when they left the garden are allegorical.

[Elton]

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

I think God wears clothes.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sandy, if you saw God, He will appear to you as you expect him to appear. Maybe with white flowing robes. But I believe that Heavenly Beings, both pre-mortal and immortal, have no need for clothes.

[Trailscout]

We are naked when we appear before God's presence. There is no garment so thick that God can't see right through it. Even a screener at the airport can see your naked body under those clothes. I don't think God has any trouble either!

God says that he fills heaven and earth, but when he chooses to reveal something of himself, it is said that his glory is so great that people can't look upon his face and live. I wouldn't even attempt to explain that further. Moses was allowed a glimpse of God's "backside" and his face shone for many days afterward, so much so, that people could hardly bear to look at Moses' face they were so frightened.

In the face of all this, it seems pointless to talk about God needing clothes.

[Outlaw]

Well folks, I'm getting into this discussion a little late. Going back through the last couple of days postings (enjoyably) I have a thought (on a simple level) regarding Adam and Eve before and after eating the forbidden fruit. I didn't realize that a fairy tale was maybe based on this part of the Bible.

I think that Adam and Eve realized that they were naked after eating the fruit because up to that point they were 'normal'. And afterwards they were not.

Doesn't this sound an awful lot like the fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes?" He didn't realize he was naked until he 'received knowledge' of his condition.

Now back to the subject matter of this thread, while it is said in the Bible that God walked with Adam and Eve I can't begin to imagine a physical God. He does not have flesh and bones any more than the air has easily distingishable mass. If you think God has mass, then tell me where heaven is located. And I use He only because there is no gender word for God.

Mike (Big Mac)

[Trailscout]

God has taken on human form at times for our benefit. He fills heaven and earth and always has.

He existed before space and time, or you could just as easily say that he exists outside of the bubble of space, time, energy and matter as much as he also inhabits it.

"Naked" implies a sense of lack to many people today and it did to Adam and Eve after their sin. When we are in sin, we do lack something, but it is not our bodies that are indecent, it is our souls. Christ restores our souls and our decency. Clothing is not part of the equation.

[Tad]

After the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve with "garments of skin." This was the first blood sacrifice foreshadowing Christ's work on the cross.

God never condemned them for their nudity. He asked, "Who told you that you were naked?" That's how he'd created them. And he pronounced all that he had created to be "very good." Adam and Eve's second sin was covering themselves with fig leaves, rather than immediately confessing to God that they had sinned. It was an attempt to cover their sins by themselves, rather than having God cover them. I agree God making coverings for them was an act of compassion, not condemnation. He was not saying now nudity is evil, right after he had pronounced it "very good."

Love in Christ
(the best kind),

Tad (JTK.CA)
http://NudeCreations.com

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by melissastarr:
I tend to think that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they learned that they are vulnerable and were ashamed of their vulnerability, which caused them to cover themselves. God, being good and kind, saw that they desired cover and gave them clothing for their emotional well-being. Also, sin had come into the world and I feel a greater ability to sin when I'm wearing clothes. For example, when I'm nude I have a really hard time lying. Don't ask me why, but I do. I guess it's because when I'm nude I feel more real and vulnerable. Others, too, are more vulnerable and I'm less likely to want to wrong them. It's interesting that this happens.

Melissa <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[barenaked1]

I believe it was George Burns that commented that "God's a comedian, but no one understands the jokes"

[George SoCal]

More to the Garden of Eden than is normally discussed?

As a non-believer you can take this with a grain of salt and I apologize in advance if I don't quote exactly from the bible, it's been several years since I've read the Genesis account. But I can give you the gist of what I took away from reading it at that time.

Lost in most interpretation I have heard and read is the most important part of all of this - the nature of God. Most of Christianity has enobled God beyond what we see in Genesis. That is he is purely love, peace, etc. The God I see in Genesis is much more flavored than that.
Think of it as a parent, with all our foibles, trying to raise and protect our children. But we carry baggage into it and cannot do a perfect job of it.

God also tried to do that with his children Adam and Eve. God knew evil, in fact created it, or had an evil side to him in the first place. In the Garden of Eden he attempted to keep this evil away from his children, but his excess baggage found its way into the garden represented by two trees - the knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. His hope was that his command to not eat of the fruit of these two trees would suffice to protect his children. But God could not prevent what was part of his own nature and ultimately Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil. But ultimately this was not the reason Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. This vengeful God threw them out lest they partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life "and become like us", that is, to have everlasting life.
As we go on through the Old testament we can see that God is a jealous, sometimes petty, God who says one thing and does another.
I think it was after the Flood that God promised never to do anything like that again. I still recall the story of the encampment of Jews who with permission lived within a kingdom of non-Jews. One of the jewish daughters fell in love with the king's son. But the Jews said that could not happen unless every male in the kingdom agreed to be circumcised. It was agreed upon, but her brothers went into the city at night and killed all the males. God then covered up for them by destroying all evidence(and killing the rest). (Sorry I cannot quote a verse for you here). I would call this aiding and abetting.
I apologize that this does not add to the threads theme of is God a nudist. I do suppose he is without clothes, so that would make him a nudist.
But ultimately, at least from my outsider looking in perspective, there appears to be room to suppose that God is both good and evil.

[sawdust]

George,
I think you need to get back into the bible and into a basic Sunday school class to refresh yourself as to the caracter and nature of God. You are missing more then just the ability to quote Genisis scripture. You have taken the little you know and perverted it with humanistic reasoning.
God could not be the God of the bible as He is known, if He had "faults and foibles" as you discribe of "baggage." The bible teaches that the God of the OT and God in the person of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all sinless; they are without sin. If God created sin as you suggest then He would not, could not be sinless. The very first thing any Christian comes to know and believe is in the perfect, sinless nature of God! Without that basic Christian belief all other vertues of God would be subject to question and doubt.
Having read just the first part of your posting, which delt with your understanding of the "sin nature of God", I decided that the rest of it was not even worth reading. Sawdust

[slowpoke]

Let's cut through the gobbly gook and get to the point. All faiths have a god. All of the offshuts are just indivdual variations of man's need to belief in the supernatural. So all gods came before clothing was possible. What each individual and his fellow faithful want to believe about their god is an individual or faith accepted gosiple. Was he naked or not? You make up your mind. What others think is none of your concern as long as you are comfortable with your belief.

[Bob S.]

"Mark, the facts are, most people don't read the bible-maybe just sections-but not much of it-and don't consider what the book says."

OK, I know I am late with this discussion, but hey, here goes. Sandy,the English-language Bible that most people read is a translation of a translation of a translation... And with each translation, a new spin is put on the stories based upon social values of the day and the translator. A single word may be translated in more than one way. And while they may be synonomous, they are also different, especially when translated into yet another language.

In fact, there was recently a problem like this in the EU. There is no real official language so everything is translated into the separate languages. In the case of certain languages, in order to be translated, they must go through many different languages so the ending translation may be significantly different than the original.

Use the original words when trying to figure out what the Bible's original intent was.

"why does Judaism reject Christianity?"

Because Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Jews do not believe that. We are still waiting for the Meshoah (I think that is the Hebrew word). And Mark's response was not a sidestep. It is a legitimate question that acted as an answer to your question.

Bob S.

[Trailscout]

Bob's answer was well-intended, but incomplete. It still begs the question, "Why do Jews not believe that Jesus is the Messiah?"

Many Jews in Jesus day DID believe that he was the Messiah and they did not cease to be observant Jews nor did they neglect synagogue.

It was only later that Jewish authorities made rejection of Jesus a test of one's Jewishness. And likewise the "Church" made rejection of Jewish practice a prerequisite for being a Christian, but it was not so from the beginning.

After this rift, our two faiths drifted further apart.

I have looked at the evidence and I believe that Jesus fulfilled all the requirements for the suffering servant messianic verses. What remains to be fulfilled are the verses in which Jesus literally returns to Earth to reign as the King of Kings from Jerusalem. When he does so, Christians and Jews will both acknowledge him as Messiah and our two faiths will be one again.

[nudewheelchairTodd]

Aman to that, beside the Jew are still looking for a fighter on a horse, not a carpener that rode on a donkey even though it said it in the old testiment (this is what the Jewish only reads).

Bob,

I know of the transalations...the Jews reject Christianity because the idea of a virgin born saviour God is not part of the Torah.

Trailscout,

No doubt you are referring to Is 53 when you talk of the suffering servant which you believe Jesus fulfilled. I don't see that-on the contrary-that text was written 700yrs before Jesus is said to have lived-is in the preter tense-and is someone of that time-of whom Isaiah laments.

[Trailscout]

Sandy,
Here is a link to a Web page with some of the verses that describe Jesus the Messiah:

Messianic Prophecies (http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/messianic.htm)

Trailscout,

Thanks....I've actually seen that before..

You ever read a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowall?

It pretty much states the same thing-but there really are no prophecies-on the contrary those quoted passages relate to the times the Jewish Kingdom was going thru..

Rather than dealing with those-are you aware the NT quotes passages that don't exist?

In John 7:38-38 Jesus allegedly says, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

At that time, the only scripture was the OT-and yet-this passage doesn't exist.

[Trailscout]

Sandy,

Your problem is not lack of evidence but lack of an open mind. Unwilling to consider the evidence before you, you changed the subject to a new Testament passage that you also do not understand.
But I will answer your question even though you ignore mine.

The verses that Jesus was referring to in John chapter 7 verse 38 are:
Song 4:15 "A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon." Isa 12:2,3 "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation."

Isa 55:1 "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." Isa 58:11 "And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not."

Jer 2:13 "For my people have committed two evils; (1) they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and (2) hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." Jer 17:13 "O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters."

Ezk 47:1 "Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar."

Joel 3:18 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house (Who Is Jesus Christ) of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Sbittim."

Zech 13:1 "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness."
Isaiah 44:3
3 For I will pour out waters upon the thirsty ground, and streams upon the dry land: I will pour out my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thy stock.

Ezekiel 36:25
25 And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols.

Ezekiel 36:26
26 And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh.

Ezekiel 36:27
27 And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and do them.

Joel 2:28
28 And it shall come to pass after this, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy: your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.

Trailscout,

Didn't ignore anything-I've heard it ALL before-I just didn't choose to waste time, and expense addressing it..

Jesus said, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

Passage doesn't exist...and I feel you are reading into things..to rationalize it. If you like, I am more than happy to address some of your points..

I will address the passage from Is 7:14 and the alledged fulfillment in Matthew-and Micah Chap 5 as well.

Gotta run.....I've just been called to an overtime shift!!!

[Trailscout]

I have to laugh when a girl half my age says she's heard it all before.

Westerners can come to understand the Bible, but only after they quit thinking like a westerner.

You didn't find specific one-to-one correspondence between Jesus' quotation and the Old Testament passages he was citing. Jesus took several verses and synthesized them to reveal a higher truth. There is a pattern of this in his teachings, but you don't know the Bible or the Eastern mind well enough to realize it. You didn't even know that the entire Old Testament is not the Torah, just the first five books.

You certainly have a lot to learn about nudism and life in general young lady. It's a pity you won't listen and learn. God gave us two ears and one mouth, take a lesson from it.

[Bob S.]

"Bob's answer was well-intended, but incomplete. It still begs the question, 'Why do Jews not believe that Jesus is the Messiah?'"

Trail, I answered Sandy's question in the most basic terms. I wasn't answering your question, just why Jews reject Christianity.

You answered your own question well enough. I am no biblical scholar or biblial historian so I cannot comment yea or nay on your explanation. It does sound reasonable to me, though.

For the record, I feel the term of Messianic Judiasm is a misnomer. I am strict about the usage of certain terms sometimes and anyone who believes in Jesus is a Christian. So how about Judaic Christianity? Whichever you prefer, I really don't care. Believe what you want, respect whatever traditions you want, justlet me keep my own beliefs as well. Dogma to live by.

Bob S.

Trailscout says:

I have to laugh when a girl half my age says she's heard it all before"

Trailscout, who said I am half your age? I just never really bothered to put that detail in-you really don't know how old I am /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I am TOO TIRED to write what I need-HARD SHIFT-I'll write tommorow..

The reason though, why Judaism rejects Christianity is the beliefs are not within the Torah..

[nudewheelchairTodd]

boy, she argue with everything we say say or do gees.

Nudewheelchairtodd,

No...I actually probably agree with Bob on this..

Trailscout,

Let's examine a key doctrine-the alledged virgin birth of Jesus as told in Matthew..

Matt 1:18: "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit.

Matt 1:19: Because Joseph her husband was a righeous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had mind to divorce her quietly.

Matt 1:20: But after he had considered this (divorcing her) an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said:

'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife because what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and your are to give him the name Jesus because he will save the people from their sins'

Matt 1:22: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord said through the prophet:

'The virgin will be with child and give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel-which means "God with us.'""

The passage is in Is 7:14 and I will recount the occaison these words are spoken..

Upon the death of Solomon, the Jewish Kingdom split into two monarchies-one called the Kingdom of Judah-capital was Jerusalem-the other the Kingdom of Israel-capital was Samaria-and these two monarchies carried out wars against each other.

Ahaz was the King of Judah-Pekah the King of Israel-and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, King of Israel-and these two Kings marched a confederated army against Ahaz.

Ahaz was troubled with this, and addressed himself to Isaiah, who assured him the two Kings would not be successful-and to ask the Lord for a sign. Ahaz declines, saying he would not tempt the Lord, whereby Isaiah says

Is 7:14: The virgin* will be with a child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right-the land of the two kings you dread will be laid to waste."

So..here's the sign..which is a birth of a child-that child is a son-and the time limit for accomplishment of the sign-that he be born before the events of the impending battle be known-it would be nonsense to assure Ahaz the Kings would not be successful and to assure him a child would be born approx 700yrs in the future-he would no to reject the evil and accept the good-curds and honey he would eat.

The case is though, the child in question is Isaiah's OWN child-and we get an account in Chap 8 of Isaiah and at verse 18 same chapter when he relates:

"Here am I, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty who dwells on Mount Zion."

*the word VIRGIN as recorded in the Hewbrew text is ALMAH which means "young woman"-Matthew has distorted this in the Greek transalation.

Trailscout,

I have a book somewhere that gives me a full transalation from the original Hebrew text-when i find it-I'll post. Gotta go to work now..


'

[Trailscout]

Sandy, The Hebrew word "Almah" never refers to a married woman (i.e. Isaiah's wife, who was not only married, but had also already had a son).

Consider six other passages in the Old Testament where the word "Almah" is used: (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Proverbs 30:19).

In Hebrew society, unmarried women were virgins, so almah also means virgin. Two hundred years before Christ, a group of 70 Jewish scholars translated the Bible (Old Testament) into Greek. This version, the Septuagint, uses the Greek work "parthenos" whenever "almah occured in the Hebrew. Parthenos means virgin, not just a young woman.

Then there is the argument that if this verse was fulfilled 700 years later then it would mean there was no sign for Ahaz. Apparently, those who make this objection overlook the fact that Ahaz had forfeited his right to a sign. The sign is directed to Judah, not to Ahaz. The word "you" in verse 14 is plural, not singular. Of course, the two kings who had allied themselves against God's people did come to an end shortly, and thus the word of God was confirmed even to that generation. Homer Hailey (1985) observed, "Another obvious point is that the sign is not given to Ahaz, for he had been given an opportunity to receive a sign and had rejected it. The sign is promised to the house of David (verse 13). Furthermore, it is evident that verses 15 and 16 apply to the Son promised in verse 14. (Source: Ed Rickard, PhD)

Trailscout,

I will have to find my hebrew transalation of the whole thing-it's an interesting study-give me some moments..I said.."young woman" and that transalation does fit with Is 7:14. This text relates to Jesus alledged birth IMO as much as yours or G Bush!

Chap 8 and 9 of Isaiah continue of the same vein of Isaiah's son being born-and being a sign. Is 9.6 for example, although called a prophecy by Christians-really relates to that time-because it is in the preter tense. There really are no actually prophecies within the entire OT or Torah that relate to:

*a virgin born god-man
*a saviour
*die for the sins of the world

The message from the Torah is a military leader-to reunite the Jewish people. I believe the NT writers are taking passages out of context-and applying meanings never intended or thought of-to support the Jesus theme..

I can't accept (but I respect what you say) based on my studies..

Here's a thought..if Jesus was a historical figure..why..do we have this man who:

*performs miracles and heals the sick
*drives demons out of people (btw..I have never seen DEMONS on the floor EVER-and no one I know ever has)
*upsets the Roman government
*has legions of followers
*rises from the dead
*returns to heaven
*when dies-the graves rent-saints appear-preach (what became of them after?)


Why is there no supporting evidence? Would not the faithful have kept the cups, forks, plates he ate of? Would they not have kept his clothes? What of the nails to crucify him? Cups from the Last Supper?

Why don't we have them? Would not his followers keep these things (they actually have been in the presence of God and witnessed verifiable miracles) to cherish, prize and hold?

We have none..further evidence to me..that this thing never really happened at least the way the Gospels tell it.

[Trailscout]

Sandy,
Isaiah 7:14 is not a reference to Isaiah's wife. She was not unmarried, not a virgin and she had already had children. She was not "almah". It would not be remarkable for a married woman to have a second child, the norm can't be a sign from God, only the abberant event can.

Isaiah 7:14 provides information about Messiah's virgin birth. Other verses describe him in such detail that Jesus of Nazareth is the only one who could fulfill the prophecies.

Jesus was a houseguest wherever he ministered. He had no cutlery to bequeath to the disciples. His clothing was stolen by Roman soldiers and they gambled for it. Jesus' legacy was spiritual and his followers themselves are evidence of his ministry and Lordship. The Biblical references to cities, events, political heads of state, food, climate all provide factual evidence of Jesus world. Even the unbeliever Flavius Josephus wrote about him as an historical person.

The book of Psalms and Isaiah identify Messiah as God the Son come to Earth.

I have already explained the two phases of Messianic verses. The first set of verses cover his birth and ministry 2000 years ago, the verses that describe him as a conquering king are to be fulfilled at the end of the time of Gentiles.

You don't think miracles can happen, nor do you believe that demons exist, so you ignore evidence of them, and reject any book that describes them. I can see how such a self-limiting worldview would prevent you from learning new ideas.

Your attitude about nudity shows similar patterns of bias-limited thinking and demonstrate your refusal to consider concepts that are outside your current paradigm. Regardless of your age, I laugh at anyone who says, "I've seen it all, I've heard it all".

Trailscout says:

Isaiah 7:14 provides information about Messiah's virgin birth. Other verses describe him in such detail that Jesus of Nazareth is the only one who could fulfill the prophecies."

Trailscout,

The text reads as follows:

Is 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give YOU (meaning Ahaz) a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel.

Is 7:15: He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right

Is 7:16: But BEFORE the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread (meaning Pekah and Rezin who had mounted a confederated army against Ahaz) will be laid to waste.

Is 7:17: The Lord will bring on YOU (meaning Ahaz) and on your people (Ahaz's people) and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the King of Assyria"

This totally invalidates your claim-it's someone of THAT time-it makes NO SENSE (infact Is 7:16 says that) to apply it to events supposed to have happened 700yrs after Ahaz was dead. My quotes are from the NIV version-but if you are at your library or bookstore-pick up the Jewish Torah (it gives the transalations) and confirms what I say.

I haven't spoke of Micah Chap 5 yet-there are problems within that transalation in Matthew as well-I suspect the person referred to though in Micah Chap 5 is one and the same with this person spoke of in Isaiah.

Trailscout says:

Your attitude about nudity shows similar patterns of bias-limited thinking and demonstrate your refusal to consider concepts that are outside your current paradigm. Regardless of your age, I laugh at anyone who says, "I've seen it all, I've heard it all".

I am disappointed in you...there's no bias in my thinking AT ALL-I am reading exactly what is being said-and standing back and making an examination. I guess bias means not agreeing with your interpretations. My views on religion are in NO WAY linked to my views on nudism-if you are uncomfortable talking about this-that's fine-no need to make personal attacks though.

And yes-I have seen it all-from a Christian perspective. I know ALL the arguments-and they won't stand up to any critical analysis.

[hm0504]

Also of interest are the non-Gospel references to Jesus birth in the Epistles...

Romans 1:1-3:
"I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

Galatians 4:4:
"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law."

Interestingly, St. Paul does not mention the immaculate conception.

A thorough discussion of the immaculate conception can be found at:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm

Hm0504,

The NT is a totally seperate belief system from the Torah-but it does use excerpted text from the Jewish books to support its themes.

From what I understand, the NT never came into being till around 300 AD when it was decided by vote (yes vote!) which books would make up the NT-and which wouldn't.

According to what I have read, a consensus of scholars date Mark 70AD, Luke 70-90AD, Matthew 90-100AD, and John 90-100AD. The book of Isaiah, while it has the title of one prophet, it really the work of multiple authorship.

Jesus, assuming he existed, was born approx 4BC (yes I said 4 BC!) because I understand Herod died that year.

BTW..that site..it's not the same nonsense site Mark posted which claimed homosexaulity was scripturally fine-and gave two sides to this question. If so, then I wouldn't put any stock in it-sorry.

[Trailscout]

Sandy,

I have clouded the water and will attempt to clarify my position:

Immanuel was conceived soon after the prophet foretold his birth and name (approx. 700 B.C.). I will allow for the fact that Betulah is the most definitive Hebrew word for virgin and Almah refers to a young woman, often a virgin but not always.

Matthew did not modify the verse by adding the word "Parthenos". It was already translated that way in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 BC. Parthenos means virgin in Greek. So we can't proof text the meaning by the choice of word alone. We need context.

The real question is: what is the sign from God? The destruction of Israel and Syria is not the sign, it is the promise that the king refused to believe so God would provide a miraculous sign.

The sign is either the ordinary birth of a child or a virgin birth of a child. I contend that there is no wiggle room in the text for anything else.

So, whether they realized it or not, the translators of the Septuagint provided Matthew with the example of the virgin birth of a child named Emmanuel.

Emmanuel is a prototype of Jesus just as Melchizedek was and just as Adam was of Moses and Abraham was a type of Adam, etc.

Naturally the types do not match on all details of life history with their antecedents, but basic events in their lives may parallel the antecedent.

I know some people are tempted to equate Emmanuel with Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, but he is merely another child of Isaiah who serves as a living prophetic harbinger of the coming destruction. Likewise his older brother, Shear-Jashub's very name is a promise from God for redemption after the destruction.

Emmanuel was a child with an unnamed virgin mother. He was not the Messiah, just a prototype.

Trailscout says, "I have clouded the water..."

That's ok.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Trailscout says:

We need context.

The real question is: what is the sign from God? The destruction of Israel and Syria is not the sign, it is the promise that the king refused to believe so God would provide a miraculous sign.

The sign is either the ordinary birth of a child or a virgin birth of a child. I contend that there is no wiggle room in the text for anything else.

So, whether they realized it or not, the translators of the Septuagint provided Matthew with the example of the virgin birth of a child named Emmanuel."

I found this:

In an attempt to prove the concept of the "virgin birth," the book of Matthew 1:22-23 states: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which translated means, G-d with us." Missionaries claim that this is the fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Isaiah 7:14, that actually reads: "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."

There are numerous inaccuracies in the Christian translation. For example:

1) The Hebrew word, "almah -," means a young woman, not a virgin, a fact recognized by biblical scholars1;

2) The verse says "ha'almah--," "the young woman," not a young woman, specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his lifetime; and

3) The verse says "she will call his name Emmanuel," not "they shall call."

Even apart from these inaccuracies, if we read all of Isaiah Chapter 7, from which this verse is taken, it is obvious that Christians have taken this verse out of context.

This chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth. Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims). Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the birth of a son to Isaiah. As it says in Isaiah 8:4, "For before the child shall know to cry, "My father and my mother' the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." This verse entirely rules out any connection to Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years.

Pulled that off a Jewish site-but if you pick up a copy of the Torah at Barnes and Noble (I read the transalation at a local Chapters Bookstore) it will say the same thing. I knew this btw LONG before I ever read it-or talked to a Jewish Rabbi.

To add to the points mentioned, here's the actual Hebrew text again:

"Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."

It says "IS WITH CHILD" which means currently pregnant.

It says "THE YOUNG WOMAN" which means the woman currently pregnant and about to give/giving birth. That is 600 (I said 700yrs) before Jesus is alledged to have been born.

It says, "SHE WILL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL" which means the woman currently spoke of. The text is simply not about anyone to be born 600-700yrs in the future IMHO.

Trailscout says:

"I will allow for the fact that Betulah is the most definitive Hebrew word for virgin and Almah refers to a young woman, often a virgin but not always."

True... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Trailscout says:

Emmanuel was a child with an unnamed virgin mother. He was not the Messiah, just a prototype."

Trailscout, my research indicates that everything points towards a climax in the Torah-but that climax is left unfullfilled. Where we part company is in relation towards the NT-which I feel, and can show, is being used as a basis to draw from the Torah with detached quotes. I am more than happy to discuss this with you-but my concern is how you will react. I am not saying that in jest-for I have had serious discussions with Priests and Ministers on this subject and I have actually had to "detune" the discussion because of how they felt.

[Trailscout]

Sandy,

Are you familiar with Biblical types?
Noah warned the people of old Earth that a flood would destroy the world as they knew it and that getting inside the ark was the only way of salvation. Noah's prophecy was about the flood and the ark, but it teaches a lesson about sin and turning to God.

There was a child named Emmanuel in 700 BC, but his name means God is with us (even when things look bleak). Isaiah did not know that there was any deeper meaning to his prophecy, but Matthew was saying that Emmanuel is a foretype of Christ. So was Melchizedek, so was Joseph son of Jacob (Israel). None of the types are perfect representations of what it to come, but we can learn a lesson about Messiah, based on proto-Messianic figures in the Bible.

By the way, rather than Torah, which is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; I believe the word for Old Testament you are searching for is: Tanakh.
Here's a link that explains it well:
The Tanakh (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Bible/jpstoc.html)

Your citation speaks of a Christian translation of Isaiah chapter 7, when it is actually the Jewish translation of the Tanakh for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews some 200 years before Jesus was born.

I believe that dispite the slightly ambiguous choice of almah, in this context, Isaiah meant a virgin, (else there was not much of a sign for the skeptical king Ahaz) but whether or not Emmanuel was born of a virgin or simply a young woman, Emmanuel is a character whose life is instructive for learning about the coming Messiah. Thence it "fulfills" the prophecy in the same way that Messiah fulfills the story of Noah's ark.

I acknowledge that some of these Messianic verses are subtle and might be overlooked by all but the most diligent rabbis, but Isaiah chapter 9 practically shouts the coming of Messiah.

Many Jews, particularly the Hassidim look for a Messiah. The Tanakh offers too much evidence not to inspire that belief. It seems that you don't have a good handle on who Messiah is, or what his role is, but you may be anticipating his coming.

Trailscout says:

but Isaiah chapter 9 practically shouts the coming of Messiah."

Chap 9 is a continuation of Chap 8 which is a continuation of Chap 7. It speaks on Isaiah's son who is born
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Trailscout says:

Many Jews, particularly the Hassidim look for a Messiah. The Tanakh offers too much evidence not to inspire that belief. It seems that you don't have a good handle on who Messiah is, or what his role is, but you may be anticipating his coming."

Actually no...I am not a believer in the OT or NT but I do feel they provide an insight into ancient times-and their thoughts.

Trailscout says:

Noah warned the people of old Earth that a flood would destroy the world as they knew it and that getting inside the ark was the only way of salvation. Noah's prophecy was about the flood and the ark"

Trailscout, I regard the Flood story as a fable-it's not possible for it to be an historical fact.

[Trailscout]

Isaiah 9:6-7
For to us a child is born.
to us a son is given.
and the government will be upon his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end...

The above doesn't sound like Isaiah's son.
Sounds to me like the Son of God.

And by the way, someone who could cause a flood to cover the entire earth if he so chose (and he did).

Trailscout,

I know the passage well...

To get the answer, it's important to study the text in context. As I said, Is Chap 9 is a continuation of Chap 8...I go to show that:

Is 8:22: "Then they will look toward earth and see only distress and darkness and fearful gloom, and they will be thrust into utter darkness

Is 9:1: Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulum and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Gailee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea-along Jordan

NOTICE HOW EVERYTHING IS IN THE PRETER TENSE

Is 9:6-7:

For to US a child is born.
to US a son is given.
and the government will be upon his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end...

Notice how the writer uses the word US-that means THEM of that time. It concerns the time spoken of...those are the hopes the writer bestows on the child who already had been born..

You did not quote Is 9:11 which proves the context beyond all doubt:

"But the Lord has strengthened Rezin's foe's against them..."

Rezin was the King of Syria at this time...it makes no sense to switch gears as you suggest, and the writer doesn't.

I find it odd that you can never permit, or allow, the Jews, who's times were big with danger, and are facing a confederated army-how you can never allow them to be writing of their own affairs-hopes-dreams-but instead-with danger facing them employ their thoughts to so-called events 700yrs after they are dead.

Trailscout says:

And by the way, someone who could cause a flood to cover the entire earth if he so chose (and he did)."

I can tell you from University Level Biology Courses there would not be suffecient genes within the pool to guarantee the continuation of any species-especially with all the inbreeding.

Here's a link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Which asks enough questions to put this Flood story to rest.

[Trailscout]

Sandy,
It is quite common for prophets to speak of future events as if they had already happened.

Isaiah's second son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not the child of the virgin mentioned in chapter 7, nor is he heir to any throne and he is not GOD as mentioned in Chapter 9!


"But the Lord has strengthened Rezin's foe's against them..." is a passage following the conclusion of the Messianic prophetic poem which ends with verse 7.

Prophets often refer to different events and times in close proximity. For example, study the passages about the King of Tyre that morphs into a passage about Satan.

Inbreeding is routinely done by dog breeders. If genetic defects are culled by man or natural selection, a population can survive a "bottleneck of low population, provided that the species then rapidly expands in numbers. If the original parents are relatively free of genetic defects, this is not a problem at all.

II Peter 3:3-6 First of all you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Trailscout,

They are one and the same!

The whole context of Is Chap 9 is a continuation of Chap 8..and I showed that by quoting exactly the last verse of Chap 8 and the first verse of Chap 9...

Chap 9 is not concerned with any other subject-and the mention of Rezin establishes the timeline. There is no doubt..

Those explanatives (sp?) of "wonderful counselor, mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" are hopes of the Jewish people upon the child who was then born-no concern of anything else.

If you follow Chap 10 of the book of Isaiah-it is clear (Is 10:5 for example) of the same time line.

As I said, nothing can be more absurd to suppose that the Jews, who's times where great with danger, can think of nothing but employ themselves towards events 600-700yrs after they were dead-and nothing can be more natural than to realize those texts pertain to those times-and nothing else.

Taken enough biology courses to know-inbreeding creates weakness-and if anything changes in the enviroment-there isn't enough variation within the gene pool for survival.

Trailscout,

From a Jewish site:

Isaiah is known for the method by which he presents many of his messages through the use of prophetic names (Isaiah 7:3, 14; 8:3). In the verse under study, the prophet expounds his message by formulating a prophetic name for Hezekiah. The words of this name form a sentence expressive of God's greatness, which will become manifest in the benefits to be bestowed upon the future king in his lifetime. Thus, the name, though borne by the king, serves, in reality, as a testimonial to God.

Hezekiah is called "a wonderful counselor" because this name is a sign, which foretells God's design for him.


The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying: "As I have thought, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break Asshur in My land, and upon My mountains trample him under foot; then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulder." This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? (Isaiah 14:24-27)

Be not afraid of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Behold, I will put a spirit in him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. (Isaiah 37:6-7)
Hezekiah is called "the mighty God" because this name is a sign that foretells God's defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib's army.


Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast a mound against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and he shall not come to this city, says the Lord. For I will defend this city to save it, for My own sake, and for My servant David's sake. (Isaiah 37:33-35)
Hezekiah is called "the everlasting Father" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God will add years to his life. "Go, and say to Hezekiah: Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add to your days fifteen years" (Isaiah 38:5).

Hezekiah is called "the ruler of peace" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God would be merciful to him. Punishment for lack of faith in the Almighty will be deferred and peace granted during the last years of his rule. "Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah: 'Good is the word of the Lord which you have spoken.' He said moreover: 'If but there shall be peace and security in my days'" (Isaiah 39:8).

The fulfillment of the above-stated declarations is foretold in Isaiah 9:6, when, after the Assyrian defeat, Hezekiah's glory increased and peace reigned for the rest of his life (2 Chronicles 32:23). Archaeologists have found that there was a sudden expansion of Judean settlements in the years following the fall of the northern kingdom. This indicates that many refugees fled south, thus giving added significance to the statement "that the government may be increased."

Hezekiah's kingdom is declared to be forever, for through his efforts to cleanse the Temple ritual of idolatry, even though apostasy followed under his son Menasseh, the Davidic dynasty was once more confirmed as the only true kingly rule that God would accept over his people "from henceforth and forever." The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel's future. Hezekiah was a true reformer. He cleansed religious worship of foreign influence, purged the palace and the Temple of images and pagan altars, and reestablished pure monotheistic religion.

In the long run Hezekiah's achievements would outlive him, leaving an everlasting, indelible impact on the history of his people. Thus, God, through Isaiah, bestows upon Hezekiah this name which honors the king by proclaiming the great things God will do for him, and, through him, for the people of Israel.

That's a more indepth response than I said, but I am right just the same..
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

Sandy, you can't have it both ways. Is it either Maher-shalal-hash-baz or Hezekiah?

Actually Messiah is neither of those men. All of Israel was expecting him when Jesus walked the Earth.

Some Jews today will stop at no length to deny the Messianic teachings of the Tanakh, with the exception of the Hassidim, who are strong believers in Messiah, they have just been taught to reject Jesus and look for another. For a long time the Lubavitchers among them thought Messiah was Menachem Schneerson. But Scheerson died and now they seek another.

In Chapter 9, the tribal lands of Zebulon, Naphtali and Galilee were not part of Hezekiah's kingdom of Judah. These verses point to Jesus the Messiah.

Trailscout,

It's clear the passage in question is nothing you speak of-I don't see any connection AT ALL.

It's odd, as a Gentile, that you would disagree with the Jews regarding their books-written in their language.

The Jews are still expecting a Messiah-but that is a Military ruler-not a Saviour. That idea is not part of the Torah.

Jesus is alledged to have said in Luke 24:46:

"Thus it is written, that the Christ will suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day"

and..

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and he hath ben raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (1Cor 15:4-5)

Here's two quotes from Two NT writers claiming the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day-but I challenge you to cite a single passage of the OT (or Torah) that speaks of such a thing-or the resurrection of the Messiah, PERIOD. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

Sandy, Jews don't speak with one voice. And at any given time all Jews were not fully congnizent of the entire set of Messianic scripture in the Tanakh, so human nature being what it is, some of them preferred to focus on the verses concerning the more glorious aspects of his second appearing, rather than his humble first appearance. The Hassidim for instance, are not looking for a military Messiah as much as a spiritual guide. They are wrong about this, but not by much. I love the Hassidim dearly and consider them my kinsmen at heart.

You assume that I am a gentile. That is not the case. I am not an Orthodox, Reform or Conservative Jew, but I was taught the faith by my grandmother who was from an Ashkenazi family and have not rejected her teachings. She came to believe in Messiah as a middle-aged woman and that did not conflict with her Jewish beliefs, it complemented them.

The INA forum administrators have been very indulgent with me as I have pursued this very long digression from a thread that attempts to examine the compatibility of nudism with traditional belief in God, and as many come from the Christian faith in the USA, the compatibility between nudism and the American churches. I think I have said enough in view of the situation.

I have enjoyed our dialog and I hope you will continue to pursue these questions on your own.

[Bob S.]

"I actually probably agree with Bob on this.."

Thankfully, not on everything Sandy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Just on the fact that Jesus was not G*d on Earth.

"Here's a thought..if Jesus was a historical figure..why..do we have this man who:"

*performs miracles and heals the sick

We are a people who like to see religious or spiritual things in anything. Nowadays, people see the Virgin Mary in eveyday things and are moved by it. Miracles, to some, are good things that happen for no reason. Sometimes, a disease will spontaneously go away with no medical reason.

Rumors start quickly.

*drives demons out of people (btw..I have never seen DEMONS on the floor EVER-and no one I know ever has)

The idea of modern medicine is very new. Before Freud, people with psychological problems were basically exorcized. The belief in demons has been around from the beginning of civilation on through the early 1900s

*upsets the Roman government

many people upset the Roman govt.

[I[*rises from the dead
*returns to heaven[/I]

Again, rumors start quickly. Especially those who are seen as spiritual leaders. The modern days, we have pop culture people as rising from the dead (or now, not really being dead). How many times has Elvis been seen? Some people believe that Tupak Shakur (LA based rapper) faked his own death.

And keep in mind that resurrection is a popular theme in religion. Death is seen as the ultimate boundary, so anyone who crosses back to come back to this world is seen as a powerful person.

Was Jesus a real person? Yes, I believe he was. Just not he son of G*d.

Bob S.