MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Women don't have to keep covered----as long as by that we mean that women can show some ankle or shoulder here or there. But we all know that Paul couldn't possibly have meant that it would be 'ok' for Christian women to walk around in the buff in public, or expose themselves on various social media.
How exactly do "we all know" that?

I don't think Paul was talking about body exposure at all.
True. But we all should know that to better understand the contents of the Bible, we have to do more than just read the Bible. The field of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis isn't brain science, but by golly, there's always a weirdo or two who shows up now and then on CF claiming that cultic groups like "Christian Nudists" are somehow legitimate expressions of Christian faith. We all know they're not. Or at least if we more fully understood all of what Paul what pushing back against in the culture of Ephesus at the time, we'd know there's zero room for Christian nudity in public.
"We all know they're not?" What makes you say that?

I've never once seen a doctrinal statement that ever included any doctrines that address nudity. Are you suggesting that a belief/practice that isn't even mentioned in our theological textbooks rises to the level of a litmus test for biblical Orthodoxy?

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the clearest passage in all the Scriptures which forbids nonsexual social nudity?

I've asked people that question before, but it sure seems like there's no consensus on it, and most people can't even point to a single verse in all the Bible to support their belief in a biblical taboo against nudity. What say you?
Please. Tell us more.
Ok... Post 5 coming up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

POST #5​


Here's the text in KJV, this time including verse 8:
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Here's the text in NASB:
Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

This post isn't about the Greek, so there's no need to write out the Greek text this time.

I want to draw your attention to the word(s) that connect Paul's instructions to men to those he gives to women. In the two passages above, I've highlighted them in red.

The word "likewise" tells us that in Paul's mind, there is a strong similarity of some sort between the two sets of instructions.

This means that if we are going to have confidence in our understanding of what Paul means to tell us, we should be able to discern the nature of that similarity. If we cannot, then perhaps we should question our conclusions.

So let's look at how we often understand these two sets of instructions.
  • Men... pray and lift your hands; stop bickering & fighting.
  • Women... Wear clothing that adequately covers your body
I don't think there's any concern that we misunderstand what Paul is saying to men. But when it comes to women, this verse is very frequently trotted out to "prove" that women should "keep covered."

For the sake of discussion, let's consider that understanding of the verse for women... Does it them fit the "likewise"? Is there a clear connection or similarity between the instructions for men and women? If not, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether we correctly understand Paul's instructions? Either one or the other would have to be suspect.

Many don't buy into the "cover your body" notion for women, so let's adjust the summary for women...

  • Men... pray and lift your hands; stop bickering & fighting.
  • Women... Wear sensible and modest clothing.
Does this rendering make the "likewise" connection more evident? If so, what is the connection? If not, again, are we sure that we understand the passage correctly?

A more specific question...

How does a command to wear clothes have anything to do with praying, lifting holy hands, or avoiding interpersonal strife?

Is it possible that καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ (katastole kosmio) doesn't really refer to putting on clothes at all, but rather how the woman comports herself? Is it possible that by making it about clothing, we've completely missed what Paul is really trying to say to us?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Of course, it's all ...about the Sun!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,266
10,000
The Void!
✟1,138,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How exactly do "we all know" that?

I don't think Paul was talking about body exposure at all.

"We all know they're not?" What makes you say that?

I've never once seen a doctrinal statement that ever included any doctrines that address nudity. Are you suggesting that a belief/practice that isn't even mentioned in our theological textbooks rises to the level of a litmus test for biblical Orthodoxy?

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the clearest passage in all the Scriptures which forbids nonsexual social nudity?

I've asked people that question before, but it sure seems like there's no consensus on it, and most people can't even point to a single verse in all the Bible to support their belief in a biblical taboo against nudity. What say you?

Ok... Post 5 coming up.

... simple. Anyone here on this ENTIRE forum can see that you have not yet begun to engage or "do" either Biblical Exegesis or Hermeneutical analysis of the very passage you're so inclined to "study."

Until you begin to do so, no one here has to take you seriously. Why? Because you're essentially saying nothing of any historical or literary substance so far.

Start doing so. Do so like one would if sitting in a class at the local university rather than as if you're twirling in a chair while you sit at home, spinning around, readidng the Bible all on you're one mental steam and staring out the window, feeling like you have the ultimate insight into the nature of the meaning of some selected bit of Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Derf
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
362
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
... simple. Anyone here on this ENTIRE forum can see that you have not yet begun to engage or "do" either Biblical Exegesis or Hermeneutical analysis of the very passage you're so inclined to "study."

Until you begin to do so, no one here has to take you seriously. Why? Because you're essentially saying nothing of any historical or literary
Or biblical
substance so far.

Start doing so. Do so like one would if sitting in a class at the local university
Or a reasonable bible study.
rather than as if you're twirling in a chair while you sit at home, spinning around, readidng the Bible all on you're one mental steam and staring out the window, feeling like you have the ultimate insight into the nature of the meaning of some selected bit of Bible.
 
Upvote 0

enoob57

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2022
519
129
66
Grove, Ok.
✟46,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
Out of curiosity, what do you consider the clearest passage in all the Scriptures which forbids nonsexual social nudity?
You mean other than the fact of God, Himself, slaying the animal to cover their nakedness?
Genesis 3:21 (KJV)
[21] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Of course, it's all ...about the Sun!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,266
10,000
The Void!
✟1,138,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Or biblical
For me, "biblical" includes the historical and the literary and the critical analysis. They're not separate things, which is a part of what I'm attempting to convey to MyChainsAreGone. He's not seemingly understanding the need for this network of analysis.
Or a reasonable bible study.
A reasonable bible study includes the application of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. A reasonable bible study doesn't happen by merely reading and thinking about the text, especially when the Bible is read in isolation of everything else that's reasonable in the world.

But for the points being discussed in THIS thread, I essentially agree with you, just for additional integral reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Derf
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Of course, it's all ...about the Sun!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,266
10,000
The Void!
✟1,138,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Is it possible that καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ (katastole kosmio) doesn't really refer to putting on clothes at all, but rather how the woman comports herself? Is it possible that by making it about clothing, we've completely missed what Paul is really trying to say to us?

Yes, it is possible that YOU are missisng what Paul was specifically saying to Timothy, being that there remains various levels of context that you haven't even begun to address and are omitting from your interpretive claims.

When are you going to begin citing your sources that justify your attempted exegesis? Surely, you're not just flapping open the Bible like any ol' Tom, Rick or Sally does and, even with a tinsy bit of Greek text behind it, making assertions to the rest of us at to what the passage under discussion means or infers, or doesn't mean or infer, right?
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it is possible that YOU are missisng what Paul was specifically saying to Timothy, being that there remains various levels of context that you haven't even begun to address and are omitting from your interpretive claims.

When are you going to begin citing your sources that justify your attempted exegesis? Surely, you're not just flapping open the Bible like any ol' Tom, Rick or Sally does and, even with a tinsy bit of Greek text behind it, making assertions to the rest of us at to what the passage under discussion means or infers, or doesn't mean or infer, right?
Wow, it is utterly amazing to me that you guys think you have me so figured out. You don't think I've done hermeneutical analysis? You could not be more wrong.

Allow me to send you some links to some of my extensive word studies. Including the one on 1 Timothy 2:9.
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
362
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For me, "biblical" includes the historical and the literary and the critical analysis. They're not separate things, which is a part of what I'm attempting to convey to MyChainsAreGone. He's not seemingly understanding the need for this network of analysis.

A reasonable bible study includes the application of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. A reasonable bible study doesn't happen by merely reading and thinking about the text, especially when the Bible is read in isolation of everything else that's reasonable in the world.
My point was that many of our universities were at one time bible colleges and seminaries, which grew out of desire to teach people how best to read and study the word of God, because doing so has the superb benefit of better understanding what our creator wanted to relate to us through it, which they understood because they first were told what the bible said (or the apostles said before the NT was written), seeing that many in the early church were slaves and of low rank, and not able to even read, including some of those apostles, who were perceived as "uneducated" by those who had been to the universities of the day. And many of the heresies the church has had to deal with came from university-educated scholars. But I think I understand what you're getting at.
But for the points being discussed in THIS thread, I essentially agree with you, just for additional integral reasons.
:oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
362
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wow, it is utterly amazing to me that you guys think you have me so figured out. You don't think I've done hermeneutical analysis? You could not be more wrong.

Allow me to send you some links to some of my extensive word studies. Including the one on 1 Timothy 2:9.
Please don't.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
... simple. Anyone here on this ENTIRE forum can see that you have not yet begun to engage or "do" either Biblical Exegesis or Hermeneutical analysis of the very passage you're so inclined to "study."

Until you begin to do so, no one here has to take you seriously. Why? Because you're essentially saying nothing of any historical or literary substance so far.

Start doing so. Do so like one would if sitting in a class at the local university rather than as if you're twirling in a chair while you sit at home, spinning around, readidng the Bible all on you're one mental steam and staring out the window, feeling like you have the ultimate insight into the nature of the meaning of some selected bit of Bible.
Already done.

Go ahead... show me ANY error in my treatment of the passage... historically, grammatically, exegetically, hermeneutically, logically.

I do not believe you can show me any errors, because I was very careful and thorough and there aren't any there. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,463
362
61
Colorado Springs
✟99,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Do you not have the ability to interact with an honest treatment of the passage?
Why would I expect that treatment to be any better than what I've seen so far? Your arguments appear to be intended toward a certain preconceived goal, rather than toward finding truth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why would I expect that treatment to be any better than what I've seen so far? Your arguments appear to be intended toward a certain preconceived goal, rather than toward finding truth.
Go ahead. Try me. I dare you.

Find any logical, hermeneutical, exegetical, or historical flaw in my treatment of the text.
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I've never once seen a doctrinal statement that ever included any doctrines that address nudity. Are you suggesting that a belief/practice that isn't even mentioned in our theological textbooks rises to the level of a litmus test for biblical Orthodoxy?

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the clearest passage in all the Scriptures which forbids nonsexual social nudity?

I've asked people that question before, but it sure seems like there's no consensus on it, and most people can't even point to a single verse in all the Bible to support their belief in a biblical taboo against nudity. What say you?
Hey @2PhiloVoid ,

I really want to see your answer to these questions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,986.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You mean other than the fact of God, Himself, slaying the animal to cover their nakedness?
Genesis 3:21 (KJV)
[21] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
End point of fact, you are inventing two things that you are adding to the text here.

It never says that God killed an animal. Did he? Maybe. But it doesn't say that he did.

Did he tell us for what reason he gave them the skins? No, it actually doesn't. Was it to "cover nakedness"? Or could it have been to protect from thorns and keep them warm?

Again, the text does not say. But you're basing a doctoral statement of moral conduct on a guess?

I'm sorry, but that does not meet the criteria of the challenge.

I mean, think about it, if God making clothes for Adam and Eve is to be interpreted as a command to never be naked around other people, then that rule must absolutely apply to husbands and wives. There was nobody else around at the time.

You're welcome to try again.
 
Upvote 0