Naturism (nudism)

Josephus · Jul 29, 2014

now faith said:
None.
It is your flesh in the heart that condemns you.
It is about lust,nude or clothed.
A nude person should not have any effect on your acting to lust.

King Solomon once thought the same way. It is forbidden for a king to take many wives, lest his heart be led astray. The wisest man who ever lived reasoned that the number is not enumerated because the reason for the prohibition is that a king's heart should not be led astray. He thus concluded he could have as many wives he wanted as long as his heart was not being led astray. We all know what happened. He was led astray to worship false gods by his many wives.

Jer 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all else, who can know it?"

1 Cor 10:12 "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."

If King Solomon in all his wisdom fell for the deception of his heart, even reasoning that scripture permitted him wives until his heart was led astray, what makes anyone here think they can stand where Solomon could not, and pretend one is permitted to look at nude women until the point lust is conceived in the heart? One will be duped by the heart until it's too late.

If Shem and Japeth would not even look at their own father as they walked backwards into his tent to cover his nakedness, what make anyone think it's permitted for a man to look at a nude woman? (Not including his wife since they are one flesh.)

Johnnz · Jul 29, 2014

Josephus said:
If King Solomon in all his wisdom fell for the deception of his heart, even reasoning that scripture permitted him wives until his heart was led astray, what makes anyone here think they can stand where Solomon could not, and pretend one is permitted to look at nude women until the point lust is conceived in the heart? One will be duped by the heart until it's too late.

If its a heart issue then clothed bodies also produce lots of lust.

If Shem and Japeth would not even look at their own father as they walked backwards into his tent to cover his nakedness, what make anyone think it's permitted for a man to look at a nude woman? (Not including his wife since they are one flesh.)

Nakedness can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse in the OT. There was likely to have been more than Noah just lying naked in his tent in that story.

John
NZ

Josephus · Jul 30, 2014

Johnnz said:
Nakedness can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse in the OT. There was likely to have been more than Noah just lying naked in his tent in that story.

John
NZ

Nakedness is not a euphemism for intercourse.

Johnnz · Jul 30, 2014

Josephus said:
Nakedness is not a euphemism for intercourse.

Yes it was on OT times. Look how many times naked or nakedness in the KJV is replaced in later later versions. This is widely accepted by OT scholars today.

Naked KJV 32 NIV 25

Nakedness KJV 54 NIV 15

John
NZ

Josephus · Jul 30, 2014

Johnnz said:
Yes it was on OT times. Look how many times naked or nakedness in the KJV is replaced in later later versions. This is widely accepted by OT scholars today.

Naked KJV 32 NIV 25

Nakedness KJV 54 NIV 15

John
NZ

I'm a Hebrew scholar. I'm referring to the Hebrew. Nakedness is not a euphemism for intercourse in the Hebrew. arom is not the same as yada. Anyone can claim "lots of scholars" to suit any fancy, but no one can argue with the Hebrew. Besides the Hebrew obviousness, there's the illogic of your argument: there's no point in walking backwards into someone's tent to cover up someone having sex.

mandyangel · Jul 30, 2014

now faith said:
None.
It is your flesh in the heart that condemns you.
It is about lust,nude or clothed.
A nude person should not have any effect on your acting to lust.

In another thread on legalism; I posted this comment:

{ if you think a woman's dress is to short quit trying to look up her dress}

There are nude pictures in inappropriate contentography.
Clothing optional would stop people from looking at them.

There are other acts portrayed in inappropriate contentography that simple nudity would not quench.

When we do not consider others in our actions,we are responsible for their reactions.

Romans: 14. 1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 16. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 22. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. - Bible Offline

I completely agree, that is so true!

Josephus · Jul 30, 2014

Johnnz said:
If its a heart issue then clothed bodies also produce lots of lust.

Precisely, which is why modesty in clothing is also commanded by Rebecca's example. Since it is a heart issue that can not be measured at any point, that is why it is not even permitted for a man to gaze at a woman, period. It's not "how many wives" but "many wives." It's not "ok to look until lust is conceived" it's "not ok to look, since you don't know when." It's not a boogyman. It's a reality, because no one, according to the bible, knows their own heart. Jeremiah is clear on this: "the heart is deceitful above all else, who can know it?" No one is above the bible.

The command is clear:

Deut 23:9
guard yourself from every evil thing.

Jesus even states "if your eye causes you to sin" indicating that sin can originate from what one sees. What is it that one can see? "And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked."

Johnnz · Jul 30, 2014

Josephus said:
I'm a Hebrew scholar. I'm referring to the Hebrew. Nakedness is not a euphemism for intercourse in the Hebrew. arom is not the same as yada. Anyone can claim "lots of scholars" to suit any fancy, but no one can argue with the Hebrew. Besides the Hebrew obviousness, there's the illogic of your argument: there's no point in walking backwards into someone's tent to cover up someone having sex.

That is not accurate. The Dictionary Of Biblical Imagery, an evangelical publication has this.

"The most positive image of nakedness in the Bible is also the first, where we read regarding Adam and Eve in the Garden that "the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame" (Gen 2:25 NIV). This is a strongly positive image, connoting such prelapsarian qualities as innocence, freedom, openness, paradisal simplicity and sexual intimacy in marriage. This striking verse at once signals implied contrasts between the original state of the human race and its later state, between paradisal simplicity and civilized complexity, between transparency and concealment, between a childlike lack of self-consciousness and adult shame over one's private body parts.

The biblical images evoked by the word naked are many and varied. They include, among other things, original *innocence, defencelessness and vulnerability; exposure and helplessness; humiliation and shame; guilt and judgement; and *sexual impropriety and exploitation. Each of these various nuances needs to be carefully identified in each scriptural context, although there may, of course, be some degree of overlap."

There is a difference between a lexical meaning and how a word might be used. Try 'Super Bowl' as an example. American usage stretches any lexical meaning.

In Leviticus 18 the KJV nakedness (Heb ervah) is translated 'sexual relations' in the NIV. Also this extract:

OT:6172 erwah A feminine noun expressing nakedness. This word can pertain to physical nakedness for either a man or a woman (Gen 9:22,23; Ex 20:26); however, it is more often used in a figurative sense. When used with the verbs galah (1540), meaning to uncover or remove, and ra'ah (7200), meaning to see, one finds a common euphemism for sexual relations—to uncover one's nakedness (Lev 18:6; 20:17). On the other hand, when combined with the verb kasah (3680), meaning to cover, one finds a common idiom for entering into a marriage contract (Ezek 16:8). Nakedness is also a symbol of the shame and disgrace of Egypt (Isa 20:4); Babylonia (Isa 47:3); and Jerusalem (Ezek 16:37). Furthermore, when in construct with dabar (1697), meaning a word, matter, or thing, this term forms an idiom for indecent or improper behavior (Deut 23:14[:15 ]; 24:1). When in construct with the word 'eres (776), it can refer to exposed or undefended areas (Gen 42:9,12). (from The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament Copyright © 2003 by AMG Publishers. All rights reserved.)

John
NZ

now faith · Jul 30, 2014

Johnnz said:
The hoary old 'scare em off' verses when you can't find anything specific elsewhere to condemn what you disagree with.

The full context gives a more accurate view.

Rom 14:1-8 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
Rom 14:13-23 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. NIV

Paul addressed specific, (not any) deeply held issues that affected Christians meeting together. Outside of that context people could follow their own conscience on a matter. Paul said clearly that no food is unclean. He refused to categorise food or sacred days negatively. But, when meeting the together his stated 'don't act so that another person with different convictions is present would be placed in a conflicted or disparaged role because of what you believe'.

Applied to nudity it would suggest "Don't arrive at church naked if that would upset someone else there, but you are free to be naked elsewhere where that would not be offensive to another person present". And of course, if no one in a Christian gathering would be offended, then fine, as in some cultures today, where clothing is not commonly worn and people worship naked.

John
NZ

Old verses?
Has nothing to do with arriving to Church nude.
I was addressing the aspect of nudity reversing the use of inappropriate contentography.

Your response is very egotistical.
Your concern is to trump the other guy.
You want to show your behind in a manner other than nudity.

In your strife to compete,rather than contributing you overlook the point of the thread.
Nevertheless I will try to help you with my post.

inappropriate contentography is driven by lust not nudity.

Your pseudo theological post are useless,and are a waste of time.

Josephus · Jul 30, 2014

Johnnz said:
That is not accurate. The Dictionary Of Biblical Imagery, an evangelical publication has this.

"The most positive image of nakedness in the Bible is also the first, where we read regarding Adam and Eve in the Garden that "the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame" (Gen 2:25 NIV). This is a strongly positive image, connoting such prelapsarian qualities as innocence, freedom, openness, paradisal simplicity and sexual intimacy in marriage. This striking verse at once signals implied contrasts between the original state of the human race and its later state, between paradisal simplicity and civilized complexity, between transparency and concealment, between a childlike lack of self-consciousness and adult shame over one's private body parts.

The biblical images evoked by the word naked are many and varied. They include, among other things, original *innocence, defencelessness and vulnerability; exposure and helplessness; humiliation and shame; guilt and judgement; and *sexual impropriety and exploitation. Each of these various nuances needs to be carefully identified in each scriptural context, although there may, of course, be some degree of overlap."

There is a difference between a lexical meaning and how a word might be used. Try 'Super Bowl' as an example. American usage stretches any lexical meaning.

In Leviticus 18 the KJV nakedness (Heb ervah) is translated 'sexual relations' in the NIV. Also this extract:

OT:6172 erwah A feminine noun expressing nakedness. This word can pertain to physical nakedness for either a man or a woman (Gen 9:22,23; Ex 20:26); however, it is more often used in a figurative sense. When used with the verbs galah (1540), meaning to uncover or remove, and ra'ah (7200), meaning to see, one finds a common euphemism for sexual relations--to uncover one's nakedness (Lev 18:6; 20:17). On the other hand, when combined with the verb kasah (3680), meaning to cover, one finds a common idiom for entering into a marriage contract (Ezek 16:8). Nakedness is also a symbol of the shame and disgrace of Egypt (Isa 20:4); Babylonia (Isa 47:3); and Jerusalem (Ezek 16:37). Furthermore, when in construct with dabar (1697), meaning a word, matter, or thing, this term forms an idiom for indecent or improper behavior (Deut 23:14[:15 ]; 24:1). When in construct with the word 'eres (776), it can refer to exposed or undefended areas (Gen 42:9,12). (from The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament Copyright © 2003 by AMG Publishers. All rights reserved.)

John
NZ

Biblical imagery aside, it does not change the plain meaning of a word.

Anyone can call a spade other than a spade and slap it into a publication, and have that used as their "source" but in Judaism, ervah means nakedness, and in Israel the term in Hebrew is not a euphemism for sex. My rabbi also concurs. Your scholarship is fanciful, even imaginative but it does not change the plain meaning of the word. The fact that you admit that you have to ignore the plain meaning of the word in the Hebrew scripture in order to hold to your doctrine, should indicate to you that something is seriously wrong with your doctrine.

You still did not address the illogic of two brothers entering backwards in a tent to cover up their naked father, who you say his nakedness means he is having sex with someone at that time.

Johnnz · Jul 30, 2014

now faith said:
Old verses?
Has nothing to do with arriving to Church nude.
I was addressing the aspect of nudity reversing the use of inappropriate contentography.

Your response is very egotistical.
Your concern is to trump the other guy.
You want to show your behind in a manner other than nudity.

In your strife to compete,rather than contributing you overlook the point of the thread.
Nevertheless I will try to help you with my post.

inappropriate contentography is driven by lust not nudity.

Your pseudo theological post are useless,and are a waste of time.

I disagree with your understanding of my post. It was the principle that matters, and I did not raise he stumbling bock issue first. Today in our society we don't have an issue with food offered to idols, but the underlying principle in there Romans can be applied to more current issues. I suggested nudity was one such matter. And if we differ on that then the principle applies. Each of us can graciously accept the position of the other.

John
NZ

now faith · Jul 31, 2014

Johnnz said:
I disagree with your understanding of my post. It was the principle that matters, and I did not raise he stumbling bock issue first. Today in our society we don't have an issue with food offered to idols, but the underlying principle in there Romans can be applied to more current issues. I suggested nudity was one such matter. And if we differ on that then the principle applies. Each of us can graciously accept the position of the other.

John
NZ

I agree with you on Romans 14.
I view it as a metaphorical passage with unlimited applications.
It comes down to the realization that some will self impose vows to God.
It is not a passage about sin but what a individual believes to be sin.
We are commanded not to impose our faith on them thus causing them to fall.
Whatever is not done in faith is sin.

I am not a Hebrew scholar,but based on the curse from Noah to the generations of Ham
Discernment is necessary.
When you look at the three sons and their offspring it is clear something went very wrong with Ham.

God Bless

ChildofGod1977 · Jul 31, 2014

Does a naked native person, lead to the Lord by a missionary, continue to sin immediately after they get saved, until they put clothes on? If not, can they continue to live their life naked?

Josephus · Jul 31, 2014

ChildofGod1977 said:
Does a naked native person, lead to the Lord by a missionary, continue to sin immediately after they get saved, until they put clothes on? If not, can they continue to live their life naked?

Just change the word naked for murdering and put clothes on for stop murdering and re-ask your question.

Does the definition of sin somehow change the moment you are saved?

ChildofGod1977 · Jul 31, 2014

Murder is listed as a sin, being naked is not.

ChildofGod1977 · Jul 31, 2014

Was king David sinning when he exposed himself while he danced in 2 Samuel 6? Michal, his wife, wasn't too pleased about it and God closed her womb because of it. Was Peter sinning in John 21:7 when he was fishing naked?

Josephus · Jul 31, 2014

ChildofGod1977 said:
Murder is listed as a sin, being naked is not.

Being willfully naked within view of another person other than your spouse or your child who is too young to speak, or at times where your life is threatened, is a sin of immodesty. Modesty is commanded. If G-d is concerned that mere rocks can see your nakedness, how much more so we should be concerned another person should not see ours (and by application, we should not see theirs).

Josephus · Jul 31, 2014

ChildofGod1977 said:
Was king David sinning when he exposed himself while he danced in 2 Samuel 6? Michal, his wife, wasn't too pleased about it and God closed her womb because of it. Was Peter sinning in John 21:7 when he was fishing naked?

Neither of them were naked.

ChildofGod1977 · Jul 31, 2014

Josephus said:
Neither of them were naked.

Your hind leg!

The Greek word gymnos, Josephus, is used to describe Peter. Gymnos is the Greek word for naked.

I never said David was naked. I asked if he was sinning when he exposed himself while dancing.

Darkhorse · Jul 31, 2014

Josephus said:
Being willfully naked within view of another person other than your spouse or your child who is too young to speak, or at times where your life is threatened, is a sin of immodesty. Modesty is commanded. If G-d is concerned that mere rocks can see your nakedness, how much more so we should be concerned another person should not see ours (and by application, we should not see theirs).

So every time a doctor sees the "private" areas of a patient they are both sinning? Wow - I've got a lot of new sins to confess (so does my Christian doctor).

Rocks can see? That's news to me (sounds like animism).

Naturism (nudism)

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

Senior Veteran

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

Senior Veteran

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

Regular Member

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

Senior Veteran

Veteran

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

Well-Known Member

just horsing around

Similar threads