Modesty among clothing and other areas

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Seriously, @createdtoworship, do you not see your own hypocrisy and duplicity?

You judge everything I say by the measure of "it is written," but your own statements completely do NOT reach that measure!


So... you admit that nudity IS "written"...

So even though "it is written," you don't accept it? Exactly how would you expect God to describe it if Isaiah actually WAS completely nude? "Naked" means naked. That's the correct Hebrew word for complete nudity. It's the very same Hebrew word used to describe Adam and Eve before the fall!

Here you are actively contradicting the "it is written"... revealing that you are more committed to your preconceptions about nudity than you are to God's word.

Not "written."

Not "written."

Not "written."

Not "written."

Changing the goalposts again?

I never claimed that the Bible told us to "strip naked and run around physically." I've claimed that the Bible never forbids it.

You challenged me to show you in the bible where public nudity was "good" and/or "acceptable." And by THAT measure, I've delivered. 3 places where nudity was implicit inferred or explicitly mentioned... accepted and described in a positive light.
sorry sir I can tell you are getting heated by this debate. I realize that you have much invested into this, and cannot come into this conversation with an open mind. you literally wrote dozens of articles proving nudity is acceptible in the Bible, and made a website. So I dont' think I or anyone else here can convince you other wise. you simply have too much invested to be wrong, so you will never be wrong. Does that make sense? Anyway I will be ignoring your posts briefly while this conversation concludes. Thank you for the debate. All I can say is pray and ask God what He desires you to believe. Not believe stuff on the basis of how many likes you get or hits on your webpage, but on Jesus alone. Take care. God bless.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I heard lee strobels, "case for christ" the movie was trending on netflix, so I started watching it. But I have ADD so after about a half hour I decided to watch a portion of a pg13 action movie. So I picked time trap. I looked it up on "parental review of time trap." Every thing was good, no sex, no nudity. No make out scenes just some immodest clothing. Which you can't really get away from in movies. so I decided to watch it. I realized when watching it, I could not even watch twenty minutes. Brianne Howey is so completely attractive for a thirty year old. She looks 19. But anyway. The point is my test failed. I was trying to see if I was mature enough to watch action movies again. I guess not. Not with her out there. Just so you know, she was totally modest the whole time. I was just attracted to her. In real life you can just run away, in a movie you are sort of stuck watching it. So I was tempted to lust after her. I just turned it off and started listening to worship music and reading twitter feeds. Soon I was back to normal. I honestly don't know how ya'll can watch that stuff. Seriously, you got some minds of steel. You have to realize I am lust free, inappropriate content free, self gratification free for at least six months now. (inappropriate content for five years). So I was caught off guard by some of the beauty in Hollywood. So this just goes to show that satan is warring against our souls. putting beauty before our faces every day, in nearly every way. We need to seek God first, way above our recreation. It just happened that the last six months since I gave up movies I started listening to more ebooks, reading three right now. I started really devoting time to researching investing and helping others with that. As well as have more time at home with kids and wife. We watch kids movies sometimes (usually disney). But if you were like me five years ago, struggling to be inappropriate content free, struggling to be free of self gratification, struggling to be free of lusting toward online images, but addicted chronically to all three. Then I have good news for you, there is hope. Step out of that life style, christ has something else for you. Before I wouldn't even realize when I was lusting it happened so much. But since I have been lust free, I noticed right away when it happened, my whole body was like.....wow! So reducing stimuli, really does help you mentally. It helps in marriage to be fulfilled with the marriage bed. when reducing online imagery, you find you find your spouse more attractive because you literally don't entertain watching other women for hours online. Now if you can watch movies and be fine. Thats wonderful, you are stronger than me. I am just saying that many times it's not just the inappropriate content that is the problem. That is a symptom of general lusting. If you tackle the lust, you tackle both of them. With me the inappropriate content issue was settled first, then self gratification, then lust. But tears are coming to my eyes, I can't explain how amazing being free from all that is. Guys God is real. God's resurrection power exists in our lives, to make us new creations.....all things have past, all things have become new. step out in freedom today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Lust can be triggered by sexual songs and TV shows. Struggling with lustful thoughts and actions? Turn that song about sex off. Put on some worship music or a sermon. The song or show isn’t innocent entertainment if it’s tempting you to sin sexually.
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
However from studying orthodox doctrine for over 20 years I attest to the saying "if it's true, it's not new. If it's new it's not true."
The church (used to mean denominations unless stated) in general are very slow to change. Remember they once upon a time believed that epileptic seizures were actually demon possessed people. They also believed being left handed was from the devil. Since one of the original languages is a dead language there are new discoveries being made as to what words mean. This would actually have affect on some christian beliefs that would not generally be in dispute. Yet the church isn't changing.

In fact there is one belief which if as a christian you do not agree with that is opposite to what was believed in biblical times (both old & new testaments) and in early church as well as being predominately jewish belief today. yet not one single christian can provide anything other than poetic passages to justify changing the belief.In fact it really only became a compulsory christian view in the 1970s. Yet still impossible to find the discovery that says we misunderstood all those years.

It is interesting that you say David is too invested in his views to be wrong. How invested are you in yours? After all you still haven't addressed the fact that the passage you quote as evidence that people need to dress a certain way because of your weakness actually uses as an example something that is not morally wrong. So you need to acknowledge the clothing you are complaining about is not morally wrong otherwise that passage is not valid.
You also have not addressed what women should wear when I find the opposite more appealing. I posted a picture as well of what I was talking about. Not figure hugging but loose and non-see through.
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Actually, you made my point...

Because parables are not told as historical accounts (narratives).

They are non-historical to start with, but even beyond that, they are delivered within an instructional context... literally related for the purpose of making a specific point about godly behavior. In other words, they are given specifically to give direction to people how they should live! That's the "imperative."

Parables are "narrative WITH imperative."

Sometimes the imperative is explicit ("go and do likewise"), but always implicit (by instructional context).
Nope not all parables are. Some are only illustrating a point. Examples include parable of the mustard seed & parable of leaven bread (yeast). Parables took a real life thing that people of the day would be familiar with and used it to illustrate a truth. So taking a real life event like the races mentioned does not automatically mean that the entire thing was being condoned. The parable of the mustard seed was not condoning or condemning trees. It is silent on the matter. You can not therefore use that passage to claim the bible does not speak on nudity. That is not the point of the passage. Same as we can't be critical of John 3:16 for not providing evidence of how to live a godly lifestyle.


God directs the writer of Hebrews to reference an ancient (contemporary for the original audience) sporting event where races were run in front of huge crowds... naked... without condemning the practice. Historically undeniable. There's even ancient art evidence.
You know I've been thinking about this since you first made your post about races being run in nude. It does not neccesarily logically follow that just because they ran the races in the nude that it was condoning being nude. That is an assumption on your part and requires evidence. Just like parables illustrate a point it says throw off every encumbrance and run to win the prize. If we take that as condoning nudity then it means it is a biblical command to go naked which is not what early christians did and not what we should do. Yet you are claiming it is a biblical command to follow. Either that or we are not to run the race. The point being made is that we need to do what we can do receive eternal life. If something is getting in the way of us & God then we need to discard that encumbrance.

Using the races it does actually counter your earlier argument. Women were not allowed to compete. So you would not see naked women at those events. Married women were not allowed to attend. You claimed the bible was silent on that. if we take your interpretation that the passage justifies nudity as not being wrong then it is only reasonable to conclude that the passage is saying once married you should not see a person of opposite gender naked. If you can not reach that conclusion from that then I would suggest you are interpreting things in a way to suit your pre-formed view much like createdtoworship is.

Not "written."
Correct not written in that passage. Question is is it written elsewhere? For a number of things you claimed were not written we do know because it is mentioned elsewhere. It is reasonable to make the connection in that case.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The church (used to mean denominations unless stated) in general are very slow to change. Remember they once upon a time believed that epileptic seizures were actually demon possessed people. They also believed being left handed was from the devil. Since one of the original languages is a dead language there are new discoveries being made as to what words mean. This would actually have affect on some christian beliefs that would not generally be in dispute. Yet the church isn't changing.

In fact there is one belief which if as a christian you do not agree with that is opposite to what was believed in biblical times (both old & new testaments) and in early church as well as being predominately jewish belief today. yet not one single christian can provide anything other than poetic passages to justify changing the belief.In fact it really only became a compulsory christian view in the 1970s. Yet still impossible to find the discovery that says we misunderstood all those years.

It is interesting that you say David is too invested in his views to be wrong. How invested are you in yours? After all you still haven't addressed the fact that the passage you quote as evidence that people need to dress a certain way because of your weakness actually uses as an example something that is not morally wrong. So you need to acknowledge the clothing you are complaining about is not morally wrong otherwise that passage is not valid.
You also have not addressed what women should wear when I find the opposite more appealing. I posted a picture as well of what I was talking about. Not figure hugging but loose and non-see through.
So the context of what I was saying about orthodox doctrine is that the Holy Spirit always provides a remnant of pure theology in every age. In the dark ages where some of the views you speAK of were happening, there was a remnant of Holy and puritan like christians. Read the book called pilgrim church to see the group that ended up eventually becomING the roots for the reformation. Again if it's new it's not true if it's true it's not new. As far as being invested in this topic, I don't have a ball to play in this game if anything I have put my reputation at stake for declaring what people label as old fashioned and over religious or legalistic. The other guy however looks to try to start some type of movement for his views. I can afford to be wrong, if anything things would be easier for me, he however cannot really afford it. It puts his website, his articles and his entire reputation at risk. I have been there before, thinking God had shown me something special, but in reality he reveals the sa me truth to his corporate body as we are all part of the church. He won't tell one guy something contrary to another.
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nope not all parables are. Some are only illustrating a point. Examples include parable of the mustard seed & parable of leaven bread (yeast). Parables took a real life thing that people of the day would be familiar with and used it to illustrate a truth. So taking a real life event like the races mentioned does not automatically mean that the entire thing was being condoned. The parable of the mustard seed was not condoning or condemning trees. It is silent on the matter. You can not therefore use that passage to claim the bible does not speak on nudity. That is not the point of the passage. Same as we can't be critical of John 3:16 for not providing evidence of how to live a godly lifestyle.
But my point is this... ANY "narrative" that does not include a command is not to be taken as a moral imperative for human behavior... it's not teaching what "normative" behavior is. The examples you cited are certainly NOT that.

You know I've been thinking about this since you first made your post about races being run in nude. It does not neccesarily logically follow that just because they ran the races in the nude that it was condoning being nude. That is an assumption on your part and requires evidence. Just like parables illustrate a point it says throw off every encumbrance and run to win the prize. If we take that as condoning nudity then it means it is a biblical command to go naked which is not what early christians did and not what we should do. Yet you are claiming it is a biblical command to follow. Either that or we are not to run the race. The point being made is that we need to do what we can do receive eternal life. If something is getting in the way of us & God then we need to discard that encumbrance.
Again, I think you're missing the point.

Is it to be assumed that nudity is forbidden by God as the starting point of the discussion of its morality? I don't think so.

My point never has been that passages such as I mentioned specifically "condoned" or approved of public nudity, but simply that here were biblical cases where nudity was undoubtedly part of the cultural and historical context... particularly within the events described and used as an illustration. And since such public nudity events actually were extant at the time of the writing of the NT, it's unthinkable that ALL of the NT writers would utterly fail to mention how such a common Greco-Roman cultural practice is actually forbidden for God-fearing Christians. For all practical and textual and contextual purposes, the practice is "acceptable."


Using the races it does actually counter your earlier argument. Women were not allowed to compete. So you would not see naked women at those events. Married women were not allowed to attend. You claimed the bible was silent on that. if we take your interpretation that the passage justifies nudity as not being wrong then it is only reasonable to conclude that the passage is saying once married you should not see a person of opposite gender naked. If you can not reach that conclusion from that then I would suggest you are interpreting things in a way to suit your pre-formed view much like createdtoworship is.
Not at all...

I'm starting with the assumption that an activity (nudity in public... bathing... working... fishing... athletics) is not wrong or sinful in and of itself... until and unless we can find it condemned by clear biblical declaration or obvious application of biblical principle.

Are sports wrong? Should we start with the assumption that they ARE wrong and point out that since the Bible never actually condones sports, we must then conclude that they are forbidden... even though the text itself describes a number of common athletic activities of that day? Well, of course not... we start with the assumption that it's fine to be involved in athletic endeavors... and we rightly note that the Bible never condemns such activities.

By the same token, we should start with the assumption that our nudity is not wrong and we are correct in pointing out that the Bible never condemns public nudity even though the text itself describes a number of contexts where nudity was part of the events described. And like sports, the fact that the context was referenced without ever condemning the practice of nudity (in the immediate context nor elsewhere) makes a strong case against the notion that it is wrong.

And regarding nudity in segregated settings...

First of all, that was not part of the "challenge" I was responding to.

Secondly I understand (saw it somewhere/sometime) that while the Greek/Roman games were male-only, the Spartans sporting events actually DID include women... and they too performed their athletics without clothing.

And don't you see how your saying this: "if we take your interpretation that the passage justifies nudity as not being wrong then it is only reasonable to conclude that the passage is saying once married you should not see a person of opposite gender naked." is completely adding something to the passage that it truly and absolutely says NOTHING about??

My whole point here in this entire discussion is that we should NEVER add anything to God's Word that He chose not to say... particularly when it comes to "rules for righteousness."
Correct not written in that passage. Question is is it written elsewhere? For a number of things you claimed were not written we do know because it is mentioned elsewhere. It is reasonable to make the connection in that case.

When I said "Not Written" I was primarily pointing out that @createdtoworship never bothered to support a single one of those assertions using scripture... after he repeatedly tried to say that about anything and everything I said.

But beyond that, I would also assert that each of those things he asserted without any scriptural support are also indefensible scripturally. They are "not written" anywhere in the bible. You and he are free to show me how that assertion is mistaken.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The teaching of Jesus in Mark 7:14-23:
14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”]

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

Jesus tells us that sins--including sexual sins and lust (= coveting)--come only from within... never from outside a person.

Our brother says...

Lust can be triggered by sexual songs and TV shows. Struggling with lustful thoughts and actions? Turn that song about sex off. Put on some worship music or a sermon. The song or show isn’t innocent entertainment if it’s tempting you to sin sexually.

You can "turn it off"... and you probably should. But that does not address the fact that it's the sin in the heart that is being revealed by that stimulus... not caused by it.

The real test of freedom from lust/inappropriate content/etc is not in the avoidance of the sin, but when those "triggers" no longer trigger any lust... because the lust has been eradicated from the heart.

If the sight of a woman's body triggers lust in someone, it's not the sight that is the problem. It's not the woman that is the problem. It's not her God-given beauty that is the problem. It's not her body parts that are the problem. It is the person's own heart that is the problem.

This is why it is absolutely unbiblical and wrong to require women to "cover" to "help" men to not lust... for such a requirement places the responsibility for a man's sin on the woman. It is never her responsibility. It is always the man's responsibility and his alone. "Modesty rules" blame the woman (and God) and excuse the sin in the man. It's wrong. It's not God's way. And there are no modesty rules taught in God's Word at all!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The teaching of Jesus in Mark 7:14-23:


Jesus tells us that sins--including sexual sins and lust (= coveting)--come only from within... never from outside a person.

Our brother says...



You can "turn it off"... and you probably should. But that does not address the fact that it's the sin in the heart that is being revealed by that stimulus... not caused by it.

The real test of freedom from lust/inappropriate content/etc is not in the avoidance of the sin, but when those "triggers" no longer trigger any lust... because the lust has been eradicated from the heart.

If the sight of a woman's body triggers lust in someone, it's not the sight that is the problem. It's not the woman that is the problem. It's not her God-given beauty that is the problem. It's not her body parts that are the problem. It is the person's own heart that is the problem.

This is why it is absolutely unbiblical and wrong to require women to "cover" to "help" men to not lust... for such a requirement places the responsibility for a man's sin on the woman. It is never her responsibility. It is always the man's responsibility and his alone. "Modesty rules" blame the woman (and God) and excuse the sin in the man. It's wrong. It's not God's way. And there are no modesty rules taught in God's Word at all!!
this is non sequitur for this thread, I have posted ad nausium in this thread that yes a male needs to crucify his desires. But that does not mean women can walk around nude at a nude beach like you said. And the like, agree, and winner ratings on your post are truly disturbing. People simply read what this poster is saying, he is literally saying the bible condones nude beaches. That is why he is on block. I decided to adress this post simply because the thread is dying and we are concluding this discussion. When I asked for three verses about nudity post garden of eden in the bible he could not give them. So that ended our discussion. Yes it feeds my flesh to look at nude women at the beach, but is that really what Jesus wants for us? Really. We need to read our bibles for what it says, I recommend reading through the bible once a year, using the you version Bible app. Simply reading online blogs about God is not enough, it's where these doctrines arise from. We don't need mans interpretation of the scripture. I can post three verses where suicide is mentioned, does that mean we should all commit suicide. Context, context, context. So anyway, I am done with this conversation. If the poster can post three verses post fall of nudity in the Bible, with the context saying that walking nude is good. Then I will believe His views. But He could not, and that is where we left off.
 
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

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If I could give My Chains Are Gone's posts more than one "winner", I would.

He speaks the truth, and does so very well.
I think the Bible speaks truth, myself.

So again if you guys can prove what you believe "using scripture" our conversation would not be starting to close, but just beginning.
 
Upvote 0

Darkhorse

just horsing around
Aug 10, 2005
10,078
3,977
mid-Atlantic
Visit site
✟288,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Bible does speak truth, far beyond any human wisdom.

When useful, it details what types of animals may be eaten, what types of fabric may be worn, what types of sexual activity are forbidden, how to prevent the spread of leprosy, mold, and mildew, and dozens of other useful and practical commands.

NOWHERE does it specify what parts of the body should be covered, IF ANY.

Compare this to human legal codes, which specify how much (which parts) of a woman's breasts must be covered, and which parts of people's pelvic areas must be covered. Laws must be specific to be enforceable; vague laws are struck down.

Certainly God can write better laws than any humans. He would have, if it were important to Him.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The Bible does speak truth, far beyond any human wisdom.

When useful, it details what types of animals may be eaten, what types of fabric may be worn, what types of sexual activity are forbidden, how to prevent the spread of leprosy, mold, and mildew, and dozens of other useful and practical commands.

NOWHERE does it specify what parts of the body should be covered, IF ANY.

Compare this to human legal codes, which specify how much (which parts) of a woman's breasts must be covered, and which parts of people's pelvic areas must be covered. Laws must be specific to be enforceable; vague laws are struck down.

Certainly God can write better laws than any humans. He would have, if it were important to Him.

Well said Darkhorse. Scripture tells us that Peter fished in the nude. It was common practice in those days--one fisherman would strip so he could get in and out of the water to work the nets. Bathing suits didn't exist a the time. Peter would have been visible to anyone on shore, male or female. Yet Scripture doesn't say that Jesus--who saw Peter in that state--chastised or rebuked him for doing that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
NOWHERE does it specify what parts of the body should be covered, IF ANY.

again no where does it command to put one foot in front of the other to walk, no where does it command to breath, no where does it command us to use the bathroom. Post fall there are certain things we just do, and basic morality applies still. So I don't agree that the Bible does not address modesty, the Bible does not address nudity per say. But that is because it was not a problem in the church. Typically people have common sense by their creator to put clothes on so again God does not command it. But modesty is commanded and I have laid out ad nauseam in this thread.
 
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

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
again no where does it command to put one foot in front of the other to walk, no where does it command to breath, no where does it command us to use the bathroom. Post fall there are certain things we just do, and basic morality applies still. So I don't agree that the Bible does not address modesty, the Bible does not address nudity per say. But that is because it was not a problem in the church. Typically people have common sense by their creator to put clothes on so again God does not command it. But modesty is commanded and I have laid out ad nauseam in this thread.
Except nudity wasn’t a big issue in Biblical times. After all, Peter fished in the nude and baptisms in the early church were performed in the nude.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Except nudity wasn’t a big issue in Biblical times. After all, Peter fished in the nude and baptisms in the early church were performed in the nude.
no, no, no. Commentators, scholars and you name it all believe that they used clothing while doing baptisms and swimming. After all when Jesus came walking on the water, the disciple just jumped in. There is no indication he stripped down.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You can "turn it off"... and you probably should. But that does not address the fact that it's the sin in the heart that is being revealed by that stimulus... not caused by it.
Again why should I turn it off, if nudity is acceptible? You defeat yourself with your own words sir. Besides you cannot quote a single verse in context saying that nudity is acceptible. You quoted one from the old testament and I quoted two or three commentaries indicating that during that day and age, they had an undergarment much like today, and most likely He stripped down to his undergarment, and ran around in his underwear. You, who don't believe in commentaries, trust in your "special revelation" from God that nudity is biblically acceptible. But like I have said numerous times before, simply quote chapter and verse, no more banding together with group think mentality saying "might is right." I would like to see God say it, not man.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
no, no, no. Commentators, scholars and you name it all believe that they used clothing while doing baptisms and swimming.

Wrong. Hippolytus of Rome wrote the following of nude baptism in the early church:

"At the hour in which the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry."

This doesn't mean that every baptism was performed nude, but many apparently were according to the first-hand observation of Hippolytus. It was an early account of Christian baptism, and early Christian art included depictions of nudity in baptism.

After all when Jesus came walking on the water, the disciple just jumped in. There is no indication he stripped down.

Perhaps you should try reading the Bible. You would know that the disciples were not fishing when Jesus walked on water as there was a storm underway. What I am referencing is in John 21:7 which tells of a time when the disciples were fishing: "Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked) and did cast himself into the sea."
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Darkhorse
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

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Wrong. Hippolytus of Rome wrote the following of nude baptism in the early church:

"At the hour in which the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry."

This doesn't mean that every baptism was performed nude, but many apparently were according to the first-hand observation of Hippolytus. It was an early account of Christian baptism, and early Christian art included depictions of nudity in baptism.



Perhaps you should try reading the Bible. You would know that the disciples were not fishing when Jesus walked on water as there was a storm underway. What I am referencing is in John 21:7 which tells of a time when the disciples were fishing: "Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked) and did cast himself into the sea."
You prove my point, see it is common in that day and age to say they were naked when they revealed their undergarment which was their underwear. Again let illustrate this so you understand fully, say my child liked to strip off his shirt and his pants at school, the teachers in describing the situation would say "he took his clothes off and was naked." So yes he was naked but he still had his underwear on. In the passage it says just that. It says the disciple shed his "outer" garment and was this naked. This proves my point perfectly that shedding the outer garment was looked at like nudity. Because the inner garment was on part with walking around town in your underwear. Again reading basically any commentary on this will confirm this. Reading a book called the customs of bible times will also reveal this. But feel free to find someone who agrees with you.
 
Upvote 0