Art Model

[aiki]

I could put up numerous translations that use the word naked, but the word used in the original Greek--which I hope we would agree would prevail over modern translations--directly translates as nude or naked. It was translated in that way for over 1000 years until the Victorian Era, and we know how the Victorian felt about nudity. Some references do say that the word could also be translated as lightly clad, but that is a secondary definition not the primary meaning.

Yeah, this isn't going to wash. The Greek lexicons I use indicate that "naked" in John 21:7 could just as well be figurative as literal. "Naked" could mean "partially clothed" just as easily as it could mean "entirely unclothed." Given what the verse itself says about Peter's behaviour and clothing, thinking he was actually completely undressed is quite obviously a misreading of the verse. This is why many modern translations don't use the term "naked" in their rendering of John 21:7.

You also said that Peter pulled his clothing on and swam to shore fully clothed. Actually we are told that he wrapped his outer garment around himself, probably around his waist, and swam to shore. Why would he do this? Clothing was expensive; he probably didn't want to risk loosing it.

You see, I don't have to import my own ideas into the verse to make it say what I want it to. But you do. I am asserting nothing more about John 21:7 than what is actually there. Peter put on his "outer garment/coat" and swam to shore with it on to meet Jesus. Did Peter wrap it around his waist? The verse doesn't say that. Did he do so for fear of losing an expensive item of clothing? Again, the verse says nothing about Peter's attitude toward the value of his clothing. All the verse tells us is that Peter put on his outer clothing before he went into the water to meet Jesus. We know he didn't meet Jesus, then, in a state of undress. We know also that he didn't have to put on any of his under/inner clothing, which seems to imply very clearly that he was already wearing them.

And, again, we know that fishermen commonly fished while naked at that time. One man would get it the water to work the nets and he would strip to do that.

So? It is a non sequitur to assume that because some men may have fished in the nude that therefore all of them did. What matters in the instance of John 21:7 isn't what might have been customary for some fisherman but what the verse actually says. John 21:7 plainly indicates that Peter's "nakedness" was figurative not literal, that he had removed only his outer garment to fish.

So where do we draw the line? Someone could lust by seeing him posing nude. But someone could also lust by seeing him in a bathing suit at the beach or wearing a three-piece suit at work.

I draw the line where Scripture indicates I should. As much as I am able to I should work to prevent any stumbling my words or conduct might cause. Certainly, seeing another person completely naked or near-naked offers greater cause for such stumbling than seeing them clothed. Scripture commands me not to make "any provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts." If it is important for me not to create opportunities for lust for myself, it is certainly incumbent upon me to avoid creating such opportunities for others as much as I can. So, any Christian woman going about on a public beach in a bikini (or often less these days) is in serious violation of the command of Scripture. And any believer who poses publicly entirely in the nude is in violation of God's word, too. Work constraints may press me into wearing a three-piece suit that a woman might find attractive but this is obviously different from volunteering to pose nude in public.

People are responsible for their reactions.

Yes, they are. But as Christians we have a scriptural mandate not to act in any way we can anticipate will cause others to stumble morally and spiritually. The next person's responsibility for their thoughts, words and deeds does not relieve us of our obligation as followers of Christ to "give no occasion for stumbling" to them.

Selah.

 

[wyatt1111]

Sinful, right?

 

[FoundInGrace]

.

 

[JacksBratt]

I see, when you speak on an issue it is acceptable, when I do so it us grounds for sarcasm. I think we can be polite here.

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. It was meant to be tongue in cheek but that's hard to do with text only.... My apologies.

 

[JackRT]

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. It was meant to be tongue in cheek but that's hard to do with text only.... My apologies.

JackRT gently inserts a crowbar in JacksBratt's mouth and pries his tongue out of his cheek.

 

[Darkhorse]

When I was in fourth grade (1963-64), the teacher showed the class slides of famous artworks, some of them nude. A few kids giggled, and she explained how many great works of art depicted the human body in it's natural state. Most of the kids took it in stride, not because they were saturated in pornography, but because it was considered to be no big deal back then.

In this thread I've seen modern medicine considered unnecessary; I've seen art (Michelangelo art, not Maplethorpe art) equated with pornography; I've seen people claim to practice Biblical Christianity, and post every Biblical mention of nudity, but FAIL to show any command against nudity or warning against engaging in it. People have asked "How does posing nude glorify God?" Really? You have to ask? If you don't appreciate the inherent beauty, majesty, and Godliness of the human body, then you disrespect its Creator.

I used to be thankful that I did not live during the Dark Ages, which were characterized by ignorance and superstition. I'm beginning to think we have already entered into a "new" Dark Age where people follow cultural Christianity rather than Biblical Christianity, and can't recognize the difference between lewd exploitation of the human body and reverent portrayal of it.

 

[JackRT]

When I was in fourth grade (1963-64), the teacher showed the class slides of famous artworks, some of them nude. A few kids giggled, and she explained how many great works of art depicted the human body in it's natural state. Most of the kids took it in stride, not because they were saturated in pornography, but because it was considered to be no big deal back then.

In this thread I've seen modern medicine considered unnecessary, I've seen art (Michelangelo art, not Maplethorpe art) equated with pornography, I've seen people claim to practice Biblical Christianity, and post every Biblical mention of nudity, but FAIL to show any command against nudity or warning against engaging in it. People have asked "How does posing nude glorify God?" Really? You have to ask? If you don't appreciate the inherent beauty, majesty, and Godliness of the human body, then you disrespect its Creator.

I used to be thankful that I did not live during the Dark Ages, which were characterized by ignorance and
superstition. I'm beginning to think we have already entered into a "new" Dark Age where people follow cultural
Christianity rather than Biblical Christianity, and can't recognize the difference between lewd exploitation of the human body and reverent portrayal of it.

Outstanding!!!

 

[Sketcher]

Regardless, none of these anecdotes change the negative tenor of Scripture toward public nudity.

A drawing class isn't public. At a college, if you're not an enrolled student, or an instructor, or the instructor's assistant, or the model, you'll be kicked out.

 

[Meowzltov]

John 21:7

Thanks!

 

[aiki]

I've seen people claim to practice Biblical Christianity, and post every Biblical mention of nudity, but FAIL to show any command against nudity or warning against engaging in it.

Someone posted every mention of nudity in the Bible in this thread? Where?

As was explained already, not having an explicit command in Scripture against a particular immoral behaviour does not make it morally acceptable. The Bible says nothing about selling narcotics to children. Are we then free to do so? Of course not.

People have asked "How does posing nude glorify God?" Really? You have to ask? If you don't appreciate the inherent beauty, majesty, and Godliness of the human body, then you disrespect its Creator.

Hogwash. Inasmuch as the general tenor of Scripture is clearly opposed to public nudity, the idea that such nudity glorifies God is nonsense. Where is the appreciation of the "inherent beauty, majesty and godliness" in God's commands to his priests in the Old Testament to cover themselves carefully to avoid any exposure of their more private regions? Why, if the naked human form is so God-honoring and "godly," does God make the public display of human nakedness a thing of shame and punishment?

It is simply nonsense to assert that rejecting public displays of nudity is "disrespecting the Creator." Quite the opposite is true. It is in an attempt to honor Him and to live a pure life before Him that I avoid and decry public nudity. It seems to me that if anyone is "disrespecting the Creator," it is the person who ignores what God communicates to us in His word about the shame and inappropriateness of public nakedness.

I'm beginning to think we have already entered into a "new" Dark Age where people follow cultural
Christianity rather than Biblical Christianity, and can't recognize the difference between lewd exploitation of the human body and reverent portrayal of it.

This is silly. And a sort of Strawman to boot. Where in Scripture are we given to think that public nudity can be "reverent"? I defy you to find one verse in Scripture that asserts - or even implies - such a thing. I can, though, find many Bible verses describing public nakedness as shameful and wicked. And the idea that there is some careful distinction to be made between Michelangelo's "David" and porn has no ground whatever in Scripture. Over and over in the New Testament we are urged to look away from the flesh, to mortify it, to resist it, not hold it up to admiration and approbation. What does Paul write?

Romans 8:5-6
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

It is the World and the fleshly, carnal mind that holds that there is godliness to be found in looking on the flesh. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Selah.

 

[JacksBratt]

JackRT gently inserts a crowbar in JacksBratt's mouth and pries his tongue out of his cheek.

ouch.....watch the teeth

 

[Darkhorse]

As was explained already, not having an explicit command in Scripture against a particular immoral behaviour does not make it morally acceptable. The Bible says nothing about selling narcotics to children. Are we then free to do so? Of course not.

Matthew 18:6 If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Hogwash. Inasmuch as the general tenor of Scripture is clearly opposed to public nudity, the idea that such nudity glorifies God is nonsense.

Ezekiel 16:7 I made you grow like a plant of the field, You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

Psalms 139:14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Song of Songs 7 (entire chapter)

Where is the appreciation of the "inherent beauty, majesty and godliness" in God's commands to his priests in the Old Testament to cover themselves carefully to avoid any exposure of their more private regions?

That command applied only to the priests, and only during worship. God wanted to clearly distinguish between Israel worshipping Him and the Egyptian worship of their gods (the Egyptian priests were nude during worship).

This is silly. And a sort of Strawman to boot.

Straw man? How? Where's the false construct?

50-some years ago, American society was more Christian than now, as a percentage.

I told about my 4th-grade experience with nude artwork;

Three years later, those kids and I would start taking showers after our gym class. Totally nude, in a long tile hallway with showers everywhere. We were separate from the girls, but not from each other. Nobody fainted, we just dealt with it.

Now, even same-sex showering is considered indecent by many younger people, and almost all nudity is considered pornographic.

And American society is less Christian now, as a percentage.

I believe these changes are due primarily to internet pornography and "normalizing" homosexuality.

Doesn't this sound like a "Dark Age" to you?

I defy you to find one verse in Scripture that asserts - or even implies - such a thing. I can, though, find many Bible verses describing public nakedness as shameful and wicked.

Ezekiel 16:7 I made you grow like a plant of the field, You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

Psalms 139:14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Song of Songs 7 (entire chapter)

Using your logic, I defy you to find one verse in Scripture that explicitly condemns nudity that isn't directly associated with adultery, defeat in battle, poverty, spiritual ignorance, insanity, and other clearly-unfavorable conditions.

Idol worship, disrespecting God's name, disrespecting one's parents, murder, stealing, adultery, false witnessing, coveting, incest, homosexual acts, bestiality, and many other sins are explicitly condemned as sins. If nudity were such a big offense to God, why didn't He explicitly condemn it?

And the idea that there is some careful distinction to be made between Michelangelo's "David" and porn has no ground whatever in Scripture.

Again using your logic, "The Bible says nothing about distinguishing Michelangelo's "David" and porn"; does that mean we are not allowed to make such a distinction?"

If you can't tell the difference, your discernment is sorely lacking.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Is it totally sure that he didn't wear maybe something covered on the underpart whilst going into the water? Could you show that bibleverse again, please?

I think it's sensible not to project assumptions about a 20th/21st century way of life among conservative Christians back onto the way people in Bible times lived and thought. Maybe you are not consciously doing this and maybe I can be mistaken also; but it's good to be aware of different ways of thinking and customs, with the gap of many centuries in between.

 

[Martyr's Crown]

I think it's sensible not to project assumptions about a 20th/21st century way of life among conservative Christians back onto the way people in Bible times lived and thought. Maybe you are not consciously doing this and maybe I can be mistaken also; but it's good to be aware of different ways of thinking and customs, with the gap of many centuries in between.

I am open for that times were different from how it is nowadays, one can also see a lot of differences having happened throughout every century we have been through in history. Looking at the changes of fashion, make up, hairstyle, e.t.c... it was merely something I asked as there could also be a possibility of them wearing a undergarment during that time as well, the same as if they wouldn't. Still, there shouldn't be anything wrong about asking. Ask and you shall receive.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I am open for that times were different from how it is nowadays, one can also see a lot of differences having happened throughout every century we have been through in history. Looking at the changes of fashion, make up, hairstyle, e.t.c... it was merely something I asked as there could also be a possibility of them wearing a undergarment during that time as well, the same as if they wouldn't. Still, there shouldn't be anything wrong about asking. Ask and you shall receive.

I'm learning also!

 

[FoundInGrace]

Gen 3:21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

 

[aiki]

Matthew 18:6 If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

No mention of selling narcotics to children here...But, of course, an explicit prohibition of such a thing isn't necessary because we can naturally and reasonably extend the import of this verse to include any and all harmful actions toward children - just as we can in the matter of Scripture and public nudity. There is no 11th commandment specifically saying, "Thou shalt avoid all public nudity," but we can quite naturally and reasonably extend the many verses in Scripture associating public nudity with shame and judgment to the conclusion that public nudity is an immoral thing.

Ezekiel 16:7 I made you grow like a plant of the field, You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

This was spoken by God through Ezekiel about the city of Jerusalem (see Ezekiel 16:1, 2), not a human person. And it says nothing about the rightness of holding up the naked human form to public admiration and scrutiny.

Psalms 139:14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Again, no mention of the propriety of public nudity. It does not follow that because we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" we may get naked in public. And the many verses in Scripture that suggest the exact opposite further confound such a poor use of Psalms 139:14.

Song of Songs 7 (entire chapter)

How is the intimate romantic interactions between the Shulamite and her husband grounds for public nudity or for holding up images of naked humans publicly for admiration and scrutiny? The romantic relations portrayed in chapter 7 of the Song are not enacted on a public stage for passersby to observe. And nothing in the chapter suggests it ought to be.

Using your logic, I defy you to find one verse in Scripture that explicitly condemns nudity that isn't directly associated with adultery, defeat in battle, poverty, spiritual ignorance, insanity, and other clearly-unfavorable conditions.

And why should I do as you've asked? You've not managed to meet my challenge at all. And I have never asserted that nudity itself is wrong, only public nudity. Why, then, should I try to find a verse that supports that for which I've never contended?

If nudity were such a big offense to God, why didn't He explicitly condemn it?

Because it is sufficiently evident in how He has used public nudity (not nudity itself) as a means of shame and judgment that it is something to be avoided.

Again using your logic, "The Bible says nothing about distinguishing Michelangelo's "David" and porn; does that mean we are not allowed to make such a distinction?"

While the Bible says nothing specifically about distinguishing David's Michelangelo from porn, it does say plenty about public nudity - and none of it good.

That command applied only to the priests, and only during worship. God wanted to clearly distinguish between Israel worshipping Him and the Egyptian worship of their gods (the Egyptian priests were nude during worship).

And why did God want to make a distinction in this particular area? Was this just an arbitrary choice? I think not. God was concerned with removing any cause of indecency in worship (see also Exodus 20:26) and clothing his priests well was aimed at that goal. God wasn't just trying to make his priests different from pagan ones but was emphasizing in the attire of his priests the importance of decency in dress and worship.

Now, even same-sex showering is considered indecent by many younger people, and almost all nudity is considered pornographic.

Perhaps in your social sphere but in society at large I see none of what you're asserting here. Instead, younger people today are more overtly promiscuous than ever. And they are so inured to nudity that they don't bat an eye at the 10 foot high posters of women in their skivvies plastered on the walls outside of Victoria's Secret at the mall. My wife works at one of the universities in our city and while at work she observed a Safe Sex booth set up in one of the main halls promoting their message with a dozen or so neon [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] covered in various types of condoms. My wife observed not a scrap of embarrassment or shame as large groups of visiting high schoolers played with the condoms and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and freely joked about various sexual acts.

In any case, I do agree that we are in a Dark Age, just not exactly of the sort that you seem to see.

Selah.

 

[Archivist]

Gen 3:21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

But scripture tells us that Adam and Eve, assuming that they actually existed, had already made garments for themselves out of fig leaves. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that God commanded that they should wear the clothing He made for them.

 

[Archivist]

Yeah, this isn't going to wash. The Greek lexicons I use indicate that "naked" in John 21:7 could just as well be figurative as literal. "Naked" could mean "partially clothed" just as easily as it could mean "entirely unclothed."

If you had taken the time top read what I wrote earlier, which apparently you did not, you would know that I said that "some references do say that the word could also be translated as lightly clad," so I already said this. However, as I also noted earlier that is a secondary definition not the primary meaning of the word. The primary meaning of the word is nude or naked. The general rule in translating is to use the English word that most closely matches the root Greek word that God chose to use.

Given what the verse itself says about Peter's behaviour and clothing, thinking he was actually completely undressed is quite obviously a misreading of the verse.

No, it is actually entirely consistent with what the verse actually says. The primary definition for the word is nude or naked.

This is why many modern translations don't use the term "naked" in their rendering of John 21:7.

In your next sentence you accuse me of importing my own ideas into scripture. Do you have the translation notes that they prepared, or are you asserting your thoughts as their intent?

You see, I don't have to import my own ideas into the verse to make it say what I want it to. But you do. I am asserting nothing more about John 21:7 than what is actually there. Peter put on his "outer garment/coat" and swam to shore with it on to meet Jesus. Did Peter wrap it around his waist? The verse doesn't say that.

The verb used, διαζώννυμι, does not literally mean putting clothing on, but rather tying the clothing around oneself. The same verb is used in describing Jesus tying a towel around himself.

Did he do so for fear of losing an expensive item of clothing? Again, the verse says nothing about Peter's attitude toward the value of his clothing.

He probably did. Most people had but a single set of clothing at that time.

All the verse tells us is that Peter put on his outer clothing before he went into the water to meet Jesus. We know he didn't meet Jesus, then, in a state of undress. We know also that he didn't have to put on any of his under/inner clothing, which seems to imply very clearly that he was already wearing them.

Incorrect. He wrapped the garment around his waste and he was naked.

So? It is a non sequitur to assume that because some men may have fished in the nude that therefore all of them did. What matters in the instance of John 21:7 isn't what might have been customary for some fisherman but what the verse actually says. John 21:7 plainly indicates that Peter's "nakedness" was figurative not literal, that he had removed only his outer garment to fish.

The primary definition of the word is naked or nude, and this would have been in line with the practice of the day. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states that "This garment can be quickly removed by pulling it over the head, when occasion requires the fisherman to jump into the sea. If methods have not changed, Peter had probably just climbed back into the boat after adjusting the net for drawing when he learned that it was Jesus who stood on the shore. He was literally naked..."

I draw the line where Scripture indicates I should. As much as I am able to I should work to prevent any stumbling my words or conduct might cause. Certainly, seeing another person completely naked or near-naked offers greater cause for such stumbling than seeing them clothed. Scripture commands me not to make "any provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts." If it is important for me not to create opportunities for lust for myself, it is certainly incumbent upon me to avoid creating such opportunities for others as much as I can. So, any Christian woman going about on a public beach in a bikini (or often less these days) is in serious violation of the command of Scripture. And any believer who poses publicly entirely in the nude is in violation of God's word, too. Work constraints may press me into wearing a three-piece suit that a woman might find attractive but this is obviously different from volunteering to pose nude in public. Yes, they are. But as Christians we have a scriptural mandate not to act in any way we can anticipate will cause others to stumble morally and spiritually. The next person's responsibility for their thoughts, words and deeds does not relieve us of our obligation as followers of Christ to "give no occasion for stumbling" to them.

Today many, such as yourself, are infused with the Victorian idea that nudity is wrong, and this has influences our mores. The reality is that the Bible never states that nudity is wrong, though if used for the wrong purposes it can be. Jesus said that it isn't what enters into someone that results in sin, but what comes out of the heart. In the same passage he refers to the "lust of the eyes." This passage would seem to imply that simply seeing a naked person or being naked in a public place is not wrong, but lusting after a naked person is wrong. In the Old Testament, Bathsheba was not condemned for bathing on her rooftop, which was a very public place in the society of the time and place. It was the sin that resulted from David's lusting after her that was condemned.

 

[PollyJetix]

But scripture tells us that Adam and Eve, assuming that they actually existed, had already made garments for themselves out of fig leaves. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that God commanded that they should wear the clothing He made for them.

Adam and Eve felt immediately guilty, when they ate the fruit.
They looked at each other and themselves, and felt naked and ashamed.
So they made aprons to cover their private parts, by sewing fig leaves together. To hide their shame.
When God arrived on the scene, he asked them some questions, pronounced some curses and predictions of bad consequences... and then He made for them coats of skins of animals.

And you say, "Nowhere in Genesis does it say that God COMMANDED that they should wear the clothing He made for them."

you are kidding, right?