Modesty among clothing and other areas

[Archivist]

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.

No, you are wrong. What about “take off all their clothes” don’t you understand? What about “for he was naked” don’t you understand? Don’t tell me that a modern commentary says they were wearing underpants. That modern source is written with a particular bias. If a writer starts with the belief that nudity is evil he will ignore facts and write to uphold his bias. You have shown that throughout this thread. Perhaps you can explain ancient artwork that depicts nude baptism and nude fishermen. Both were common.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you are wrong. What about “take off all their clothes” don’t you understand? What about “for he was naked” don’t you understand? Don’t tell me that a modern commentary says they were wearing underpants. That modern source is written with a particular bias. If a writer starts with the belief that nudity is evil he will ignore facts and write to uphold his bias. You have shown that throughout this thread. Perhaps you can explain ancient artwork that depicts nude baptism and nude fishermen. Both were common.

well I suppose the burden lies on you to prove your assertion, I can quote a dozen commentaries and books that say you are wrong but you won't eccept it.
Here is a quick google search on clothing in the Bible times:

"The inner garment resembled a long, loose-fitting T-shirt or a kimono. It was made of linen, cotton, or sometimes soft wool. ...A man wearing only this inner garment was said to be naked (e.g., 1 Samuel 19:24, Isaiah 20:2–4). Nothing at all was worn underneath the inner garment (except by Essene men, who wore a close-fitting loincloth)."

What Sort of Clothing Did People in Jesus’ Time Wear? - Community in Mission

but most likely a loin cloth was worn swimming or during baptism and if one did not have that, they could always wear their inner garment.

Now I presume one may think isaiah was naked underneath his sackloth as that was how sackloth was worn, however, most likely if he removed his sackloth, he would have replaced it with a loin cloth, which would have been seen as naked, this commentary agrees:

"
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says:

It was not after the conquest of Ashdod, but in the year in which the siege commenced, that Isaiah received the following admonition: “Go and loosen the smock-frock from off thy loins, and take off thy shoes from thy feet. And he did so, went stripped and barefooted.” We see from this that Isaiah was clothed in the same manner as Elijah, who wore a fur coat (2Ki 1:8, cf., Zec 13:4; Heb 11:37), and John the Baptist, who had a garment of camel hair and a leather girdle round it (Mat 3:4); for sak is a coarse linen or hairy overcoat of a dark colour (Rev 6:12, cf., Isa 50:3), such as was worn by mourners, either next to the skin (‛al-habbâsâr, 1Ki 21:27; 2Ki 6:30; Job 16:15) or over the tunic, in either case being fastened by a girdle on account of its want of shape, for which reason the verb châgar is the word commonly used to signify the putting on of such a garment, instead of lâbash. The use of the word ârōm does not prove that the former was the case in this instance (see, on the contrary, 2Sa 6:20, compared with 2Sa 6:14 and Joh 21:7). With the great importance attached to the clothing in the East, where the feelings upon this point are peculiarly sensitive and modest, a person was looked upon as stripped and naked if he had only taken off his upper garment. What Isaiah was directed to do, therefore, was simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency. He was to lay aside the dress of a mourner and preacher of repentance, and to have nothing on but his tunic (cetoneth); and in this, as well as barefooted, he was to show himself in public. This was the costume of a man who had been robbed and disgraced, or else of a beggar or prisoner of war. The word cēn (so) is followed by the inf. abs., which develops the meaning, as in Isa 5:5; Isa 58:6-7.

 

[Archivist]

well I suppose the burden lies on you to prove your assertion, I can quote a dozen commentaries and books that say you are wrong but you won't eccept it.
Here is a quick google search on clothing in the Bible times:

"The inner garment resembled a long, loose-fitting T-shirt or a kimono. It was made of linen, cotton, or sometimes soft wool. ...A man wearing only this inner garment was said to be naked (e.g., 1 Samuel 19:24, Isaiah 20:2–4). Nothing at all was worn underneath the inner garment (except by Essene men, who wore a close-fitting loincloth)."

What Sort of Clothing Did People in Jesus’ Time Wear? - Community in Mission

but most likely a loin cloth was worn swimming or during baptism and if one did not have that, they could always wear their inner garment.

Now I presume one may think isaiah was naked underneath his sackloth as that was how sackloth was worn, however, most likely if he removed his sackloth, he would have replaced it with a loin cloth, which would have been seen as naked, this commentary agrees:

"
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says:

It was not after the conquest of Ashdod, but in the year in which the siege commenced, that Isaiah received the following admonition: “Go and loosen the smock-frock from off thy loins, and take off thy shoes from thy feet. And he did so, went stripped and barefooted.” We see from this that Isaiah was clothed in the same manner as Elijah, who wore a fur coat (2Ki 1:8, cf., Zec 13:4; Heb 11:37), and John the Baptist, who had a garment of camel hair and a leather girdle round it (Mat 3:4); for sak is a coarse linen or hairy overcoat of a dark colour (Rev 6:12, cf., Isa 50:3), such as was worn by mourners, either next to the skin (‛al-habbâsâr, 1Ki 21:27; 2Ki 6:30; Job 16:15) or over the tunic, in either case being fastened by a girdle on account of its want of shape, for which reason the verb châgar is the word commonly used to signify the putting on of such a garment, instead of lâbash. The use of the word ârōm does not prove that the former was the case in this instance (see, on the contrary, 2Sa 6:20, compared with 2Sa 6:14 and Joh 21:7). With the great importance attached to the clothing in the East, where the feelings upon this point are peculiarly sensitive and modest, a person was looked upon as stripped and naked if he had only taken off his upper garment. What Isaiah was directed to do, therefore, was simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency. He was to lay aside the dress of a mourner and preacher of repentance, and to have nothing on but his tunic (cetoneth); and in this, as well as barefooted, he was to show himself in public. This was the costume of a man who had been robbed and disgraced, or else of a beggar or prisoner of war. The word cēn (so) is followed by the inf. abs., which develops the meaning, as in Isa 5:5; Isa 58:6-7.

Then please explain the paintings that date from the time of the early church that depict people being baptized naked, men fishing naked. If you truly have dozens of books supporting your position then one of them should address that.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then please explain the paintings that date from the time of the early church that depict people being baptized naked, men fishing naked. If you truly have dozens of books supporting your position then one of them should address that.

well give us a link to them. So I can take a look. At first glance I would group those works with other works found in the renaissance era depicting the beauty of the human body, not to be used as a historical painting based on common every day occurrence. I mean just because famous artists painted nude people does not mean that everyone walked around nude, it just means that someone posed nude for the painting or whatever.

 

[Archivist]

well give us a link to them. So I can take a look. At first glance I would group those works with other works found in the renaissance era depicting the beauty of the human body, not to be used as a historical painting based on common every day occurrence. I mean just because famous artists painted nude people does not mean that everyone walked around nude, it just means that someone posed nude for the painting or whatever.

I can't provide links as that would violate CF rules. As I said before, I am speaking of paintings from the time of the early church, not from a thousand years later. They can be found with a Google search.

You said that you could quote a dozen books on this topic. If you could provide a list of those books I would be interested in seeing it. Of course Pope John Paul II expressed the Catholic Church's attitude to the exposure of the human body in Love and Responsibility: "The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendour and its beauty... Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person... The human body is not in itself shameful... Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person."

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

@createdtoworship, your duplicity is mind-boggling.

Time and again, you have demanded that those with an opposing position "prove that nudity is OK from God's Word," but then when anyone has offered passages that clearly describe nudity in a way that is neither condemned nor treated as undesirable, you literally redefine the word "naked" to claim that "naked" doesn't really mean "naked"... even though we supplied you exactly what you demanded!!.

And your "authority" for redefining the biblical words? Human sources. Not the bible!!

On the other hand, if we provide you credible human sources (like Hippolytus or ancient Christian art work), you dismiss it and tell us "that's not the Bible!!"

Meanwhile, you cannot meet your own level of requirement for your claims... Where does the bible EVER tell us to keep our bodies covered while swimming or fishing or working in a garden or carpenter's shop or while being baptized? Where does it tell us which body parts to cover or which ones we may not gaze upon? Well, of course, you know and we know that the Bible doesn't tell us any of that. Ever. Period. So, by your own measure of "truth" being "thus saith the Lord," your claims fail.

There's not a single reference to the word "naked" in the original language in Hebrew or in Greek where it's clear from the context that the person was NOT actually naked. This claim that one could feel "naked" when underdressed is utterly and completely a modern notion. We should never read that sort of meaning into the words of Scripture... no matter how many prudish commentators just couldn't fathom a prophet preaching naked or a fisherman fishing naked!

If the Bible says it, my friend, the Bible means it.

If you want to see images of ancient artwork that shows nude baptism, just do a Google image search on "nude baptism" and you'll get tons of images.

And take note... they are ALL ancient images... no one today is painting pictures of baptisms performed on people while they are nude. And there is NO credible explanation for why artists would paint images that way if it were not precisely how they were performed! Some of the images are from the catacombs... where Christians were hiding in fear of their lives, yet documenting in pictures what they were doing. That simply cannot be explained away.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Why fish nude?

Simple. Clothing was VERY expensive. There were no factories that made cloth by the millions of yards. Cloth was made by hand, on a loom, one cross-thread at a time. It took a LONG time to make.

Clothing was so valuable and rare and expensive in bible times that it could literally be used as collateral for a loan! And such a practice was common enough that God included a law to govern its practice! Exodus 22:26-27 makes it pretty clear that if a man does give you his cloak as collateral, it's pretty much the only garment he has... which doubles for a blanket at night!

Clothing was so valuable that people made bets where the winner had to give the loser a set of clothes. Samson would have gotten 30 sets of clothes if he had won his bet with the Philistines (Judges 14:12-20). But since he lost, he had to PAY 30 sets of clothes. And where did he get them? He had to go kill 30 other Philistines and strip them of their clothes... no trip to Walmart with a credit card! Furthermore, used/dirty/sweaty/bloody clothes stripped off of a dead soldier... was STILL SO valuable in that time as to be considered full payment of the bet!!!

Clothing was so valuable at that even clothing that was covered with blood from a Man that had been beaten with a whip was still worth gambling for to get in a "whole" condition... as they did for Jesus' clothing at the cross. Notice that usually they just rip it into pieces and give each soldier a piece... (cloth was valuable even in small pieces) but it was notable in this case that they agreed together not to tear it apart. Today, we treat cloth like that as a bio-hazard and send it to be burned up. Then, bloody or not, it was still highly valued.

Clothing was so valuable that poor people would literally sell the shirt off their backs to buy food... hence the constant instructions in God's word to "clothe the poor" and "feed the hungry." It happened all the time! Poor people who were starving would buy food with their clothes. And clothing was so valuable to NON-poor people that they would be willing to "buy" the last piece of clothing a person owned in order to get some cloth.

So... why fish nude? Because if you only owned 1 or 2 pieces of clothing period, then fishing in that clothing would make it dirty and yucky and slimy and smelly. Some of those smells and stains would never come out, no matter how many times you wash it (which was done by hand). So... the most sensible way to keep expensive clothing in good condition was to take it off whenever the activity was dirty!

And for the record, it is pretty inconceivable that Peter would be the only naked guy fishing in the boat... for the same reasons, ALL of them would have been naked. And it would have been exceedingly awkward if only Peter were nude while fishing!

Note this image from less than 300 years after NT times... a bunch of people in boats. All nude.

Real ancient artwork... not "revisionist history." No underwear.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

And in case you are not willing to find some ancient artwork showing nude baptism...

Note... both of these images are from INSIDE churches... the church has not always been so squeamish about nudity.

This one is from the catacombs.

There's simply no explaining why artists would depict baptism this way if it never happened this way!

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

well give us a link to them. So I can take a look. At first glance I would group those works with other works found in the renaissance era depicting the beauty of the human body, not to be used as a historical painting based on common every day occurrence. I mean just because famous artists painted nude people does not mean that everyone walked around nude, it just means that someone posed nude for the painting or whatever.

Note also... in those images of baptism... the only nude person was the person being baptized. These were not "famous artists" doing figure art from a nude model. There's no claim that "everyone walked around nude." In fact, these images actually demonstrate that "going around nude" was NOT a common thing. It was just the one being baptized!

No "posing." No "beauty of the human body" sort of painting... just the attempt to represent an event from our Savior's life.

So... here's where it stands...

Starting point: The Bible neither describes baptism as nude or clothed. Full stop. No question about this point.

Points in favor of the historicity of nude Baptism:

• The writings of the early church fathers such as Hippolytus describing the requirement to take off all clothes for the rite in no uncertain terms.
• Jewish baptism (called the mikveh) has required full nudity (including no jewelry or even braided hair) for all of its history, including its use in the 21st century today. And Christian baptism is heir of that tradition (starting with John's baptism, even before the establishment of a "new religion" at Pentecost).
• Ancient artwork portrays baptisms on people while nude... and only the person being baptized was nude. Such artistic portrayals make no sense at all unless they were historically accurate representations.

Exactly what do you have to support your claim that nude baptism was not performed in the early church?

• Modern commentators from the last 100 or so years...
• Modern sentiments and cultural notions about nudity and "modesty."

Do you not see? The proofs FOR nude baptism all predate anything you have to offer to disprove it.

And just in case you might think that gender segregation was in play, here are a few more pieces of art to consider.

Trigger warning... while not even remotely erotic, these images do show women unclothed while being baptized.​

 

[createdtoworship]

I can't provide links as that would violate CF rules. As I said before, I am speaking of paintings from the time of the early church, not from a thousand years later. They can be found with a Google search.

ok, step away from this conversation a bit. Zoom out if you would. Get the whole picture. You admit the christian forums rules would be violated by posting a nude picture. Yet for some reason you think it biblical to go to a nude beach. I just want you to see the contrast here. Modesty has been portrayed through the ages of the church, in the seventies modesty was questionable, but the church itself flourished during the seventies with the Jesus movement, and there was plenty of modesty there. So again the burden lies on you to prove that the church itself, the bible itself endorses public nudity. I did a quick google search and found a link in a few seconds on biblical garments, it's common knowledge that there was an undergarmet.

You said that you could quote a dozen books on this topic. If you could provide a list of those books I would be interested in seeing it. Of course Pope John Paul II expressed the Catholic Church's attitude to the exposure of the human body in Love and Responsibility: "The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendour and its beauty... Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person... The human body is not in itself shameful... Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person."

sorry I don't have time right now, a quick google search of biblical clothing should do the trick. Besides I don't feel you will accept them. I have posted probably four or five in this thread, and they were rejected outright because they were not "the bible." So again this is circular reasoning, you cannot ask for commentaries, then when given them say that they are not "good enough." That is a circular argumentation which fails

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

ok, step away from this conversation a bit. Zoom out if you would. Get the whole picture. You admit the christian forums rules would be violated by posting a nude picture. Yet for some reason you think it biblical to go to a nude beach. I just want you to see the contrast here.

Your logic here is faulty...

Do you equate Christian Forum rules with the Bible?

It's entirely possible for this forum to have rules that the Bible does not give. As it is in this case. The forum owners are perfectly within their rights to create whatever rules they want. They are certainly allowed to create rules that go beyond what the Bible says. that's fine. I'd actually be shocked if they did not do so!

So... what's your point? CF has different rules than the bible? Granted. Expected.

The reality is that the bible never forbids (nor commands) going to a nude beach. The bible never commands (nor forbids) wearing a swim suit to swim (do you know when swim suits were even invented??? NOT in bible times, to be sure!!)

Modesty has been portrayed through the ages of the church, in the seventies modesty was questionable, but the church itself flourished during the seventies with the Jesus movement, and there was plenty of modesty there.

Wait... "ages of the church" is now your basis for biblical truth? OH... now I get it... by appealing to the "ages of the church" you are admitting that the bible does NOT provide that portrayal of modesty! And on that point, I would wholeheartedly agree!

But if you are therefore suggesting that if it was followed in the "ages of the church," that it must be morally binding on us... then allow me to inform you that the sort of "modesty" that you tout is actually very recent in the timeline of the church... no more than 3-400 years! Before that time (when cloth was still all made by hand), such notions of "modesty" were completely foreign within all cultures. You can just look at the artwork produced for churches--commissioned by the leaders of the church!!--that included nudity. Michelangelo certainly one of the most prolific and commonly seen artist whose images of nude people grace the walls and ceilings of churches... preserved to this day.

Now imagine ANY church today commissioning a work of Sacred art that included any nudity... for prominent display IN THE SANCTUARY!! Yet... just a few hundred years ago... that happened!

So... even if we grant that the sort of "modesty" you believe in has been practiced and taught in the church for the past 300 years (which I would NOT grant)... it would mean that the "ages of the church" that you are depending upon for your view of "modesty" literally amounts to only 15% of the church's total history!!

That's really bad... particularly if you go with only the last 15% of the church's history!

Quite frankly, if you want to be most faithful to the practice of the early church... you'd go with the FIRST 15% of the church's history... and it was during THAT time that the church uniformly practiced nude baptism.

So again the burden lies on you to prove that the church itself, the bible itself endorses public nudity.

No... the Bible never forbids public nudity. Why should I ever expect a statement "endorsing" it?

I can tell you exactly why I think God did NOT overtly command social nudity...

Because if he had done so, then people would turn public nudity into a legalistic mark of righteousness!

• Newsflash... Going nude in public or nude socially does NOT commend you or me to God! Nor is it a sign of righteousness.
• Newsflash... Always wearing clothes in public and socially does NOT commend you or me to God! Nor is it a sign of righteousness.
• Newsflash... Going nude in public or nude socially is NOT a sin against God! Nor is it a sign of UNrighteousness.
• Newsflash... Always wearing clothes in public and socially is NOT a sin against God! Nor is it a sign of UNrighteousness.

And THAT is why God never commands nudity OR clothing. He could have. He didn't.

It is exceedingly dangerous spiritually to add anything to God's Word that He did not declare!!

Deuteronomy 4:2 - "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

Deuteronomy 12:32 - "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it."

Proverbs 30:6 - "Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

Revelation 22:18 - "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;"​

I did a quick google search and found a link in a few seconds on biblical garments, it's common knowledge that there was an undergarmet.

Common knowledge? Really? Who wrote that... someone from bible times? Or someone removed by some 2000 years from the time and culture that they were describing?

Exactly how and why do you propose that we trust testimony (opinions) from people who are 2000 years removed from bible times? Is it seriously your assertion that we take that as authoritative? Is it even remotely possible that they have it wrong?

It is so incomprehensible that you say "Where in the Bible?!? Where in the Bible?!?" again and again for anyone else's claims, but for you it's fine to settle on "Commentaries," "Ages of the church" (whatever that means), and "Common Knowledge." (In fact, for you these things are MORE authoritative than the scriptures, because when we've given you scripture, you've actively denied the plain meaning of the text on the authority of "commentators" or some other non-biblical basis!)

It was also "common knowledge" that the church baptized people nude... until such a notion fell into disfavor and became taboo to mention until now today, people like you are so convinced that it is not true that you are prepared to deny it in the face of indisputable evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why fish nude?

Simple. Clothing was VERY expensive. There were no factories that made cloth by the millions of yards. Cloth was made by hand, on a loom, one cross-thread at a time. It took a LONG time to make.

Clothing was so valuable and rare and expensive in bible times that it could literally be used as collateral for a loan! And such a practice was common enough that God included a law to govern its practice! Exodus 22:26-27 makes it pretty clear that if a man does give you his cloak as collateral, it's pretty much the only garment he has... which doubles for a blanket at night!

Clothing was so valuable that people made bets where the winner had to give the loser a set of clothes. Samson would have gotten 30 sets of clothes if he had won his bet with the Philistines (Judges 14:12-20). But since he lost, he had to PAY 30 sets of clothes. And where did he get them? He had to go kill 30 other Philistines and strip them of their clothes... no trip to Walmart with a credit card! Furthermore, used/dirty/sweaty/bloody clothes stripped off of a dead soldier... was STILL SO valuable in that time as to be considered full payment of the bet!!!

Clothing was so valuable at that even clothing that was covered with blood from a Man that had been beaten with a whip was still worth gambling for to get in a "whole" condition... as they did for Jesus' clothing at the cross. Notice that usually they just rip it into pieces and give each soldier a piece... (cloth was valuable even in small pieces) but it was notable in this case that they agreed together not to tear it apart. Today, we treat cloth like that as a bio-hazard and send it to be burned up. Then, bloody or not, it was still highly valued.

Clothing was so valuable that poor people would literally sell the shirt off their backs to buy food... hence the constant instructions in God's word to "clothe the poor" and "feed the hungry." It happened all the time! Poor people who were starving would buy food with their clothes. And clothing was so valuable to NON-poor people that they would be willing to "buy" the last piece of clothing a person owned in order to get some cloth.

So... why fish nude? Because if you only owned 1 or 2 pieces of clothing period, then fishing in that clothing would make it dirty and yucky and slimy and smelly. Some of those smells and stains would never come out, no matter how many times you wash it (which was done by hand). So... the most sensible way to keep expensive clothing in good condition was to take it off whenever the activity was dirty!

And for the record, it is pretty inconceivable that Peter would be the only naked guy fishing in the boat... for the same reasons, ALL of them would have been naked. And it would have been exceedingly awkward if only Peter were nude while fishing!

View attachment 270837
Note this image from less than 300 years after NT times... a bunch of people in boats. All nude.

Real ancient artwork... not "revisionist history." No underwear.

not all clothing was expensive:

Biblical clothing - Wikipedia

just the fancy colors, colors especially purple was hard to manufacture. So josephs coat of many colors for example was pretty fancy and the purple in the temple of the old testament was for royalty.

but you don't hear in the Bible that clothing was expensive. Now days if you sew something it is almost more expensive than to buy it at walmart, but that was not the case in the old testament or new testament. So again this misinformation has to stop.

 

[createdtoworship]

And in case you are not willing to find some ancient artwork showing nude baptism...
View attachment 270838
View attachment 270839

Note... both of these images are from INSIDE churches... the church has not always been so squeamish about nudity.

This one is from the catacombs.
View attachment 270840
View attachment 270841
View attachment 270842
There's simply no explaining why artists would depict baptism this way if it never happened this way!

again let me repeat during the renassaince especially and after the middle ages nude art was to experience the beauty of the body. Since the church, not reformed yet did not have access to bibles, many of the churches allowed it. But notice that after those ages, you don't see it any more. That is for one reason, access to bibles made people read bibles and thus realize that christianity is about modesty.
sources for nude art developing in the middle ages in churches and other areas....
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/numr/hd_numr.htm

"
The development and eventual dominance of Christianity in late antiquity profoundly changed the needs of patrons and the output of artists. Unlike paganism, Christianity required no images of naked divinities, and new attitudes cast doubt and opprobrium on
nude athletics
, public bathing, and the very value of the human body. The early Christian emphasis on chastity and celibacy further discounted depictions of nakedness. In this climate, there was little motive to study the nude, and unclothed figures are thus rare in medieval art. Among the notable exceptions are Adam and Eve, whose story casts undress in an ominous light. In late antique works like the
sarcophagus
of Junius Bassus (ca. 359; St. Peter’s Grottoes, Vatican City), the
ideal forms of Greco-Roman nudes
are transformed into the first exponents of sin. The weakness and defenselessness of the naked man and woman are stressed in medieval art, and this tradition extends into the fifteenth century in such works as Giovanni di Paolo’s Expulsion from Paradise (
1975.1.31
)."

 

[Archivist]

ok, step away from this conversation a bit. Zoom out if you would. Get the whole picture. You admit the christian forums rules would be violated by posting a nude picture. Yet for some reason you think it biblical to go to a nude beach. I just want you to see the contrast here.

CF rules are based on the beliefs of those who run CF. I understand that—they are setting rules for a public forum, and they do a pretty good job. Some Christian churches have armed guards, others forbid guns on church property. Diametrically opposite reactions to violence. That doesn’t mean one side is right and one is wrong.

The fact is that there is nothing in Scripture that forbids nudity. Nothing. Peter fished naked. You say that modern sources say that the was wearing underwater, but that isn’t what the Bible days. It says naked. I will go with the words of the Bible, words that are backed up by ancient artwork. Likewise an early church father tells us that baptisms were done in the nude. His words are backed up by paintings from the period depicting nude baptisms. I will go with what that church father says about what was done, not with a modern interpretation.

Modesty has been portrayed through the ages of the church, in the seventies modesty was questionable, but the church itself flourished during the seventies with the Jesus movement, and there was plenty of modesty there.

Since when were the 70s one of the ages of the church?

So again the burden lies on you to prove that the church itself, the bible itself endorses public nudity.

I’ve done that. You just won’t accept what the Bible says, nor will you accept the writings of an early church father.

I did a quick google search and found a link in a few seconds on biblical garments, it's common knowledge that there was an undergarmet.

And that doesn’t mean that Peter was wearing an undergarment when he was fishing. The Bible says he was naked. That doesn’t mean people were wearing undergarments when they were baptized. Hippolytus says they were naked.

sorry I don't have time right now, a quick google search of biblical clothing should do the trick.

You apparently don’t understand how debate works. You are claiming that you have sources, and those sources include books. A Google search doesn’t tell me that what I might find are the sources that you found. Essentially what you are saying is “I have 12 books that support me—I won’t tell you want they are but because I have 12 I win.” Sorry debate doesn’t work that way. You have provide evidence to support your position.

Besides I don't feel you will accept them. I have posted probably four or five in this thread, and they were rejected outright because they were not "the bible." So again this is circular reasoning, you cannot ask for commentaries, then when given them say that they are not "good enough." That is a circular argumentation which fails

No, that is not a “circular argument.” Evaluating evidence and then accepting or rejecting is is how debate works.

 

[createdtoworship]

CF rules are based on the beliefs of those who run CF. I understand that—they are setting rules for a public forum, and they do a pretty good job. Some Christian churches have armed guards, others forbid guns on church property. Diametrically opposite reactions to violence. That doesn’t mean one side is right and one is wrong.

The fact is that there is nothing in Scripture that forbids nudity. Nothing. Peter fished naked. You say that midterm sources say that the was wearing underwater, but that isn’t what the Bible days. It says naked. I will go with the words of the Bible, words that are backed up by ancient artwork. Likewise an early church father tells us that baptisms were done in the nude. His words are backed up by paintings from the period depicting nude baptisms. I will go with what that church father says about what was done, not with a modern interpretation.



Since when were the 70s one of the ages of the church?



I’ve done that. You just won’t accept what the Bible says, nor will you accept the writings of an early church father.



And that doesn’t mean that Peter was wearing an undergarment when he was fishing. The Bible says he was naked. That doesn’t mean people were wearing undergarments when they were baptized. Hippolytus says they were naked.



You apparently don’t understand how debate works. You are claiming that you have sources, and those sources include books. A Google search doesn’t tell me that what I might are the sources that you found. Essentially what you are saying is “I have 12 books that support me—I won’t tell you want they are but because I have 12 I win.” Sorry debate doesn’t work that way. You have provide evidence to support your position.



No, that is not a “circular argument.” Evaluating evidence and then accepting or rejecting is is how debate works.

well sir we are going nowhere with this discussion. We are sort of repeating comments at this point. So anyway, if you can provide chapter and verse of where people were nude, then we can discuss this. Again taking into consideration all the authorities on culture in the times of Biblical era. As you were not there to see these folk naked, so you technically cannot know for sure. No proof. You must rely on strict textual consideration, and I have dismantled that with numerous commentaries, like I said I could quote ten or more. But what would be the point, you guys have rejected all other sources as biased. I even tried to show that this christian forum itself has a modesty code, which of course you reject. So I am not exactly sure how to help you guys. So I guess thats it. Thanks for the debate.

 

[Archivist]

well sir we are going nowhere with this discussion. We are sort of repeating comments at this point. So anyway, if you can provide chapter and verse of where people were nude, then we can discuss this.

I have done that. You refuse to accept the plain meaning of the words.

Again taking into consideration all the authorities on culture in the times of Biblical era. As you were not there to see these folk naked, so you technically cannot know for sure. No proof.

Plenty of proof. The Bible says Peter fished naked. An early church father says baptisms were performed naked. Surviving paintings from the period that show naked men fishing, naked people being baptized. You are the one who has failed to provide proof.

You must rely on strict textual consideration, and I have dismantled that with numerous commentaries, like I said I could quote ten or more.

You said you had 12 books, then refused to provide a list of what you had. Debate requires evidence. I can’t evaluate what you have if you fail to provide it.

But what would be the point, you guys have rejected all other sources as biased.

Because what you provided was biased. I will go with the original sources. I also provided the comments of Pope John a Paul II on the issue. Last time I check the Pope is kind of important in the Christian faith. You refused to comment on his remarks.

I even tried to show that this christian forum itself has a modesty code, which of course you reject.

I addressed that. I don’t reject the rules of CF. I do my best to follow them when posting.

So I am not exactly sure how to help you guys. So I guess thats it.

Perhaps because I don’t need help.

Thanks for the debate.

Except you don’t want to debate. You want to state your views and have others automatically accept them. Debate does not work that way.

 

[createdtoworship]

Duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

I have done that. You refuse to accept the plain meaning of the words.



Plenty of proof. The Bible says Peter fished naked. An early church father says baptisms were performed naked. Surviving paintings from the period that show naked men fishing, naked people being baptized. You are the one who has failed to provide proof.



You said you had 12 books, then refused to provide a list of what you had. Debate requires evidence. I can’t evaluate what you have if you fail to provide it.



Because what you provided was biased. I will go with the original sources. I also provided the comments of Pope John a Paul II on the issue. Last time I check the Pope is kind of important in the Christian faith. You refused to comment on his remarks.



I addressed that. I don’t reject the rules of CF. I do my best to follow them when posting.



Perhaps because I don’t need help.



Except you don’t want to debate. You want to state your views and have others automatically accept them. Debate does not work that way.

Ok so let me try again here. So right now you have early paintings of a nude baptism and something by the pope confirming it. If you have more let me know. We'll let's just assume every painting is not abstract and that every painting is 100% to be taken as historically accurate. For instance Jesus as a scotish person depicted in 90% of paintings. So even if it was a real depiction of a nude baptism. How can we tell that that is how all churches did baptisms. Secondly I am not sure I say you evidence of it being an early painting besides. I already refired rennasaince paintings of nudity earlier. And that follows with the pope as well. The pope is not our authority. The pope believes he is the Vicar of Christ. Not very Biblical. But let's say that the pope is 100% biblical and theologicall accurate. Who is to say he is right all the time? See I gave numerous commentaries on this as well as providing numerous google searches with the intent that one would double check me and see if I did something wrong but biblical clothing styles are fairly straightforward.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

...So anyway, if you can provide chapter and verse of where people were nude, then we can discuss this.

Ready? Here it is! 3000 people nude together... in the Bible.

Acts 2:41

So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.​

3000 people baptized. Nude. All in one day.

How do we know they were nude? Easy...

• Jewish baptism (the mikveh) requires nudity, and has for all of its history (and still does today).
• The mikveh was a known requirement for anyone converting to the Jewish faith.
• John the Baptist practiced Jewish baptism... and Jesus Himself endorsed John's baptism.
• Jesus told his Jewish followers to baptize new believers in Jesus.
• The majority of the new believers on the day of Pentecost were Jews.
• The new church adopted Jewish baptism for the rite of Christian baptism.
• Early church fathers' writing confirms that the practice of nude baptism persisted for at least 200-300 years after Pentecost.
• Ancient artwork (WAY before the Renaissance) confirms that nude baptism was practiced by the early church.

THEREFORE... when the New testament tells us that someone was baptized, it is ALSO telling us that they were nude for the rite.

Not only does the bible approve of that nudity, but Jesus' command to His disciples could even be understood as mandating it.

 

[dayhiker]

The problem with some of the sources from the last 200 years or so is that I've not been able to find any reference back to NT times. We have documentation of nude baptisms for example from ancient sources, but we don't have documentation that clothes were cheap back then. I would really doubt that we would call them cheap. Raise sheep, sheer sheep, make tread, weave cloth, form clothes and stitch ends by hand. That was a whole lot of time involved in that. Ya more than the 30 mins of work it take me to earn enough cash to go buy a new expensive shirt.