[quote author=errol.burrows link=topic=3853.msg61915#msg61915 date=1160480451] I am reading with great interest all your comments on this subject of nudity. It would appear from what is being saidthat after Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden it is wrong or a sin to be naked anywhere else but in the bedroom. But how do you explain the fact that God told Isaiah to walk naked for 3 years? Isaiah 20:2 at the same time the Lord spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and remove bthe sackcloth from your 2body, and take your sandals off your feet.” And he did so, cwalking naked and barefoot. Would God have made Isaiah to do wrong or sin?
This is an interesting question that has been left untouched. I personally do not think that there is anything inherently wrong with nudity. As everyone has pointed out, Adam and Eve were created nude, and when we are born, we are not born clothed. The human body is a beautiful creation, a creation of God, and everything God creates is good. However, as a result of the Fall, corruption entered into the world, and what was once pure and good has been distorted. Let us think back to the words of Christ, 'The eye is the lamp of the body; so if your eye is clear, your whole body is full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.' (Matthew 6:22-23). If one is pure, then whatever they see, even if it is a naked person, will be pure.
Now, you have pointed out that Isaiah was naked for a period of 3 years. Of course God would not have Isaiah do anything wrong or sin. The purpose of Isaiah stripping goes hand in hand with the prophesy God was having him tell the people (see the remainder of Isaiah 20).
One thing I think people tend to forget, and this is also thanks to movies and painters who wished to be conservative, is that Christ Himself hung naked on the cross (recall that they did cast lost for His clothing). Likewise, when Peter was fishing, he would do so in the nude (see John 21). Thus, just to reiterate, there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity.
yea, Adam and Eve were naked because until they ate from the tree which made them think of nudity in a bad way. and also, we do enter heaven with our bodies, when we enter heaven we reuinte with our bodies like Iqbal said in another thread...
Clothing does not necessary mean undergarments, hence the Lord may not have been completely nude nor the fishermen.
Secondly, we have celestial bodies.
The argument that the Lord was raised in his earthly but glorified body is not compatible with our reality, where we can see that our bodies are corrupted, and rot and return to dust. The Lord was a special case, described by De Incarnate as necessary because His Body could not see corruption.
Let's not get this confused. The celestial deified body of the resurrection is a "spiritual body"- not the "natural body" which was only a seed for the spiritual body. It's not the body we have now, as others have claimed (who relied on the Lord's case, which is fallacious).
Also, with the reference to St. Peter, the NKJV says that "he put on his outer garment"- so this is not a good defense for nudity. Fishermen worked in under garments, and they worked with other men.
Further, remember again that the Lord was to be humiliated when He was on the cross. If anything, the fact that they stripped the Lord from His clothing shows probably that the Romans seen public nudity as humiliating.
It is better to derive that St Peter felt the need to put his outer garment on when he saw the Lord.
Please do not think for one moment that I am somehow promoting exhibitionism. I'm not. I'm just point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with it (as I've emphasized before). With regards to Peter, I suppose it depends on the translation you use. In the NRSV, it talks about him being naked. As for nudity being a form of humiliation, that is quite possible, although I suspect the greatest humiliation was crucifixion itself.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=3853.msg73554#msg73554 date=1183127348] No. Firstly, one isolated incident shouldn't be thought as representative of many.
Secondly, St Peter put his outer garments on- hence he obviously was not nude.
Thirdly, the above statement about the Roman Catholic Church was a cheap shot.
Thanks Thomas, I love the catholic Church. Everyone here knows that. I honestly couldnt believe the comment that some guy wrote below.
We must remember what we say EVERY Divine Liturgy - "We look to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age. Amen."
We are resurrected when Judgement Day occurs. We retain our bodies, our physical appearances. Although, if we were fat on earth, or we had a broken back, or deformed in anyway, I believe that these things will be cured. And I do assume that we will be wearing white robes.
Comments
[quote author=errol.burrows link=topic=3853.msg61915#msg61915 date=1160480451]
I am reading with great interest all your comments on this subject of nudity. It would appear from what is being saidthat after Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden it is wrong or a sin to be naked anywhere else but in the bedroom. But how do you explain the fact that God told Isaiah to walk naked for 3 years? Isaiah 20:2 at the same time the Lord spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and remove bthe sackcloth from your 2body, and take your sandals off your feet.” And he did so, cwalking naked and barefoot. Would God have made Isaiah to do wrong or sin?
This is an interesting question that has been left untouched. I personally do not think that there is anything inherently wrong with nudity. As everyone has pointed out, Adam and Eve were created nude, and when we are born, we are not born clothed. The human body is a beautiful creation, a creation of God, and everything God creates is good. However, as a result of the Fall, corruption entered into the world, and what was once pure and good has been distorted. Let us think back to the words of Christ, 'The eye is the lamp of the body; so if your eye is clear, your whole body is full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.' (Matthew 6:22-23). If one is pure, then whatever they see, even if it is a naked person, will be pure.
Now, you have pointed out that Isaiah was naked for a period of 3 years. Of course God would not have Isaiah do anything wrong or sin. The purpose of Isaiah stripping goes hand in hand with the prophesy God was having him tell the people (see the remainder of Isaiah 20).
One thing I think people tend to forget, and this is also thanks to movies and painters who wished to be conservative, is that Christ Himself hung naked on the cross (recall that they did cast lost for His clothing). Likewise, when Peter was fishing, he would do so in the nude (see John 21). Thus, just to reiterate, there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity.
Secondly, we have celestial bodies.
The argument that the Lord was raised in his earthly but glorified body is not compatible with our reality, where we can see that our bodies are corrupted, and rot and return to dust. The Lord was a special case, described by De Incarnate as necessary because His Body could not see corruption.
Let's not get this confused. The celestial deified body of the resurrection is a "spiritual body"- not the "natural body" which was only a seed for the spiritual body. It's not the body we have now, as others have claimed (who relied on the Lord's case, which is fallacious).
Also, with the reference to St. Peter, the NKJV says that "he put on his outer garment"- so this is not a good defense for nudity. Fishermen worked in under garments, and they worked with other men.
Further, remember again that the Lord was to be humiliated when He was on the cross. If anything, the fact that they stripped the Lord from His clothing shows probably that the Romans seen public nudity as humiliating.
It is better to derive that St Peter felt the need to put his outer garment on when he saw the Lord.
Don't be an exhibitionist.
Please do not think for one moment that I am somehow promoting exhibitionism. I'm not. I'm just point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with it (as I've emphasized before). With regards to Peter, I suppose it depends on the translation you use. In the NRSV, it talks about him being naked. As for nudity being a form of humiliation, that is quite possible, although I suspect the greatest humiliation was crucifixion itself.
Really??
What for?? Why did he do that for?
When I see what the Catholic Church has become today and the stuff they do, i guess that I can totally see where it came from then.
Secondly, St Peter put his outer garments on- hence he obviously was not nude.
Thirdly, the above statement about the Roman Catholic Church was a cheap shot.
No. Firstly, one isolated incident shouldn't be thought as representative of many.
Secondly, St Peter put his outer garments on- hence he obviously was not nude.
Thirdly, the above statement about the Roman Catholic Church was a cheap shot.
Thanks Thomas,
I love the catholic Church. Everyone here knows that. I honestly couldnt believe the comment that some guy wrote below.
My apologies
"We look to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age. Amen."
We are resurrected when Judgement Day occurs. We retain our bodies, our physical appearances.
Although, if we were fat on earth, or we had a broken back, or deformed in anyway, I believe that these things will be cured.
And I do assume that we will be wearing white robes.
This would make the most sense.
Pray for me,
Severus