first of all, you christians dont obey or believe in the Law of God , so why even quote exodus ? you hypocrite . so you know what modesty means ? Also, the "command" (its not a command) to dress modestly is for women , it never commands men to dress modestly . Kind David danced in a loin cloth. do you know what a loin cloth is ? by your standards, he sinned , but the ironic part is tha tyou cant hold a candle to David's integrity . Pual tole women to dress modestly and not with costly garments. So costly garments were garments that showed more skin ? that doesnt make sense if being"modest" meant "covering up" . Modest actulaly means humble as in "welcome to our modest home" which actualyl goes in line with the "costly garments" . if you go to churhc in a full suit and tie , you are actually doing the opposite of what this verse you misquoted is saying . Since i believe the Word of God, i agree that a priest is also a person whos nakedness must not be seen . that verse stilil says nothing reguarding other people . sorry you teaching that being naked is a sin is "unbliblcal" and the Bible says that if you teach commandments of men, your worship will be in vain
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
D
Yes Michelangelo is profane. Not only for exposing the nakedness of the people in his paintings and sculptures, but the fact that he directly violated the 2nd commandment "You shall not make for yourself any graven image" by making an image of God in his painting of the "Creation of Adam."
The human body is not evil. However, exposing our nakedness is sinful and forbidden. The reason we are allowed to reveal our nakedness to our spouse is because the 2 become one flesh, and the husband receives authority over the wife's body, and likewise the wife receives authority over her husband's (1 Corinthians 7:4).
The human body is not evil. However, exposing our nakedness is sinful and forbidden. The reason we are allowed to reveal our nakedness to our spouse is because the 2 become one flesh, and the husband receives authority over the wife's body, and likewise the wife receives authority over her husband's (1 Corinthians 7:4).
D
answer my questions regarding Noah and his sons, piano. You seem to be rabbit trailing around that one 
Oh, and show me the verse that says King David danced in a loin cloth. You are all talk but yet you fail to provide necessary Scripture. And let me guess, the Bible says that, while women MUST dress modestly, that MEN are allowed to dress immodestly? You really don't have a spiritual undestanding at all, don't you? This is ridiculous.
Oh, and show me the verse that says King David danced in a loin cloth. You are all talk but yet you fail to provide necessary Scripture. And let me guess, the Bible says that, while women MUST dress modestly, that MEN are allowed to dress immodestly? You really don't have a spiritual undestanding at all, don't you? This is ridiculous.
If you conceed that a priest's nakedness should not be seen then if you are a born again Christian you should not show your nakedness.
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 1:5-6
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Revelation 5:9-10
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1 Peter 2:9
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 1:5-6
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Revelation 5:9-10
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1 Peter 2:9
T
How were people circumcised without breaking this nakedness 'commandment'? Also there were certain diseases I believe that had discharges, that had to be monotored by Old Testament law how were those done?
Also, when I was in High school, I had blood in my urine...so that I had to do some pretty strange tests...the tests were awkward, but also just going into men and women's offices and unveiling my private was so extremely spiritually wierd...Is it wrong even for medical purposes to expose nakedness? It did seem like I was being violated just by having to expose myself to people I had no connection with whatsoever...
IT is so strange to me in ways...
God's light to all
tony
Also, when I was in High school, I had blood in my urine...so that I had to do some pretty strange tests...the tests were awkward, but also just going into men and women's offices and unveiling my private was so extremely spiritually wierd...Is it wrong even for medical purposes to expose nakedness? It did seem like I was being violated just by having to expose myself to people I had no connection with whatsoever...
IT is so strange to me in ways...
God's light to all
tony
Exactly . christians dont know the Bible . they only read John and the pualine letters . "danced around the noah and his sons questions?" let me copy and paste myself from an earlier post .
and to my friend souldierofchrist . if we were literally preists, then we would be sinning grievously by not keeping the many OTHER commands solely given to the priests .
1. He may not marry a divorcee.
2. He may not marry a convert
3. He may not marry a woman who has previously had sexual relations with a man who is forbidden to her, such as a gentile
4. A Kohen (priest)must wash his hands and feet before service Exodus 30:19
5. a priest is not allowed to enter a room with a dead person (funeral) unless it is immediate family (brother sister mother father) Leviticus 21:1
etc
and to my friend souldierofchrist . if we were literally preists, then we would be sinning grievously by not keeping the many OTHER commands solely given to the priests .
1. He may not marry a divorcee.
2. He may not marry a convert
3. He may not marry a woman who has previously had sexual relations with a man who is forbidden to her, such as a gentile
4. A Kohen (priest)must wash his hands and feet before service Exodus 30:19
5. a priest is not allowed to enter a room with a dead person (funeral) unless it is immediate family (brother sister mother father) Leviticus 21:1
etc
D
Piano is just plain ignorant and immature. Fightinglamb, the answer to your question is simple. Women go to the gynecologist to get their vagina's visually and physically checked. However, these same women are not walking around in society, exposing their bodies, despite the fact that they visit the gyno's office. And might I add, if people were so eager to see these same women naked, the women would most likely press charges for sexual harrassment. In the same way, exposing nudity is forbidden. However there are certain circumstances, like the gyno's office, in which exposing nudity is necessary. Circumcision was one of these circumstances. Men who reveal their genitals for the purpose of receiving circumcision, and for the occasional "checks" to determine whether they were Israelites or not, does not, and cannot, in any way, be compared to a society of people walking around naked and fully exposing their flesh.
T
The question that seems to be asked is not, "Was it a sin for Noah's sons to see Noah naked?" But "was it a sin on Noah's part to be naked to beging with?"
Went over that David dancing story, and yes it seems to be wierd too...Look at how Michal responds:
2 Samuel 6:20
And David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants' female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself."--I am pretty sure some private part was to be seen to those who saw it, it seems that way...
Anyway, also women getting mammograms, and giving birth both uncover themselves right???
Lastly, in defense of nakedness being perhaps wrong there is 2 Corinithians 5: 1-10
For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened--not that we should be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
This could be talking mainly about spiritually the soul and sins but seems to suggest nakedness as well...
I thought it one of the list of persecutions Paul listed nakedness as one that he suffered, but since I can't find it I seem to be wrong...
I forgot did you say Jesus was crucified naked or not, because if so it seems to suggest that other people can force you to sin if nakedness is a sin...but also the only other place in the New Testament that comes to mind for me is that passage where Jesus takes of his clothes, and wraps a towel around his waste and then preceeds to wash the disciples feet...it seems kind of strange as well when I have seen it portrayed in movies...
SO if Michelangelo made an image of God and is thus condemned, I suppose any play that has someone portraying Jesus has to be slashed as well, as it is making an image for us...
God bless
tony
Went over that David dancing story, and yes it seems to be wierd too...Look at how Michal responds:
2 Samuel 6:20
And David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants' female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself."--I am pretty sure some private part was to be seen to those who saw it, it seems that way...
Anyway, also women getting mammograms, and giving birth both uncover themselves right???
Lastly, in defense of nakedness being perhaps wrong there is 2 Corinithians 5: 1-10
For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened--not that we should be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
This could be talking mainly about spiritually the soul and sins but seems to suggest nakedness as well...
I thought it one of the list of persecutions Paul listed nakedness as one that he suffered, but since I can't find it I seem to be wrong...
I forgot did you say Jesus was crucified naked or not, because if so it seems to suggest that other people can force you to sin if nakedness is a sin...but also the only other place in the New Testament that comes to mind for me is that passage where Jesus takes of his clothes, and wraps a towel around his waste and then preceeds to wash the disciples feet...it seems kind of strange as well when I have seen it portrayed in movies...
SO if Michelangelo made an image of God and is thus condemned, I suppose any play that has someone portraying Jesus has to be slashed as well, as it is making an image for us...
God bless
tony
so you say that being naked in front of someone you arent married to is a sin, but then you make your own law that it is acceptable if you are going tot the doctor ? you hypocrite . you invent laws that are not laws, and then invent ways to break your own man made tradition .of course NONE of this is in the Bible , but you dont require the Bible to say something for you to teach it as the word of God .
T
I wasn't endorsing in any way esposing your privates or anything like that whatsoever in public...
I think the question I have begun asking is, "Is it wrong/sinful to be naked?" Like I said before, was Noah wrong to be naked before his sons saw him anyway?
I kind of shortened the question to, "Is it wrong to be naked even when it isn't public and nobody sees you?" The offshoots of this question are kind of like Noah, "Is it wrong to sleep naked?" To some extant I believe it is wrong to sleep naked, so I don't...but I am unsure if it is...
But also, the orignial Bible verse and a few others seem to suggest under extreme circumstances from God that PERHAPS he could ask you to be naked either in public or before a few "prophets"...
God bless, I am still pondering this
tony the lesser
I think the question I have begun asking is, "Is it wrong/sinful to be naked?" Like I said before, was Noah wrong to be naked before his sons saw him anyway?
I kind of shortened the question to, "Is it wrong to be naked even when it isn't public and nobody sees you?" The offshoots of this question are kind of like Noah, "Is it wrong to sleep naked?" To some extant I believe it is wrong to sleep naked, so I don't...but I am unsure if it is...
But also, the orignial Bible verse and a few others seem to suggest under extreme circumstances from God that PERHAPS he could ask you to be naked either in public or before a few "prophets"...
God bless, I am still pondering this
tony the lesser
D
King David did not dance in a loin cloth. Your assumption that his "linen ephod" is a loin cloth is the source of your error. And with your error you continue to teach unbiblical doctrines. Friend, you must be careful where you are treading, as it will bring you dire consequences. Let's find out if David was really naked or not:
(2 Samuel 6:14) Then David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod.
And then in verse 20 we see his wife Michal's response to his dancing and ephod-wearing:
(2 Samuel 6:20) And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, "How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!"
Now you think David was naked because of your assumption that Michal's response warrants that he was naked. However, you are incorrect because you have rested on your assumptions, and not on Scripture. Let's look at Scripture. We find the same story written in 1 Chronicles:
(1 Chronicles 15:27-28) David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, as were all the Levites who bore the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah the music master with the singers. David also wore a linen ephod. Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn, with trumpets and with cymbals, making music with stringed instruments and harps. And it happened, as the ark of the covenant of the LORD came to the City of David, that Michal, Saul’s daughter, looked through a window and saw King David whirling and playing music; and she despised him in her heart.
Whoa wait a minute...David wasn't naked at all - like you have falsely assumed and taught wrongly! David was actually wearing a linen ephod OVER a robe. And at the end of the passage Michal is clearly disturbed by this.
Do you know what a linen ephod is? It is not a loin cloth by far. A linen ephod drapes down over the shoulders and extends down to the thighs, held in place at the waist. It was worn by the High Priests, and always worn over other garments. You can see what a linen ephod is by looking at the image below. It is shown in yellow, worn by the High Priest:
So if David was wearing a robe AND ephod, why did Michal get upset? She got upset because David was stripped of all his honorable royal garments, wearing only a linen robe and ephod like a commoner.
Take a look at David's response:
(2 Samuel 6:22) And I will be even more undignified than this, and will be humble in my own sight. But as for the maidservants of whom you have spoken, by them I will be held in honor.
David was not concerned about his royal and kingly position. He disregarded any such elevated office. The Lord demands that we become "like children" before His sight, meaning that we are to forsake all pride and be humble just as a little child is humble. That is what David was doing by stripping his royal garments and dancing in a linen robe and ephod. Michal was upset because of a couple of reasons. One, she believed it was not fit for a king to make such a lowly appearance before the people. She was the daughter of King Saul who himself was filled with pride and lived under his customs of appearing before the people as dignified and elevated. Second, David - without his royal garments - debased himself so that he was seen as equal with the common people, and the fact that there were female commoners present and celebrating with David led her to be jealous and despise David for his justified act. Third, if David is in the practice of debasing himself in like manner, then there would be no significance over, no dignified position above their servants. And for someone who dwells upon such dignity, this is a most annoying problem. She was married to the king, was a member of the royal house, and didn't want to share him with the common people. This is why she responded the way she did.
Please do not take verses out of context and teach things wrongly. Those who become teachers will receive a stricter judgment.
(2 Samuel 6:14) Then David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod.
And then in verse 20 we see his wife Michal's response to his dancing and ephod-wearing:
(2 Samuel 6:20) And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, "How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!"
Now you think David was naked because of your assumption that Michal's response warrants that he was naked. However, you are incorrect because you have rested on your assumptions, and not on Scripture. Let's look at Scripture. We find the same story written in 1 Chronicles:
(1 Chronicles 15:27-28) David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, as were all the Levites who bore the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah the music master with the singers. David also wore a linen ephod. Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn, with trumpets and with cymbals, making music with stringed instruments and harps. And it happened, as the ark of the covenant of the LORD came to the City of David, that Michal, Saul’s daughter, looked through a window and saw King David whirling and playing music; and she despised him in her heart.
Whoa wait a minute...David wasn't naked at all - like you have falsely assumed and taught wrongly! David was actually wearing a linen ephod OVER a robe. And at the end of the passage Michal is clearly disturbed by this.
Do you know what a linen ephod is? It is not a loin cloth by far. A linen ephod drapes down over the shoulders and extends down to the thighs, held in place at the waist. It was worn by the High Priests, and always worn over other garments. You can see what a linen ephod is by looking at the image below. It is shown in yellow, worn by the High Priest:
So if David was wearing a robe AND ephod, why did Michal get upset? She got upset because David was stripped of all his honorable royal garments, wearing only a linen robe and ephod like a commoner.
Take a look at David's response:
(2 Samuel 6:22) And I will be even more undignified than this, and will be humble in my own sight. But as for the maidservants of whom you have spoken, by them I will be held in honor.
David was not concerned about his royal and kingly position. He disregarded any such elevated office. The Lord demands that we become "like children" before His sight, meaning that we are to forsake all pride and be humble just as a little child is humble. That is what David was doing by stripping his royal garments and dancing in a linen robe and ephod. Michal was upset because of a couple of reasons. One, she believed it was not fit for a king to make such a lowly appearance before the people. She was the daughter of King Saul who himself was filled with pride and lived under his customs of appearing before the people as dignified and elevated. Second, David - without his royal garments - debased himself so that he was seen as equal with the common people, and the fact that there were female commoners present and celebrating with David led her to be jealous and despise David for his justified act. Third, if David is in the practice of debasing himself in like manner, then there would be no significance over, no dignified position above their servants. And for someone who dwells upon such dignity, this is a most annoying problem. She was married to the king, was a member of the royal house, and didn't want to share him with the common people. This is why she responded the way she did.
Please do not take verses out of context and teach things wrongly. Those who become teachers will receive a stricter judgment.
- Status