tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post6364372600956819810..comments2024-03-27T02:22:55.403-07:00Comments on The Biblical Naturist: The BEST Blog Comment From a Non-Naturist… EVER!!!Matthew Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-80650685661010939772016-06-09T05:10:14.330-07:002016-06-09T05:10:14.330-07:00the intresting nuance in the verse of 1 Tim.2:9,is...the intresting nuance in the verse of 1 Tim.2:9,is the meaning of the word modesty.Modesty in this instnse is not actually and in particular associated with clothing.Modesty here refers to a sound mind,a sound demeanour,and a submissive and respectfull behaviour.The further context of this passage speaks about the conduct of women,and it must be seen in the context of the pagan worship that had woman as priestesses,boisterous and assertive,using sex as worship rituals.<br />Paul speaks of a behaviour that is oppositeto the temple priestesses.It does not refer to clothing per se,but conduct,and by virtue of the clothes that one would wear,it was not to be intimidating,seductive,over embrouded or an over adorning of jewelry,it speaks in the greeg text more of a dressing down than dressing up.Being a naturist or a nudist,means,though I am naked(and in my estimate,nakedness is the willing and publick exposure of the genitals ,visibly observed),one can be modest in nudity...and immodest as a textile.<br />In this context,Paul refers ro women who are submissive and humble,and teachablee.In a broader sense it speaks of "being on the backckgroound,discreet in reaction,and reserved in opinion and conduct".<br />Modesty may involve clothing,but mostly refers to expressive behaviour.I can be a textile,and be modest,that is,be teachable,humble discreet,not assertive,and teachable.Modesty in this context refers to a sobriety or soberness of mind,and applying it to today and this age,it means,though I am a nudist or a naturist,I do dont yield to immoral and promiscuois behaviour.As a nudist,I sanctify my nudity to Christ,and express Christ in my life and my behaviour.I express the fruits of the Spirit.As a nudist Christian,I will not now use my nudity as an excuse to sin.<br />The interesting part of being a nudist is,that God never cursed the nudity.He never cursed the nakedness of Adam and Eve!God cursed the sin that would corrupt innoscence.Nudity is not sinfull,neither does nudity bring about sin.Sin is concieved in the mind by choice.If I associate nudity only with sexuality,nudity will not be the sin,but what one does with the nudity.If my nudity and my being a nudist is not sanctified unto the Lord,I will not live a natrist/nudist life to honour God.<br />My nudism is concecrated to God,and with my body,and my genitals,I will do nothing to seperate myself from the love of Christ or my union with Christ.Even though I am a nudist,and a Pastor,my nudity is not offensive to God,because my identity is not that of a nudist,but Christ as my Life.My nudity is concecrated to Christ,which means,my body and genitals are concecrated to Christ.I will not share His temple,His Spirit of which my body is his temple,with a foreign or apposing spirit.My body belongs to God,and all of it,and thereby,I also have concecrated my nudity to God.<br />Modesty does mean clothing in general,modesty is expressing Christ...and whether one is a textile or a nudist as a Christian,it is still the same Christ.<br />As a Nudist Christian,my body is his temple.The temple of Israel was never covered,rthe tabernacle was never hidden,it was set in the midst of Israel for all to see,and within it dwelt the presence of God.<br />As Christians,we ought to be proud nudists...our bodies are the Temple of God,and we need not hide it.Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16198252199003545983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-78686741059296306302014-12-12T18:48:48.702-08:002014-12-12T18:48:48.702-08:00Matt,
Thank you for your time doing the study of t...Matt,<br />Thank you for your time doing the study of the Bible needed to look in depth in these things. <br /><br />Here is my question: Do you think it is possible that Katastole is a class of garment? Have you considered that Kata in Katastole could be describing a lower class or simple stole? In other words he is telling them to not wear ornate but simple garments. <br />Thanks.<br /><br />DaveAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08209244937927293734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-72136261092506498322014-04-10T04:40:22.137-07:002014-04-10T04:40:22.137-07:00matthew, you highlight a very interesting paradox ...matthew, you highlight a very interesting paradox on flesh and lust in Christian dogma and in the actual following religious tenets. As you rightly point out "The lustful response in men IS ASSUMED in the church today". Never expected to find such high quality philosphical discussion on a naturist thread ;-)David Millerhttp://www.nudistdating.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-13869566979785713712014-03-20T13:46:06.460-07:002014-03-20T13:46:06.460-07:00Hey, Anon. Thanks for your participation.
I did a...Hey, Anon. Thanks for your participation.<br /><br />I did address the issue of Isaiah's "Garments of Praise" in one of the followup comments to this post. I hope you got a chance to see it.<br /><br />Just to comment on what you offered as a definition for <i>katastole,</i>, I'm not sure your definition ("costume appropriate to the occasion / social setting") really aligns with the etymology of <i>katastole</i> that's been discussed. I'd be interested in understanding how you arrived at that definition.<br /><br />Thanks! Feel free to write again!<br /><br />— Matt Matthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-26859905759785464812014-03-20T12:00:12.698-07:002014-03-20T12:00:12.698-07:00I popped in here mostly by accident, and got intri...I popped in here mostly by accident, and got intrigued. Christian involved in translation work, naturist by leaning more in the circs than practice.<br /><br />When it got into language, I got active. katastole shows up once in the Septuagint, Isaiah 61:3, the "garment" of praise. The corresponding Hebrew etymologically is "covering" but is found nowhere else. The Syriac uses in the verse a word meaning cloak. In 1 Timothy 2:9, the Syriac just has "clothing". My Greek dictionary for katastole gives "arranging, equipment, dress ..."<br />Evidence is, what is being said in these passages is not gender specific. Isaiah 61: is clearly unisex. Nor is a specific style implied, I should say.<br /><br />Rather the unifying meaning seems to be "costume appropriate to the occasion / social setting".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-166836681340801482014-03-03T11:12:23.514-08:002014-03-03T11:12:23.514-08:00Thanks for your comments, Dave. You still get the ...Thanks for your comments, Dave. You still get the prize for the most positive comments from a non-naturist EVER (although Kyle's comments were great, too!).<br /><br />I have personally had very close exposure to the ministry of Bill Gothard--and in many ways, I have benefited from his teaching--so I am deeply grieved to see the reports of all sorts of abuse that have surfaced through the RecoveringGrace.org website.<br /><br />You are absolutely right about the fact that ONLY the abuser is responsible for abuse, no matter what the victim is or is not wearing. <br /><br />I find it very interesting that you said that this does not "justify going to the beach naked." Perhaps not, but think about it for a minute... if our society DID permit public nudity at the beaches (or even other public places... parks, swimming pools, gyms, or our own back yards) then there would be little or no basis to EVER blame the "naked" one for any abuse perpetrated on them. If full exposure were common, then no one would ever blame the exposure for the crime!<br /><br />But the idea that the victim is to e blamed more than the abuser is actually woven in the fabric of our churches' teaching and practice... consider this:<br /><br />When have you ever heard it taught that men must learn to NOT lust after women... <i>no matter how much of their skin they see??</i><br /><br />Never, right? <br /><br />The lustful response in men IS ASSUMED in the church today. Therefore, the ONLY path to keeping lustful men at bay is to tell the women to cover up. And so you know what happens? Men "automatically" lust when they see "too much" female flesh. Hey... the church has unwittingly <i>sanctioned</i> it!<br /><br />So, yes... there is way to much at stake to be silent.<br /><br />Please write me directly, David... I'd like to interact with you some more... perhaps I can support you further in taking this message to your church.<br /><br />{contact AT thebiblicalnaturist DOT com}<br /><br />MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-77197071007974833872014-03-02T08:41:57.037-08:002014-03-02T08:41:57.037-08:00Hi Matt,
Thanks again for the thoughtful response...Hi Matt,<br /><br />Thanks again for the thoughtful response and analysis. Based on your reply it is quite safe to conclude that there is no requirement in 1 Tim 2:9 to keep a certain amount of skin covered.<br /><br />My reason for concern is to combat the notion that victims of sexual assault are “at least partly” to blame for the assault because of the clothes they wear. Some legalistic Christians will cite 1 Tim 2:9 and say “See? if you hadn’t broke God’s command for modesty this would not have happened to you.” The most damnable examples of this were found in Bill Gothard’s ministry, as documented on the website Recovering Grace. <br /><br /> http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/04/how-counseling-sexual-abuse-blames-and-shames-survivors/<br /><br />In this example, even young children are told they are partly to blame because of their “immodest” clothes: <br /><br />http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/04/how-lessons-from-moral-failures-in-a-family-blames-victims/<br /><br />Of course, none of my thoughtful evangelical friends would ever say that to a 6 year old. But no one has ever been able to address the questions: when, between age 6 and age 26, does the victim become partly to blame? With what immodesty, between a burka and a bikini does it become partly her fault? (As an aside, I very much appreciate your post on the objectification of women.)<br /><br />This is not a mere abstract exercise, and certainly not just to justify going to the beach naked. For the sake of these victims of assault, we must make war on the notion that lust and sexual abuse are the fault of anyone other than the luster and the abuser. <br /><br />If there is going to be a change in our culture, it must be led by Christians, specifically Christian men. I say that not because of my complementarian theology, but because a simple flowchart of the problem shows that any solutions have to start with men. I must take this message to my church, and to all who will listen. There is too much at stake to be silent.<br /><br />Thank you again for your commitment to the Bible as your authority. I hope that the time you have put into this blog is rewarded, and more people are set free the way I have been.<br /><br />DavidDavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-33843383474434784432014-02-25T06:02:25.610-08:002014-02-25T06:02:25.610-08:00Kyle, Great comments!!
You are right... even in E...Kyle, Great comments!!<br /><br />You are right... even in English, the 1 Tim. 2:9 passage is NOT about "keeping covered," because the obvious intent of Paul's teaching is the avoidance of ostentation, rather than the avoidance of skin.<br /><br />Unfortunately, however, in Christian culture today, definition #3 has become the FIRST definition of the word "modest," and so it has been forced upon the passage to teach a man-made rule. It has then been used to measure spiritual maturity and holiness. Col. 2:20-23 warns us against doing that.<br /><br />Speaking of how modern translations are "squeamish" about nudity, have you read my blog series about <i>Squeamish Translating</i>? http://thebiblicalnaturist.blogspot.com/2012/01/squeamish-translating-prologue.html<br /><br />I do believe that the <i>Textus Receptus</i> (from which the KJV was translated) is the most accurate Greek version of the NT, but I would hesitate to call the others "corrupt." I don't believe the differences impact any core doctrines.<br /><br />Thanks for writing, Kyle. Feel free to contact me personally at {contact AT thebiblicalnaturist DOT com}<br /><br />— MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-6140004169726331402014-02-24T14:48:22.691-08:002014-02-24T14:48:22.691-08:00Hello,
I am also a non-naturist (a very curious a...Hello,<br /><br />I am also a non-naturist (a very curious and sympathetic one) who would like to add to the discussion. I believe that the translation in Timothy in the KJB as "modest apparel" does not cause any trouble to your viewpoint at all. When read in the context of the whole passage women are supposed to be humble with what they wear. They are not to proudly boast about their station in life by what they wear (like many women do in ultra-conservative churches i.e. expensive haircuts manicures pedicures, designer clothing, excessive makeup, excessive jewelry, special superior clothing from "modest" manufacturers...). It is interesting that it refers to the "apparel" that is "not" to be worn somewhat specifically, but merely says that says that a woman should be generally modest and clothed with "with good works." Christians need to use a dictionary more often. Here is the definition of modest (from dictionary.com):<br />mod·est [mod-ist] Show IPA<br />adjective<br />1.<br />having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.<br />2.<br />free from ostentation or showy extravagance: a modest house.<br />3.<br />having or showing regard for the decencies of behavior, speech, dress, etc.; decent: a modest neckline on a dress.<br />4.<br />limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc.: a modest increase in salary.<br />Origin: <br />1555–65; < Latin modestus restrained, decorous, equivalent to modes- (stem of *modus, an s- stem akin to modus mode1 , perhaps < *medos, with the vowel of modus; compare moderārī to moderate, from the same noun stem) + -tus adj. suffix<br /><br />It is interesting that only the third definition fits the standard evangelical/fundamentalist view of this passage. The first two primary definitions do not! The scriptural usage in context seems to clearly be referring to a humble, moderate, and unpretentious manner. In this light, I find the story of Tabitha's resurrection interesting.<br /><br />On another note, you should check out the problems with the modern bible versions. They all contrast to the KJB dramatically in places because they come from corrupt manuscripts. I find it interesting that the KJB is the non-prudish version. I recommend doing a search on the passages suggesting nakedness in the NIV and other modern versions. It makes for an interesting contrast.<br /><br />Thank you so much for your efforts in the pursuit of controversial truths!<br /><br />Blessings in the Lord Jesus Christ,<br /><br />KyleKylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-17853389704566475852014-02-13T07:08:32.899-08:002014-02-13T07:08:32.899-08:00Thanks again, David.
A couple of quick responses....Thanks again, David.<br /><br />A couple of quick responses... <br /><br />First of all, the "v" on <i>katastole</i> making it <i>katastolev</i> is the Greek letter equivalent to the English letter, "n" and that is how it is pronounced. In English, we do not change the form of nouns according to their case, but in many other languages, they do. I'm pretty sure that's what's going on there. In English, we only adjust our pronouns according to case (I/me, she/her, they/them, who/whom).<br /><br />I also took a closer look at the Isa. 61:3 passage. Examining what I can of the original Hebrew, it's still a bit confusing why the LXX translators would choose the Greek word <i>katastole</i> for the Hebrew word <i>ma'ateh</i> (H4594). <br /><br />As you might imagine, Isa. 61:3 is the ONLY place that the noun <i>ma'ateh</i> is used in all the scriptures! So its meaning is also somewhat ambiguous. However, the root word that its based on is the verb <i>'atah</i> (H5844), which does mean "to cover, enwrap, wrap oneself, envelop oneself." So, the translation of <i>ma'ateh</i> as "garment" does make some sense. The mistake for us would be to conclude then that <i>ma'ateh</i> was a typical garment of some kind. There are other words in Hebrew that have that meaning and they were not used here.<br /><br />Based on its etymology, I suspect that <i>ma'ateh</i> should more accurately be translated as "covering," "drape" (as a noun), "mantle," or "shroud." <br /><br />One of the ways the root word is used is in reference to mourners of the day, who (I believe) would crouch down on the ground, throw a piece of cloth over themselves, and wail. If I'm right, that cloth shrouding them could be called a <i>ma'ateh</i>; it was a covering that completely enveloped them, but not exactly what we would think of as a "garment" today.<br /><br />The point here is this: we cannot use the LXX translation of <i>ma'ateh</i> to <i>katastole</i> and combine it with the the English translation of <i>ma'ateh</i> to "garment" to conclude that <i>katastole</i> must therefore be a garment!<br /><br />If we were to base our understanding of <i>katastole</i> on that logic, we'd better be prepared to dress our women in burkas... shrouded completely like the meaning of <i>ma'ateh</i> suggests.<br /><br />— MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-7742240028867900272014-02-10T19:06:33.454-08:002014-02-10T19:06:33.454-08:00Thanks for the detailed reply to my question. My k...Thanks for the detailed reply to my question. My knowledge of greek grammar and syntax is almost non-existent (I plan to take a course in basic biblical greek in a few months). I have to admit, I am not surprised that you had already done the research on that particular point, based on the thoroughness of your other posts. I’ve found several other christian naturist blogs, but quickly discovered yours was the best use of my time in finding sound biblical reasoning. (As an aside, I should have also said at the outset I agree with your main argument in the other post that the passage has nothing to do with preventing lust.)<br /><br />You make an excellent point that the definition I found treats kata like a verb, I had not picked up on that. Also a good point that stole in biblical use is a male garment indicating status, I had not made that connection. Seems like that pretty well rules out the notion of katastole being a specific female garment of “modest” social status in the 1 Tim 2:9 context. Excellent example also that the etymological methodology of simply splitting the word in half can be very misleading. Obviously stole has a modern meaning, but if you plug καταστολη (katastole) into google translate (which I did off of a greek website with context) it means “repression” and actually fit with the flow of the modern greek sentence. <br /><br />You are probably already aware of this, but in googling καταστολη I found that it is used in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 61:3. It appears that the hebrew words rendered καταστολην δοξης (katastolē doxa) (note the extra v at the end... not sure what that means) in the LXX are translated in the ESV as “the garment of praise” (contrasted with “a faint spirit”, so probably not a literal garment). The hebrew word (H4594) translated katastole in the LXX also only has one occurrence, so that doesn’t make it any easier! I have no knowledge of hebrew either, but it seems like a sound logical inference that katastole is not a common female garment in the first century. Also, the greek lexicon at Stepbible.org defines katastolē as appearance/behavior, which fits well with the Rightly Dividing article. <br /><br />I have really enjoyed the process of trying to figure out what this word katastole means. Thanks again for the prompt and through reply! I am going to read over your “naturist by biblical conviction” posts and formulate a reply to discuss some of my concerns.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-73532516074100651122014-02-09T05:19:08.268-08:002014-02-09T05:19:08.268-08:00I've worn stoles in choirs. By themselves they...I've worn stoles in choirs. By themselves they cover nothing; they're entirely ornamental, an indication of rank for priests and acolytes and choir members (who may be considered modern-day "Levites"). Is it possible that the verse we're studying commands women to "put OFF" (kata) their merely ornamental indication of rank (stole)?jochanaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14143066702059757955noreply@blogger.com