Dear Boyd,
thankyou for putting together some well reasoned material. The possibility of Jesus being mistaken for a gardener after the resurrection particularly excited me.
The first Adam was meant to be/ remain the keeper of God's perfect garden. It seems that Our Second Adam, the first born of all Creation, was rightly identified as both a good gardener and righteously naked.
Along with Kent Hovind and many many others I am a six day literal creationist. I personally believe that the evidence is overwhelming. Yet the status quo of this romanish world cannot behold the simple truth of it - preferring a sophisticated fable to the unchangable truth. Everything from Barry Setterfield's work on the decay of c to Halton Arp cosmological observations on the quantized galactic red shifts confirm to me that the book of Genesis can be trusted. So for me, God saying that Adam and Eve were naked and that everything was "very very good" sets the bench mark for any discussions re: sacred nudity.
As I see it the only clothing that YHWH has ever delighted in is the very aura of the Holy Spirit or Ruach Ha Kodesh, as Messianic Jews might prefer it said.
Thanks for the feedback on the article. I hope it helps.
I'll have to admit that my little jury is still out on the literal seven day creation week, especially if you include everything, earth, planets and all.
It says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth", and did not give a time line or when "beginning" was.
Then it goes on to say how the earth became "in confusion". God did not start the creation this week. God is not the author of confusion.
Maybe the earth was around for about 5 billion years. Why not? that does not in any way remove the validity of the story of Adam and Eve. What that comfirms is God's endless time frame. If he wanted to create all of heavens and earth billions of years ago, thats fine with me. After all, most of the stars (points of light, which includes suns, planets and galaxies) took billions of years to reach the earth, along with the millions of years it took for closer ones to reach the earth. So they had to have been created long before this seven day creation week!
To the early man, those points of light looks like a bunch of little lights covering the earth. They had no concept of galaxies, and billions of galaxies at that, millions of light years apart, along with their planets, many of them hundred times larger than the earth itself!
Now God may have taken a "week" to rebuild the earth. In respect to stylized writing of the "Eastern" thought, these seven days could mean anything. Seven time cycles, seven days to tell each part of the story, seven points to a creation story, almost anything. Then again, it may just mean seven days. I like to call it the "recreation" week, along with a few new additions.
We sometimes forget (or never knew because we were never taught) that even though the bible is inspired by God and that the truth written in it is about our relationship with God and how God thinks, it was never written to be our history book of scientific fact. Therefore, apocolypses, verbal stories and traditions which was written hundreds of years after it was passed down over the generations, cannot be "absolute" in it's literacy. Especially when number symbols are involved. That does not mean God did not created heavens and earth. Of course He did! But in this literal way? I would have to say it may be something we just have to wait and see.
I wouldn't try to make that story stick so hard that all the proof in the world otherwise would make others feel we are crazy, therefore, refusing to believe the truth of Jesus and his works of salvation. Now that is something we need to focus on and let the creation week be a symbol of what God is doing for mankind through Jesus.
Now, compare the creation of Eve through Adam to Jesus' (the second Adam) death and resurrection, you have a wonderful story of how the church was created in three days! Cool huh?
As for nudity, sure, we were created that way. Even evolutionists have to admit that orginally, we were "created" naked. So no matter how you slice it, nudity is how we started out (and continue to start). Why we should be shocked or dismayed by the sight of another human being in their natural state is preposterous!
Thanks again for your feedback and additional thought, and we all hope you continue to come here.
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
Dear Boyd,
thankyou for the response. "Day-age" theorists wrt to Genesis 1 are not uncommon. Genesis 1.1 to 1.2 "Gap theorists" are not uncommon.
And you are right in this respect; neither of these theories detract from Adam and Eve being made directly by the hand of God and being glorious, naked and righteous. But the alternative to the plain reading of Genesis as a Historical account does detract from the integrity of Jesus in an important way. Jesus quoted Genesis saying that from the beginning of creation God made Adam and Eve, male and female ... If Jesus' words cannot be taken at face value as being correct and literally accurate then one could argue that he wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit in everthing that he said and did. That would leave "sinners" with a problem. Which of Jesus' words could be treated as accurate and which could not?
Also you are making common "assumptions" that there is no scientific empirical demonstrable validity to. eg. Why assume that the speed of light has been constant for all time? Why assume that radioactive decay rates have been constant? Why assume that fundamental constants have been constant for all time? What Barry Setterfield and others have argued is that Planck's constant times speed of light is a legitimate constant but that c has changed. If he is right then all assumptions about the apparent size of the universe are wrong. It is that simple. There are "heaps" of evidences but one must have "eyes to see, ears to hear" and be prepared to let old baggage paradigms pass away.
By the way, the Jesus you iconographically portray at the top of this page is a little troublesome. The reality I suspect is that He was whipped and beaten to bearly recognizable as human. You have a rather beautiful "model" of a man. The bible says He had no stately form, no comeliness that we should be attracted to Him. I think the real picture might have been utterly hideous in the cruelty and suffering it portrayed.
The second point is that the cross is empty now. He died once and is risen forever more. The repeated sacrifice of Jesus is what Roman Catholics are on about with their eucarist - which is something that is simply repugnant to the truthful gospel account. Rabbi Shaul/ Paul said "once and for all", Jesus said, "it is done".
Mel Gibson's film got it right. A naked Saviour walking out of the tomb to the beat of a drum. He is coming in power this time. Prepare ye the way of the LORD.
You wrote, "Jesus quoted Genesis saying that from the beginning of creation God made Adam and Eve, male and female ...If Jesus' words cannot be taken at face value as being correct and literally accurate then one could argue that he wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit in everthing that he said and did."
I never said that the creation of Adam and Eve is not valid. I simply stated the "literal" account of a seven day creation week may be more poetic and story based to illustrate God's greatness and story of mans relationship to God.
I am not saying there never was a garden of Eden or that God did not create man and woman in the way it was told. I am simply pointing out that the earth may very well be billions of years old and if so, then even the creation week can still be valid.
The mistake people make is that they assumed that the Earth itself was created during that week. God said "let there be light" and absolutely that is true. But to make the claim that the entire universe and earth was created during that week, is probably taking our assumptions too literally. It never said that the earth was created that week. It said "in the beginning, God created the heavens and earth." That "beginning" is not stated "when the beginning was" but simply "beginning". Later, could be billions of years later, the earth became void and in confusion. In other words, it needed cleaning up. Dinasaurs came and went, heat waves to freeze overs, earth quakes and many things a life of a planet goes through. Eventually, God cleaned it up, but didn't remove the evidence of it's ancient age. We still see the scars of land changes and burial grounds of ancient life on earth. (Ancient life being animals)
Gods' spirit was hovering over the waters, and I can imagine the watery state the earth had gotten into. So he spent the next few days "cleaning it up" and reorganizing it, each day with a different part. I can believe that and still not throw the Genesis account out the window.
What Jesus said is true.
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
I am not confused, Genesis 1 is prima facie evidence of a highly significant type
April 24 2006, 4:48 AM
Dear Boyd, thankyou for your response,
and I am not confused by what you have written.
by catagory you are either a "gap theorist" or "a day- age theorist". Both theories are dealt with ad nauseum elsewhere. For a starter one might spend several month going through the Creation Ministries International website or the Answers in Genesis website.
but I will deal with one of your comments immediately. "The mistake people make is that they assumed that the Earth itself was created during that week".
these words constitute a "judgement" on your part. You call people mistaken if they believe that the earth was created during the seven days dealt with in Genesis 1.
You cannot prove that the earth was not created during those 7 days referred to. You cannot prove that anything existed before those 7 days or that even time existed. In Exodus 20 it says expressly that YHWH made the Heavens, the Earth, and all that in them is.
Also, Paul, Rabbi Shaul, says that by one man's sin death entered into this world. Your theories suppose that animals died, came and went, prior to the sin of Adam. That would be a contradiction to the plain reading of Rabbi Shaul's words. As a rule in reading scripture if there is any doubt as to meaning take the most obvious plain reading of the text as being what was intended.
That is why, for example, I believe that there is such a thing as a "baptism for the dead". see corinthians.
I could go on for days about the fossil record (sic), about astronomical anomalies, geological anomalies - but in the end the evidence does not constitute a proof of the mathematical type. the ultimate question is what type of God do you worship. One that gave a straight forward accurate even though sparse account of what took place or One who gave a vague poetical representation.
The question is what type of book is the bible. A supernatural feat or one containing the frailties of man's corrupted thinking.
I have only been looking at scripture for 20 odd years. To me the bible is both an impregnable fortress and a soft pillow to rest one soul upon. Going from hebrew or aramaic or greek to english might have created some difficulties with understanding some things, and there may be a few dozen trivial scribal errors that creat difficulties with geneologies. but there isn't one significant doctrine about who God is that is affected by these things.
"Then it goes on to say how the earth became "in confusion". God did not start the creation this week. God is not the author of confusion."
I've never seen anything that said the Earth "became" anything differant than how God formed it. Every Bible translation I have (and I just checked them all...) state that the Earth "was without form, and void...", or formless and empty, or something equivelant. To me, that just says that at first He created it, than He fine-tuned it. It's like cutting a sculpture our of rock- first you do the rough cuts to get the basic shape, then you go back and do the details.
"Now God may have taken a "week" to rebuild the earth."
Rebuild it from what, or for what reason? Could you clarify a bit?
The Standard Version would say "And the earth was waste and void;..."
Modern KJV says "And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"
Yes, it is without form and void. But is that why God's spirit was upon the face of the waters? Why is a planet that is without form and void, have waters on it? And it is "waste", which is not how God would create something.
Here is another clue:
Without form and void:
"Jeremiah 4:23-27; Isaiah 24:1; 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels.
See Ezekiel 28:12-15; Isaiah 14:9-14 which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon." (Taken from The Bible Collection Software)
This shows satan's fall and cast to earth. Can you imagine the destruction of that fall? sounds like that big meteorite that may have changed the climate of the earth and killed off all (most) of the dinosaurs. Many times the earth has seen climate changes and destruction. But this last go, God came and put the earth back in order and put man on it for a special relationship with Him.
Here is a link that shows "And the earth was [or became — see Gen. 2:7; Strong's: hayah]"
"The word was above is an improper translation of the original word "hayah" whose proper translation is "become, come to pass". Thus it should read the earth became void. This same word is properly translated throughout many other places in the Bible such as Ge 2:7 and Ge 9:15."
It's a beautiful story and I would not argue the age of the earth any more than argue exactly where the garden of Eden is located. That really doesn't matter. What matters is that God is in control and has the whole world in his hand. Again, the bible is not a scientific book on the geological age of the earth. For some people, if you can prove without a doubt complete with scientific data to back it up, you still cannot convince many that God created the earth, in any amount of time!
The theories I mentioned does not in any way take away from the account of Genesis or anyones salvation.
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
I haven't got time to rebutt all the salient material herein immediately.
I will deal with just one line,'
quoting Boyd "Why is a planet that is without form and void, have waters on it?
the plain reading is that the earth was nothing but a sphere of pure H2O. and absolute vacuous darkness.
the "naked apostle", Peter, says that "out of water" the earth was formed. see his epistles.
note: Japanese researcher Dr. Emoto on the properties of water crystal formation. water seems to have memory? and The ability of water to respond to "spoken words" is just one very interesting albeit philosophical confirmation of scripture.
the hebrew in question is "tohu v'bohu" and apparently can have both meanings,ie. "laid waste and desolute" as in a destruction or "unformed" as in a clay sculpture that is largely unworked. the hebrew can only make sense in an absolute sense when weighed against every other reference to the creation account.
the problem is that "gap theorists" will cling to the notion that death took place before Adam's sin - scripturally incongruent and without scientific evidence that would meet forensic standards.
I knew the part I threw in about the water was as weak as...well...water.
But you said "the problem is that "gap theorists" will cling to the notion that death took place before Adam's sin". Why not? The dinasaurs died didn't they? They existed before Adam and Eve.
When God said that they you eat of the tree, you will die, did he mean a physical death or a spiritual death? If physical, Adam did not die that day as God proclaimed that he would.
I don't think "death" as a physical thing existed only after Adams sin. Life and death is a constant in the universe. The only One who doesn't die is God, and even HE put himself in a position to die for our sins.
So far the 7 day creationist who thought the whole universe was created those seven days, only about 10,000 years ago really thought it through about the dinasaurs and other ancient artifacts. Did God put those there to fool us? Was the light of galaxies that took millions of years to reach us was to trick us into thinking it's older than it is? Is God that shallow? I think the wonder of the universe and its vastness is more proof of the Ancient of Days and his awesome power!
The more I see of the universe and what this earth has gone through, the more I see God and his power in it!
So we were created only a few thousand years ago, I can dig that. But to make all things happen in those literal seven days only a few thousand years ago is short sheeting the bible. I can see how God can say "A thousand years is like one day and a day like a thousand years".
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
Dear Boyd,
you are really starting from ground zero on this issue.
Quote: "The dinasaurs died didn't they? They existed before Adam and Eve."
Air breathing land dwelling animals including dinosaurs were created on day 6 with Adam and Eve. There is abundant evidence that dinosaurs existed after the flood and that they have become extinct since then with only a few surviving through to this day, see Zaire swamp lands,
Quote: " I don't think "death" as a physical thing existed only after Adams sin"
the words, "I don't think" doesn't constitute forensic evidence.
the remainder of your speak is based on presuppositions that are dealt with ad nauseum at web sites such as AnswersInGenesis, though I don't expect you will be ever able to review their rhetoric or believe in it.
you haven't even been able to vaguely countenance the implications of a decay in c as proposed by setterfield et al
Your evidence is about as strong as mine and it doesn't really matter.
What got us on this silly debate, I dont' know, but I think we can get back on naturism. There is enough subject material about naturism that we don't need to continue this one.
hi,
I read Morris's book Geneses Flood in about 1980. It helped me in many ways to see how powerful the Genesis flood was, but even then it felt force to try and explain all of the fossil record and the current geography as being a result of the global flood. 26 years later I still have the same impression. Geologists are missing a great idea to explain the world by ignoring the flood and recent creationists are still forcing things.
This forcing is seen in the flood would create a lot of heat and that heat would kill almost everything that the creationists need to servive the flood for life to go on after that flood.
I'm sure looking forward to the history class we'll get in heaven!
dayhiker
the flood would create a lot of heat [from latent heat of condensation] only if the majority of the water came from the heavens. if most of the water came from subterrranean vaults heat wouldn't be an issue. you might consider looking up walt brown, retired airforce physics lecturer on this issue. walt has done a very interesting model called i believe the techtonic hydroplate theory which seems to explain nearly everything about the flood except what started it.
I see you all hit one of the Bible topics I’ve found interesting for over 30 years.
I’ve enjoyed the writing for the recent creationist as well as people like Hugh Ross. I’ve recently read some of Phil Johnson’s stuff.
The main problem I’ve had with the recent creationist ahs been with how they deal with the fall of Lucifer to Satan. My understanding of scripture is that the angels were created before man’s creation. And I’d put Lucifer’s creation before the 7 days of creation. I actually for to talk personally with Ken Ham about the angel creation and fall 4 years ago or so. He agreed with me that the angels are same time universe that we are in. We disagreed on the time it would take for the angel creation and fall to run its course.
Because of Lucifer’s fall there was sin before Adam’s fall. But we aren’t told how that sin effected the created world. Adam’s fall clearly brought a judgment upon the creation.
But the real question in my mind is time. The recent creations seem to say God created the Angels, Lucifer had pride develop in his heart, he deceived a third of the angels and the waged some sort of war against God in a few hours of their creation. So now Satan is ready to be the snake in the garden within days of their creation.
In my mind this means that the Angel creation is not a creation of beings that God cares about. They are just put in place so there are there to play their role. I think the Angel creation is a creation that God worked with in much the same way God works with the human race. So Lucifer’s pride took time to develop. It took time for angels to hears Lucifer’s plans talk among themselves and choose who’s side they were going to be on: God’s or Lucifer’s. There was no salvation for the fallen angels as they weren’t created in the image of God.
So I like the gap theory as a time for this angel creation to take place. I don’t see the gap theory as a time for the fossil record. There is one big mystery to. It seems to me that angels and demons are a different class of beings. In my mind angels would find the body too confining. So demons that want a body would seem to have had a body before as they want to be in a body now. Demons also seem to have pretty limited influence compared to angels.
Some of my thoughts. I call it speculation theology. Clearly there is a spirit world that has ties to a physical world that God has only given us the briefest of a glimpse into.
Dear day.....,
It is a while since I've thought about this subject specifically but is it possible that Adam and Eve lived in Eden for a hundred years before they fell.
There would have been ample time for Satan to become jealous of their relationship with God.
Satan is described elsewhere as having been brought low because of Pride Wisdom and Beauty and the dillusion that he could occupy the throne of God. This creates a question as to whether he saw the throne as being empty and why no angel seems to have known what Jesus looked like. He at the very least was a beautiful angel preeminent in a superdimensional space.
Kent Hovind is one man with some very well reasoned material on creation and he personally subscribes to the notion that the fall of man was a considerable time after their creation.
Perhaps the "gap" in peoples thinking about time is actually between Genesis 2.25 and Genesis 3.
Then there seem to be another group or class of angels that fell to become the Nephilim or Rephaim.
It is this group that seem responsible to the later day Alien encounters so many have reported. They are superdimensional beings with damaged souls or bodies. It seems that the "equipment" that they used to fall to earth for the sake of "women" damaged them irrepairably.
there is some fascinating stuff/ material out their about the later day "as it was in the days of Noah" presence of Nephilim - Chuck Missler is one author on it; and yes it is speculation theology.
Your right that the time from Adam's and Eve's creation till the fall isn't defined. So it could be a long time.
I think there are issues that come up if its a long time tho. Clearly their reproduction orgams would be functioning properly. I see no reason they would put off having sex. So this brings up two issues. Why would they put off having children? This is one of three commands they were given. Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. The other two was to tend the garden and to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve being who they were as beings by creation I think would have naturally been leaders and so would have tended the garden. Also with their bodies function normally, I beleive they would have desired each other and so would have had children pretty quickly.
Unless they intentionally planned (birth control) to not have children.
anways, more speculation, so my thoughts have been that there wasn't a lot of time that passed between ceration and the fall. Anyone can beleive what they want on this, as it can't be answered as its not told us. My thoughts have led me to say the extra time for Lucifer to become Satan is before the 7 days of creation. But we aren't told for sure so I'd never say anyone else is wrong in what they think.
again, it is a while since I have had a serious look at this aspect to creation. but I am vaguely aware that the talmud/ kabbalah has some significant things on it.
that is such a huge piece of writing and contains so many false rabbit trails/ incorrect stuff, that I haven't bothered much with it, but I am aware that the talmud/ oral law does contain "some" good insights/ material.
I am saying this speculatively but there is scriptural evidence that the fall had a sexual component to it. it just seems possible that Adam and Eve's first mistake was to delay intercourse and that such a mistake might have been only on the part of Adam.
I will pursue the topic with some karaite jewish friends when the chance comes up. it is possible that lucifer got a foot in the door even before Eve listened to him lie about the fruit.
it is a big story and not one I am dogmatic on.
the physical / scriptural evidences for a recent creation are powerful in their own right. what group of angel rebelled when, what they used, when they interacted with women is all in a shaddowy zone. the book of enoch calls them "watchers" - that in itself says something about a "bigbrother" aspect to this creation.
I have been reading this forum for just a few weeks. Because of two almost full time jobs, I have very little time to respond to things. This reply is an abnormality. Don't ask about the two almost full time jobs. I'm old enough and have been walking with the Lord long enough to hear that small quite voice, and listen.
My wife and I are Christian nudists. Christian first, nudists second. I think it was in the FigLeaf that there was a discussion about which word should be first, Christian or nudist. Well, this is where we stand. Because of this forum, the FigLeaf and prayer, we are very comfortable with being Christian nudists. How we started down the path of nudism, don't ask. It would make a small Russian novel.
I am far from being a Bible scholar. Just someone who reads what and when he can, and dosen't pray nearly enough.
Enough of the background. About ten years ago, I read the book Aliens & Fallen Angels by Steve Quayle. This book deals along the same lines as satan and the Nephilim. I just went back to his web site to make sure the book was still aviable before I made this post. I am blown away at the amount of reading material there now. Don't know if that is good or bad.
Thank you all who post to this forum. Sorry Boyd for being off topic and thank you for the amount of time you put into this forum. I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Sorry if I did. I'll just go back to my room and close the door.
Just trying to keep a
LowProfile
thanks for the reference to Steve Quale. I for one will look through it when the time is available.
I would hope that the readers of this forum are mature enough/ stable enough to look at some difficult topics. the bible says that "steel sharpens steel" and it is hoped that the body of Christ can engage in healthy debate about the truth of God given scripture and what some of their deeper implications are.
the case for nudity is not a "quick easy" topic - and it needs the book of Genesis for a foundation to the case. God said that everything was very good - that included a naked Adam and Eve. Genesis 1 is a platform for simply "EVERYTHING"
You might be right.
there are theories though that antidiluvian man had some fabulous technologies - even that his technology was what caused the flood. and lets face, it no-one knows how the Giza great pyramid was built - the serious statistics on it are bizarre.
you might like to do a google on antidiluvian artifacts. Kent Hovind does a few things on it. William Branham believed that nuclear explosions caused the flood. what is certain is that the cataclysm resurfaced the face of the globe and that anomylous archeological findings are actively supressed. see giant human skeletons as one example.
Once again the question comes up- which should come first, the "Christian" or the "Nudist"?
That's a good question, but how you answer depends on the context in which you are speaking.
If you mean in life, i.e. how you act, of course "Christian" should always come first. But , if you mean in spoken language, well... that get's a little stickier, dosn't it?
Many people say "nudist Christian", and probably just as many say "Christian nudist", and each group has it's reasons I guess. Many people that I've heard say that they always say "Christian" first make a common mistake, though.
They say, just like I mentioned, that they say "Christian" first because it's the more important of the two. If that's true, though, it should be the other way around, shouldn't it?
If you say "I'm a Christian nudist", the word "nudist" is the noun, and the word "Christian" is just an adjective that modifies it. You're actually saying that being a nudist is important, and oh, by the way, I'm a Christian, too.
But if you say "I'm a nudist Christian", the word "Christian" is the noun, and "nudist" is the adjective, right?
What you are saying about modefying adjectives is correct.
Judge: David-Wynn: Millar, deals extensively with legal fiction and the corruption of language and the dumbing down of the public education system.
Infact if you want to maintain a noun status you have to hyphenate the two nouns and in that case if makes virtually no difference which comes first.
ie. "Christian-Nudist" and "Nudist-Christian" are the same nouns as far as I know. when you speak it is ,of course, impossible to distinguish a hyphen because they are not usually pronounced (except in hair splitting legal issues) so in a spoken sense the words sounding like "nudist christian" and "christian nudist" could be contrued as adjective and noun. my thesis is that every Christian who is a Christian is implicitly a nudist.
Christian of course simply means "indwelled-of-the-Holy-Spirit" from Christos, annointed one.
correct me if I am wrong but the apostle Paul says that every one is naked before God whether they know it or not. All things are laid bare before him.
in this case Nudist-Chrisitian or Christian-Nudist are both tautological constructs
better just to tell people you are a Christian and explain what that really means.
if people have a problem with the actual human nudity that can be expressed in a public way perhaps they are not pure; or have a very weak sort faith. If they have a very weak faith you will need to explain the fall of man to them, ie. the gospel from scratch. if they are not pure they desparately need God, it is that simple.
king david danced his way into Jerusalem with nearly nothing on. the heavenly jerusalem which comes down is made for a royal priesthood. ie all of the levitical laws are abrogated by virtue of the change of the priesthood to that of the order Melchizadek - which leaves only the royal law and the perfect law of liberty in Christ Jesus. and the end of the issue of clothing is in the book of revelations where it says that white robes are actually righteous acts. nothing done in the Holy Spirit is sin, nothing done without Him isn't. please correct me if I am wrong
as with Brother Branham I wonder if the rapture won't only be in terms of thousands of people for the whole earth. not many got out of sodom and gomorrah and not many made it through the flood.
Very interesting thoughts from both of you. I wouldn't go so far as to say that people who have a problem with nudity, especially Christians are not real Chrisitans or "not pure". I would go so far to say that we all, including the most faithful, learned, experienced pastor/educator needs to learn more from God.
I wouldn't call myself "pure" except for the fact that Jesus made me pure. My naturism will not make me better than anyone else because I know they have stregnths I do not have.
We are all given certain gifts, and no gift is greater or better than any other gift. All spiritual (and physical) gifts are given to serve the church just as a community is served by different gifts and talents of that community, ie baker, builder, farmer, seamster, potter, artist, musician, teacher and leader. In our case, we have a gift of appreciating what God has created in humamity, including the body itself. All we (naturists) are doing is adding to the stregnth of the church.
Where we are being foiled is by pastors who hasn't gotten the idea yet and refuses to go any further. As one pastor said (and I think it's posted somewhere here in this forum) "I am not interested in the truth, I just want to be a good pastor". How can one be a "good pastor" without truth? Since God is truth, he would be saying that he is not interested in God!
Yes, the truth is, we are naked before God, even fully dresses with armor on!
Also, it is written, "Glorify God with your whole body"
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
You wrote basically what I have been saying here explaining why I say "Christian Naturist" instead of "Naturist Christians", because I wanted "Christian" to come first.
I was speaking symbolically of course, but you are correct. I never understood all of the laws of language (English in this case) and still have a lot to learn.
I have often told people I know two languages, English and Southern, and I'm still trying to learn the English!
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
