mike wrote:If nakedness was normal and not a big deal, why then would it have been shameful or shocking for the prophets to be commanded by God to go naked? On the contrary, it shows that nakedness was not normal, and was indeed shameful. As to whether it was sinful to go naked, one has to compare that to other instances of God's commanding people to do things that are indeed wrong for God's people today, such as his commanding of the annihilation of ancient peoples. I do not see God's command for certain prophets at certain times to go naked as justification for the normalization of nudity for Christians today.
Cyril of Jerusalem lived three hundred years after the time of Jesus, and I do not accept his rule as having any authority or meaning for Christians today, other than possibly to show, like many others of his time, how far removed from apostolic teaching and example the "Church" had become. Many other rules and practices developed within Christendom by that time which were hardly apostolic doctrine or practice, and which have no authority on us today.
I do not consider the lewd customs of the ancient Greeks and Romans at their public baths to have any relevance to how Christians should live their lives. I find it extremely hard to believe that devout Jews and Christians went about their daily lives naked. The lack of condemnation for public nudity would be similar to the lack of condemnation for abortion, abuse of drugs, or many other vices which Christian teaching may not condemn explicitly, but which nevertheless forbids in principle.
I do agree that situation and motive matter, of course the marriage bed is undefiled, and of course the situation of men swimming together or women swimming together has differing levels of propriety as far as dress goes. But you don't seem to be talking about the appropriateness of nakedness in marriage, but of going about naked in normal public life. And that is where I remain completely unconvinced. There is nothing in Scripture that leads me to believe this should be permitted or be normative for Christians, and there is evidence in Scripture that Christians were expected to dress in a modest, unpretentious manner.
Mike obviously on an Anabaptist forum, everyone will agree with everything you said here-
However, what Jim has pointed out about nakedness had perplexed me as well when reading Scriptures- for example of Elijah & also the reference he made to the Apostle Peter-
(Personally I was always mortified at the thought of nakedness, I started worrying about having to take showers in gym in high school, when I found out about them at 5 years old!)
I read the link as to the teaching of baptism that Cyril taught in his catechism lectures- it seems to me that this type of naked baptism was very symbolic and significant- there looks to be nothing but holiness about this baptism- to me, does not ascribe a 'falling away by then' type of teaching but perhaps 'this passage in Titus 1 applies to how they viewed naked baptism:
King James Bible
15: Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
The link does not say when this type of baptism became in place but perhaps there is some parts of history and church history that do not make it an 'unholy' thing to do but rather a 'holy' thing to do- maybe the problem can be in our own minds- I have difficulty seeing God as causing Elijah to walk 3 years naked to be foul- I will not assume to know everything about all this nor draw the conclusion that this was lewd to baptize this way nor a sign the church had fallen- especially when we read about the life of Cyril- he's anything but lewd or a 'backslider'
This was really off the present topic but I do understand what Jim was trying to convey for 'those' times-
However I personally don't see Cyril as anything but a Holy man of God, teaching Holy things-
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Cyril_of_Jerusalem
I read this teaching about how holy baptism was done & again think of the passage, to the pure, all things are pure- I read what he had to say (although I don't think he was the one who 'started' this type of baptism, was just teaching catechums)
and this man knew the Lord- and the early Church (and really present Church) understand the deepest things of baptism in preparation which are really absent in much of Protestantism & Anabaptism- I tend to believe this 'depth' of it was not an unholiness but the opposite-
Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:
2. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds 2395 . Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree 2396 . For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, ye may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxeth corrupt in the lusts of deceit 2397 . May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on 2398 ? O wondrous thing! ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed 2399 ; for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed.
3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil 2400 , from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree 2401 , and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree. The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence. For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits 2402 , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one. -
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/207/2070036.htm
Not sure how baptism was developed through the years, they don't baptize in the nude now of course but thinking about history, and some things Jim said- well it was true then- and wasn't seen as shameful in 'certain' contexts-
Anyway- I learned something about baptism I had only heard about before- Cyril was a holy man of God, not an apostate though- different customs for different times but not necessarily 'evil' or 'unholy' as we see it in our day- (when Jesus removed His outer garments to wash the disciples feet, I mean- there was nothing vile about that, I am not sure when following Jesus example, do the brethren remove their outer garments too?- probably if not careful- we would see that as 'shameful' today-)
Back to OP