Romans 14

Romans 14 is highly relevant to the naturist - textiler controversy. Paul was speaking of not judging anybody for adhering to Jewish dietary rules. In like manner nobody should judge anybody for being either a nudist or textiler. Verse 5 is paraphrased, "Let each person make up his/her own mind." Verse 10 says we should not judge, because we all must face God's judgement. Verse 14 is paraphrased, "Nothing is unclean in itself. But if a person believes it to be unclean, then it is unclean to that person."
Verse 13 admonishes don't put a stumbling block in the path of anybody. If you are nude in a clothing compulsory situation, then you are putting a stumbling block in the path of the textilers.
Verse 17 is paraphrased by, "The kingdom of God is not about whether to wear clothes, but is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." Regardless, we all seek Jesus for the same reasons. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

This topic was edited
RE: Romans 14

That comes up a lot in the bible, and every single time it's clear they're talking about exposure to the elements. Stuff like "you were hungry, I fed you, you were naked, I clothed you" means this is some kind of health issue, not shame. It gets cold at night in that part of the world.

This post was edited
RE: Romans 14

I've always suspected they were literally trying to camouflage themselves with leaves. I doubt they'd be able to actually make -clothing- out of leaves, they just wove together a shrub costume and hid under it.. here naked/exposed means 'highly visible in a green garden because you're flesh-colored' just my theory though.

This post was edited
RE: Romans 14

TY NIM now a bit More of MHO

The first sacrifice of a animal, most likely one single lamb was as a picture of the ultimate sacrifice to come the Lamb of God Jesus Christ. A single raw hide (divided in two given to the two who were one flesh) as Jesus was the one and only sacrifice as payment for all sin past present and future. The OT shedding of blood was for the covering of sins, the symbol of the sacrificial Lamb Jesus Christ, Jesus' shedding of blood is/was for the washing away or remission of sins. When the payment of sin was made by Jesus Christ on the cross we who believe on Jesus are restored to God to be as God created us to be, naked unashamed.
Heb:9:22: And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Genesis 3:21 - Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
[Coats of skins.] The Hebrew [kaatnowt (heb 3801) 'owr (heb 5785)], coverings of skin, because the latter word is singular, not plural: one skin was sufficient for both. There are some, says Kennicott, who will have the word ['owr (heb 5785), skin] in this passage to refer to the skin of Adam and his wife, and the meaning to be, "The Lord God made for the first pair coats or coverings of their skin." But the Hebrew word would in that case have been in the plural, with the pronoun suffixed to it, "their skins." Besides, it has been proved that the Hebrew word is nowhere found with any other meaning than signifying the skin of the lower animals. There is indeed one place where the word SEEMS to denote the skin of man . I say seems, because all the versions are not agreed to give it that meaning here, the Samaritan text referring the word to the skin of a beast. Yet, if we understand the word to signify human skin in that place, it is used so differently from what it is in this passage of Genesis, that, but little service can arise from the observation. '
There can be no doubt that the skin of a beast is referred to, a portion of which would be fastened as belts around their bodies, which was all that was needed; but since they could not have dreamed of such a mode of covering themselves, unless an express order or permission had been given them by God-- for they had not been invested with the right over the lives of the inferior animals-- so it is distinctly said that "the Lord God made them the coats of skin," and in all probability showed them how these were to be prepared for a covering. The mention of an occurrence so apparently trivial in the midst of a solemn history must have arisen from its association with some other transaction of higher importance, and that was none else than the institution of animal sacrifices-- an institution undoubtedly of divine appointment, adapted to the capabilities of men in early ages, and designed to transmit the instruction given as to the only acceptable mode of worship for sinful creatures, by faith in a Redeemer, through the medium of a symbolical rite, which impressively reminded
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
If one was being banished from the Garden of Eden into a cursed place of thistles and thorns a piece of raw lamb hide would be very useful on a type of belt (like tying two of the legs together to hold it around your waste) It would be well needed for sitting on or even laying on while covering themselves as they sleep at night and being bit by misquotes. As for being a type of clothing nothing could be further from what they needed to survive. Keep in mind the raw hide covering was given to them during the time they were being cursed.

This post was edited