veiling and the book of enoch

[ViaCrucis]

I would like to know (if anyone can tell me) the origins of and an explanation of why women cover their heads in church and men do not. Further, why it is that it would be a sign of disrespect for a woman not to cover her head and a sign of disrespect for a man to cover his head (in church).

My understanding is that it was a Greek thing. "Proper" women covered their heads.

Though, for what it's worth, Paul may have intended this to be facetious, insofar as he goes on to say that if anyone disputes this that it's not the custom of the Apostles or the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[merryheart]

please, elaborate. thank you.

If you read the book of enoch, you will find that it tells a story of fallen angels called watchers who lusted after human women, and used them as incubators for their evil offspring. If such a thing had happened, and I were a man, I would hide my mother, wife and daughters anyway I could think of. what a horror.

Lets say this is true --- I would say in that case covering women, hiding them is perfectly justifiable while such an abomination is occurring. To continue to do so long after the abomination is remedied, and the reason is forgotten is superstition and fear.

If it is just a tale and never was true - then we go straight to the bogeyman type of superstition as an origin of the practice.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
please, elaborate. thank you.

If you read the book of enoch, you will find that it tells a story of fallen angels called watchers who lusted after human women, and used them as incubators for their evil offspring. If such a thing had happened, and I were a man, I would hide my mother, wife and daughters anyway I could think of. what a horror.

Lets say this is true --- I would say in that case covering women, hiding them is perfectly justifiable while such an abomination is occurring. To continue to do so long after the abomination is remedied, and the reason is forgotten is superstition and fear.

If it is just a tale and never was true - then we go straight to the bogeyman type of superstition as an origin of the practice.

The abomination is reading it from the gitgo.

 

[merryheart]

The abomination is reading it from the gitgo.

how so?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
The abomination is reading it from the gitgo.

how so?

it glorifies all that is the antithesis to Who God is. That is an abomination.

 

[Wally Cleaver]

"Blasphemy, heresy, and abomination are tossed around like 'awesome' was in the 80's." - me

 

[brinny]

"Blasphemy, heresy, and abomination are tossed around like 'awesome' was in the 80's." - me

ok.

 

[razeontherock]

The abomination is reading it from the gitgo.

Jesus quoted it, and Churches hold it to be Scripture. I think you need to re-examine your conviction here.

 

[merryheart]

it glorifies all that is the antithesis to Who God is. That is an abomination.

so that reading it to see if it agrees with the Bible or not for yourself is an abomination? I didnt find it glorifying anything other than God FWIW.

It states that the giants born from the union of human woman and fallen angel were 300 cubits... I find that a bit tough to believe literally...

The first known manuscripts of it are very old, and it is known to have been verbal lore previous to that. It is almost certainly corrupted. however the early Christians absolutely did read it, as did the Jews at the time of Jesus and even 1000 yrs before that.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
it glorifies all that is the antithesis to Who God is. That is an abomination.

so that reading it to see if it agrees with the Bible or not for yourself is an abomination? I didnt find it glorifying anything other than God FWIW.

It states that the giants born from the union of human woman and fallen angel were 300 cubits... I find that a bit tough to believe literally...

The first known manuscripts of it are very old, and it is known to have been verbal lore previous to that. It is almost certainly corrupted. however the early Christians absolutely did read it, as did the Jews at the time of Jesus and even 1000 yrs before that.

There is nothing new under the sun. Abomination is abomination. Since the fall, man has gravitated towards abomination. This includes churches that are full of wolves in sheep's clothing, and always has been.

 

[SanFrank]

The veiling, seclusion, forgetting to mention the names of women may have different origins than you think… Consider the books of Enoch to which the bible refers… the books of Enoch were written well before new testament times and before that were passed down orally to the people in that part of the world. The Bible refers to them, and Jesus speaks in the same terms used in them when He calls Himself the "Son of Man"

Whether they are truth or not is irrelevant, middle easterners definitely did regard them as true at one time. In the book of 1 Corinthians 11, some want to cover the women to keep the angels from lusting after them, to which Paul replies that "we have no such custom in the church" yet this passage has itself been used to cover Christian women as well.

For the record, I think that covering or secluding women is a misguided approach to their protection, but even in the OT women are referred to as veiled and covered - even though it was never commanded.

If Paul with the Spirit of G*d said women should use their hair as a covering during prayer, than that must be right. It means he had inside information on angels that we don't.

 

[SanFrank]

Jesus quoted it, and Churches hold it to be Scripture. I think you need to re-examine your conviction here.

which sayngs are you referring to

so that reading it to see if it agrees with the Bible or not for yourself is an abomination? I didnt find it glorifying anything other than God FWIW.

It states that the giants born from the union of human woman and fallen angel were 300 cubits... I find that a bit tough to believe literally...

The first known manuscripts of it are very old, and it is known to have been verbal lore previous to that. It is almost certainly corrupted. however the early Christians absolutely did read it, as did the Jews at the time of Jesus and even 1000 yrs before that.

I really don't remember any mention of 'veils' in the book of enoch. Fallen angels, yes, but no veils.

 

[merryheart]

which sayngs are you referring to


I really don't remember any mention of 'veils' in the book of enoch. Fallen angels, yes, but no veils.

right. veils are not mentioned

but they are in Corinthians said to be needed because of the angels (and then refuted)

 

[razeontherock]

"Blasphemy, heresy, and abomination are tossed around like 'awesome' was in the 80's." - me

This is incorrect. "Awesome" was tossed around in the 90's.

 

[razeontherock]

which sayngs are you referring to

Here's a couple, off the top of my head:

Luke 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry??

Luke 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body [is], thither will the eagles be gathered together." (Also in Mat 24:28)

 

[Booko]

This is incorrect. "Awesome" was tossed around in the 90's.

I think the 00s are more like "epic"

 

[razeontherock]

I think the 00s are more like "epic"

And "Brah," can't forget yer "brahs." Especially when it's epic

 

[SanFrank]

Here's a couple, off the top of my head:

Luke 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry??

Luke 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body [is], thither will the eagles be gathered together." (Also in Mat 24:28)

This is of interest to me. I do remember similarities in characters like 'head of days' and 'son of man' but those quotes escape me and a quick search didn't uncover them in my copy of enoch.

Another researcher found relevance in only the first book (within the enoch volume) out of the five. And that book does not have 'head of days' or 'son of man'.

 

[razeontherock]

Well i don't know how a researcher would go about not finding relevance. I suppose which version you read is HUGE. Our own poster SummaScriptura has made available a version which painstakingly "gets it right." It is that one I read, some 5 years before finding CF.

Small world

I don't think anything about Enoch comes by a "quick look" though. Chew it thoroughly and it's Jesus Christ, through much of it. There are also parts that only give their meaning when read with a certain ring - the predecessor of the breakfast cereal "secret decoder ring."

I think that is enough to make it non-Canonical, but it still gives amazing Prophesies of Christ. I think the biggest single reason for considering it important, is that the Jews rejected it upon dis-associating with the Church. If they thought it that dangerous, there's gotta be some Power there ...

 

[smaneck]

Interesting post, but the Bible does not refer to the "book of Enoch"

It quotes it:


1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

(King James Bible, Jude)