This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Why Women Wear Head Covering in Church

  While I am on a roll here, I will address another problem involving women and the church–head covering.  “For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have
her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.”1 Cor 11:6   This is weird Scripture.  But a clue lies in something weirder – “ and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head. . .” 1Cor 11:10.

Recently the Book of Enoch has come back in fashion because it was used as Scripture by the New Testament writers.  Enoch fleshes out the skimpy story of the Watchers in Gen 1:6. Here we learn that the Watchers were supernatural beings who mated with earth women producing a terrible species of giants.  We also learn that the Watchers were condemned.  The were not being allowed to return to their home in the spiritual realm. Thus their spirits still roam the earth seeking  bodies to get back in to.

These angels are the ones mentioned above, still watching.  What is the thing about the hair?  Well, we know now that in New Testament times, a woman’s hair was very much connected to her sexuality, even in the minds of the medical profession.

So bottom line, the women were not told to wear a head cover out of some inferior position but wear them to protect themselves from the watcher angels still attracted to women.

Readers can get into all this by reading Michael Heiser’s book Super Natural which I have recommended before.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sane people believe this weird junk? Sexually active watcher angles?

guy faulkes said...

Millions of people, Goofus. Not just Christians. Your inadequate education in this matte is shocking.

Anonymous said...

Guy, Blogger, may I make a comment on St. Paul's letters to the early Christians ?

For what it is worth, isn't it possible that Paul and other apostles, the early Church fathers, were acutely aware of the times and the pantheistic cultures they lived in ? I have heard and read since my early youth that Paul appeared to be very anti-woman, etc. Yet, decades ago, a wise man gave another explanation for Paul's advice re: the fledgling faith and its early converts.

Considering that time period, isn't it possible, even probable, that Paul wanted to emphasize, to distinguish, the acute differences between this new faith and the sexually explicit rituals of the polytheistic religions and societies of the ancient world ?

guy faulkes said...

Anything is possible and to all things there is a season.

What is your opinion of the Gospel of Mary? Do you think it should have been included in the Bible?

Anonymous said...

Frankly, Guy, I do not know. It is certainly not for me to say. Based on my poor knowledge of that 'gospel', it appears to me to be rather catholic.

Blogger said...

Guy, If you have not already done it, Google the history of the Gospel of Mary. There is a lot of material there.
As to books left out of the Bible, one interesting one that more and more scholars are saying would have been good to include in the canon is the Book of Enoch. The reason they say it is important was because it was quoted by several of the New Testament writers and hinted at in others. So, if New Testament writers studied it and thought it important, perhaps it should have been included. I have not had time to study why it is not Scripture. I bought it on Kindle and it is well worth studying. The Book of Enoch fills in a lot of the gaps in the Genesis story which is very important.

Anonymous said...

Blogger, I have a copy of the Book of Enoch. Some say, however, that there are editions that are not the true, original Book of Enoch. I do not know, although it is interesting.