There are debates about the wearing of the Hijab by women in Western countries. Interestingly enough, the New Testament, explicitly says that all Christian women should wear the hijab
The word hijab comes from the Arabic word "hijāb, which refers to a veil or partion.
St Paul only stated that women should cover their head in Church and while praying.He didn't mention the word hijab.
As for praying unceasing, this was normally only practiced by ascetics from amogst Monks and Nuns.
In strict Orthodox Christian communities the women do cover their heads in Church, usually with a head scarf, but they don't go around the streets with their heads and faces covered.
Indeed. Was meant to have expanded to say that most don't have an issue with women wearing a Hijab, it's the Burqa people take issue with, which the bible does not mention
Come on, Simon. You're showing your bias and your ignorance and lack of research. It took me about a mintue to find the full quote, but you, a historian, couldn't find this information?! I find that hard to believe. You'd have to willfully misquote St. Paul and others in order to extrapolate your nonsense interpretation. And one has to ask, why?
Here is the full quote from St. Hippolytus:
St. Hippolytus of Rome ca. 170-235
When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens shall pray by themselves, apart from the believers. And [all] women, whether believers or catechumens, shall stand for their prayers by themselves in a separate part of the church. And when [the catechumens] finish their prayers, they must not give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure. Only believers shall salute one another, but men with men and women with women; a man shall not salute a woman.
And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering. (Apostolic Tradition Part II.18)
He clearly references women veiling whilst in church, not all the time. The other Church Fathers who spoke on this subject reference women veiling in church. Not all the time.
Likewise, St. Paul references women veiling in church and in official liturgical functions, as was the practise for centuries. Nothing in St. Paul or the Fathers say women should wear a veil 24/7 or wear anything akin to Islamic dress.
Mr Webb suggests that "The next time that we feel inclined to make slighting comments about Muslim customs [ie. religious dress-codes in public], we might bear this in mind!".
I am sure he knows he is missing the point. It is not about what rules to follow according to religious texts/books.
(And his advice is misguided, as this practice is now antiquated and foreign. It needs to be confronted — see below.)
It is about whether the national/regional people's culture have choosen to follow these rules or not.
Because culture changes (Mr Webb and everyone knows) over time/generations, then (some) rules will be abandoned.
Western people have made this change (eg. religious practices/expressions are a personal/private matter not to be flaunted in public), muslims have not.
·
Currently, the cultural muslims (eg. the veiled ones, therefore being extremely religious, according to english culture) disrespect english people's (changed/evolved) culture (here: dress-codes), and exploit english people's freedoms, which they have not earned but being given for free.
Thus, they need to be confronted in public places and told to respect english culture: its dress-codes and that religious practices is a private matter.
This is what is called 'integration', ie. foreigners/new-comers learn/are taught/shown the host people's way of life, which is what muslims do to new-comers in their countries.
·
That, is an argument for the english people (and non-english, eg. a refugee from Iran were veil-less women are harassed and criminalised) when confronting/integrating a cultural muslim:
–'We do not like hypocrites! It is fine if you want to live (more or less) in/with muslim culture, but then you need return to your own people.'
·
And, as the veil is a symbol of muslims' culture, then it is a question if a veiled one wants blasphemy law and (still) have non-english 'values'. — Most do not:
1) 2024-Apr-06 The Telegraph: "Just one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel":
–"(52 per cent) of British Muslims want to make it illegal to show a picture of the Prophet Mohammed".
–"(32 per cent) want to see Shariah law implemented in the UK".
·
2) 2016-Apr-11 Channel 4/ICM Research: "C4 survey and documentary reveals What British Muslims Really Think":
23% support the introduction of Sharia Law;
52% do not believe that homosexuality should be legal in Britain.
·
Disregarding this kind of muslims' disrespect against the english people's way of life/culture, it is not their fault: –the english have been too polite/nice/understanding, which is why they are now paying the price:
1) 2025-May-09 Simon Webb (Substack): "Britain has effectively introduced a new blasphemy law, but one which applies only to Islam";
2) Simon Webb/History Debunked (YouTube):
2025-Mar-24: "How the [PRESENCE] of Muslims adversely affected the village of Chew Moor in Lancashire";
2025-Mar-19: "Slowly, but inexorably, Islam works its way into every aspect of English life…";
2024-Nov-23: "How come Muslims now run London, the BBC and the British judicial system?".
·
14th Dalai LAMA (it is a title, his name is Tenzin Gyatso), one of our times most valued persons and renowned spiritual inspirers, says that England should not become a muslim country:
·
2019-Jun-27 Daily Mail (BBC interview):
–"They themselves, I think [are] better in their own land. Better [to] keep Europe for Europeans."
–"A limited number is OK, but whole Europe eventually become MUSLIM country? Impossible. Or AFRICAN country? Also impossible."
·
A note: The problem/worry/danger of veiled/cultural muslims is not their PRESENCE, but their (increasing?) numbers.
English people will be nice and make exception if they are few, just like they do not require sikh men to follow the Law by wearing a motor-cycle helmet (because of the blanket).
The bible has also lost the teaching of christ. Was changed by Roman men kings etc, Peter was made head of the church even though Christ said Mary should be the one they went to. But let's not get upset, men have used religion to control the world and women for ever thankfully christ walked with women beside him not behind him as second class but as equals. He also taught God was within , no one could mediate on your behalf, buying a stairway to heaven and blood sacrifice was barbarian. Hair was covered to protect from sunlight and attracting sex mad fallen angels sons of rebellion and hatred of Gods will, so who has the most laws and violence towards women showing their hair? Fallen angels or men or are they one in the same group?
"Peter was made head of the church even though Christ said Mary should be the one they went to."
This is a laughable heresy! Get going and find the scripture that supports your ridiculous opinion! I'll fetch the popcorn and await the result of your scholarly research! 😂
So there you have it. St. Paul also states that in Christ there is no man or woman. With the coming of Christ, another way was put forward other than brutality . Muhammad codified brutality. Islam is also the ultimate political game changer ( backed up by the threat of hellfire and damnation in the afterlife) with the death sentence for good measure if you leave whilst on Earth and one cannot help thinking that they still adhere to wearing biblical dress both as a political gesture and as a mark of moral superiority.
Dear Louise, were you named after St. Louise de Marillac, who suffered until she found God's plan for her life?
The Protestant rebellion began as a looting operation and it's ending as a clown show. I don't blame anybody for rejecting such a shallow and opportunistic ideology. Atheism however, is a pernicious mix of narcissism and nihilism. Have you ever heard Sister Wendy talking about the art of Catholic Rome? These three geniuses were inspired by true faith. They struggled with the internal conflicts of belief and these treasures were the results. This is not lost to us but waiting to be found.
Dear Martin ~~ Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I too love the magnificent art inspired by the Church -- I spent four wonderful months in Europe in my youth. Italy in general and Rome in particular were the highlights of that trip. The sculpture, painting, and architecture were breathtaking. And don't forget the glories of Medieval manuscripts! While I must somewhat disagree with your assessment of Atheism (I am no nihilist), I agree with you and Sister Wendy (whose videos I love) in crediting the Church for the soaring expressions of beauty and the divine.
I have loved Greek and Roman mythology since childhood. I have read Harris, de Botton, Hitchens and Dawkins, as well as Karen Armstrong's many books and Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages." Nicholas Wade puts it all together for me in "The Faith Instinct." Joseph Campbell and the King James Bible (I still have my Confirmation Bible in red leather with my name embossed on the spine) both have places of honor in my bookshelves. So I hope you see that I have not rejected religion out-of-hand. I just find it impossible personally to reconcile the transcendent with the immanent. I try to balance appreciation with respectful non-belief.
I close my reply with an acknowledgement of the good churches do. I live now in the American South, and respect the many good works my religious friends do in the community and beyond. I do what I can, as well.
Dear Louise, in your first reply to Mr Webb, you said you were "glad to be an atheist" but now you seem to be more agnostic. I call this progress! 😇
My wife is from Rome, so I have benefited from many private tours of her eternal hometown. In return, I once took her to visit St. Paul's in London. Architecturally, it is a marvel of perspective, every line is perfect but immediately, I realised she was profoundly disappointed with the building as a place of God. In comparison with even tiny chapels in Italy, with their devotional imagery, St. Paul's is a cold and sterile place, with no soul. Not unlike the English themselves!
I think your concern about God being immanent and transcendent, is the heart of many people's personal conflict with God. "If God is all powerful, why should he be concerned with me?"
Such thoughts lead naturally to the question of why God allows evil in his world? I reposted a short video about the subject of Logos on my YouTube channel in which Dr. E. Michael Jones deals directly with these conflicts. He is a very controversial and contentious scholar but I think on this occasion, he provides a clear explanation of the history and philosophical concepts of Logos.
This video changed my entire world view and although that is too much to ask for anybody else, I believe that EMJ's message is essentially positive and hopeful. There is a reason for existence, we are not just a collection of chemicals, wandering aimlessly through time and space. We should be graceful and thankful about being here!
Fortunately we're not Middle Eastern goat herders who practice genital mutilation so there's absolutely no reason why any British person should take any notice of what the Bible says.
Well... actually if one reads the early church fathers veiling of the face is mentioned clearly countless times. In Greece free women veiled themselves quite complete. I'll explain it a bit better: Greek women covered themselves with all kinds of pieces of cloth as a veil – from the cloak they pulled up over their heads and face to a type of shawl that hid the face and head partially drawn to cover the mouth and the nose if in the presence of unrelated men, and in some Greek poleis when they ventured out into the public, they would wear veils called the tegidion that hid their entire faces, with the exception of their eyes. It was literally a rectangular piece of cloth with two holes cut out for eyes, fastened by a forehead band.
If the iconography rarely shows this state of the face completely hidden, it very frequently reflects a posture that is quite typical of the veiling of women (let us understand as women, not goddesses or heroines). Indeed, she repeats over and over again the gesture shown in the funerary stele and by which, in the presence of something that risks hurting her "modesty", the woman seizes a flap of her garment with her right or left hand to bring it back to the bare part of her shoulders, including her face.
With this historical background, the type of veil Paul mentioned the women of Corinthian would be very familiar with.
If anyone presumes Paul would not be familiar with it? well Paul was from Tarsus.
Here is a description of something akin to a veil covering the women quite complete of the women of Tarsus: " And yet what need have we to mention deities? Take Athenodorus, who became governor of Tarsus, whom Augustus held in honour — had he known your city to be what it is today, would he, do you suppose, have preferred being here to living with the emperor? In days gone by, therefore, your city was renowned for orderliness and sobriety, and the men it produced were of like character; but now I fear that it may be rated just the opposite and so be classed with this or that other city I might name. And yet many of the customs still in force reveal in one way or another the sobriety and severity of deportment of those earlier days. Among these is the convention regarding feminine attire, a convention which prescribes that women should be so arrayed and should so deport themselves when in the street that nobody could see any part of them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body, and that they themselves might not see anything off the road. " -Dio Chrysostom (40-120 AD), Orations/Speeches, Discourse 33, chapters 48-49.
Instances in early Church writings mentioning such a complete veil:
-Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215 AD):
Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home…. nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. – Instructor of Children, book 3, chapter 11
It has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. – Instructor of Children, book 2, chapter 11:
-They say that the wife of Æneas, through excess of propriety, did not, even in her terror at the capture of Troy, uncover herself; but, though fleeing from the conflagration, remained veiled. – Instructor of Children, book 3, chapter 11.
-Ordinances of the Apostles (Didascalia Apostolorum):
And when you walk in the street, cover your head with your robe, that by reason of your veil your great beauty may be hidden. And adorn not your natural face; but walk with downcast looks, being veiled. – Chapter 3.
Cover your face from strange men with a veil of modesty…. – Chapter 3.
-Apostolic Constitutions:
She is to veil her face, and conceal it with modesty from strange men. – Book 1, section 3.
-Ambrose of Milan (339 – 397 AD):
Let custom itself teach us. A woman covers her face with a veil for this reason, that in public her modesty may be safe…. But if she cover her head with a veil that she may not accidentally see or be seen (for when the head is veiled the face is hidden), how much more ought she to cover herself with the veil of modesty, so as even in public to have her own secret place. – Two Books Concerning Repentance, Chapter 14.
I believe when Christianity spread it adapted to what other cultures like some of western Europe the veil/headscarf mainly covered the hair, cause of the local custom where the head was understood as the back of the head and the hair covered, therefore it changed to that but the original custom in Greece and Rome for early Christian women veiled their entire head face included. But the custom shifted to covering the head and hair only in much of western Europe.
Your essay is 853 words long but you never actually read 1 Corinthians 11, did you?
Had you bothered, you would notice that Paul had advice for how BOTH men and women should present themselves in churches. Men's heads should be uncovered, women should wear some sort of hat. That's all.
As I wrote earlier, there has never been Canon Law in the Catholic Church about head coverings and Webb was being typically dissembling, when he suggested that Christian women should be wearing head coverings, if they say grace before meals!
Not long ago, I visited Westminster Cathedral in London, plenty of women were there, with and without hats (or shawls) covering their hair but when a scruffy hippy attempted to enter wearing a baseball hat, the security declined him access, because he refused to remove his hat! I am sure you would oppose this sort of unadulterated sexism!
I was meaning the type of veil to be worn initially what it looked like. If you understand the historical cultural background, you would know it covered much more than a hat would (why ignore it is important for context? in a society where a free woman exposing her face in public was not appropriate, a hat in church would not cover as much the veil i mentioned would).
The original text in Corinthians never mentioned a type of hat. The word utilized was (from : Strong's #2619: katakalupto from 2596 and 2572; to cover wholly, i.e. veil: --cover, hide.)
The man is not to go in church service veiled as a woman would.
As it is mentioned 1 Corinthians 11:4-13: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." (therefore, it is hinted she is to veil).
So, now you realise that St. Paul had sartorial advice for both men and women attending Church? Well done, my chiding of you was effective. Hooray, golf clap! The purpose of my posts are to expose Webb's outrageous attempt at creating false equivalence between Christianity and Islam. The Catholic church never had any Canon Law mandating what people must wear while attending Mass. It should be obvious to everybody, except Judaizers like Webb, that people are encouraged to dress modestly, when they are taking part in Christian services. It's a church, not a beach party!
Mr Webb's misquotation of 1 Corinthians 11:5 (he wrote "first Corinthians, chapter 11 verse 2", might be forgiven as a typo but his subsequent mangling of 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (note the actual quote is made of three verses), provides evidence of Webb's sinister ideological convictions.
Why doesn't Webb tell the truth? In 1 Corinthians 11, St. Paul is advising both men and women of how they should present themselves while attending churches. Men should not cover their heads but women should. That's all. There is no Canon Law about enforcing the custom, so it was always considered a polite convention.
Webb then makes a ham-fisted non-sequitur, by claiming that because in 1 Thessalonians 5, St. Paul appealed for Christians to live their lives in a state of grace with God, he was actually demanding that women wear veils during the saying of grace before meals! This is a crass and ignorant interpretation of the scripture. As I said, there is no Canon Law about this subject, so I expect an apology from Mr Webb where he admits he was wrong and promises in future to desist from sabotaging Christian civilisation.
I have been a long-time subscriber to "History Debunked" but the censorship policy of the platform, makes it almost impossible for me to post any comments. There is a long list of words that get me instantly shadowbanned on Simon's and all other channels. They will not allow me to say "Jew", which is why I have to refer to them cryptically. I have explained this to Mr Webb many times but he never accepts this reality. He is allowed to write about Jews all day long on YT, because he never criticises them; or does so in a trite manner, which the platform ignores.
There is a sizeable faction within his comments section who believe that Simon Webb is a Jew. I don't believe this and often oppose such suggestions, primarily because he has no reason to conceal that identity. In fact, if he did claim to be a member of the tribe, the owners would promote him and this would increase his revenue!
Mr Webb is a Judaizer, by which I do not mean the Wiki historic definition of the term. Wikipedia explains Judaizers as an early faction of Christians who wanted to keep the Levitical laws. This does not apply to Webb but he does advocate for Jewish power and refuses to accept the chaos and subversion they bring to Christian societies. It has always been the intention of the Jews to destroy our civilisation. They are responsible for communism, Feminism, Troonish nonsense, pornography, climate change lies, and worse of all, mass third world migration to our homelands.
Why does Webb support the tribe? The reason is that his ideological world view aligns with theirs, which is why he is allowed to maintain a fully monetised channel on YouTube. Follow the money! He complains about immigration but never suggests or supports solutions. For the Jews and other Judaizers , he is a pressure valve. He allows normies to vent steam and then trot back to mindless drudgery, until the next footie game kicks-off. Webb blames poor old Rastus and Mohamed for the outrages they cause but will never explore the Jewish plots that enabled them to be in our countries.
I took St. Paul as my Catholic confirmation name. He is one of the most astonishing men ever to have lived and redeemed himself of early cruelty towards Christians, by becoming their greatest teacher. What did he say about the tribe he left? How many minutes would St. Paul's channel last on YouTube? On Simon's channel, I am not permitted to quote this scripture from 1 Thessalonians!
"Indeed, brethren, you have become imitators of the Churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you have suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the Prophets and also persecuted us.
They displease God and have become enemies of the entire human race by trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way, they constantly reach the full measure of their sins. The wrath of God has begun to overtake them at last."
All you say is true. Yet after the death of both Eligha and Elisha: one beheaded, and the other either hung upon a cross or impailed from arse to brain, the truth is, Elisha spoke not the words you claim, these words are taken up after his death and made as religious doctrine, the seed of the sower.
Elisha once spoke, to clear Mankind of this command, ",thou shalt not commit adultery."
Therefore by pleading with the people in his day, Elisha spoke: gather before no alter and make any vows', for the angels in heaven are never found in marriage.
I prefer to see in my community the glory of God. I prefer to see women with the right to preen their hair in public. After all, Eve was given to Mankind for his pleasure.
Remember this! All the gospels admit that Elisha was slain among you before Islam was created as enmity among you by Elisha and Eligha, whom both paid for this.
The word hijab comes from the Arabic word "hijāb, which refers to a veil or partion.
St Paul only stated that women should cover their head in Church and while praying.He didn't mention the word hijab.
As for praying unceasing, this was normally only practiced by ascetics from amogst Monks and Nuns.
In strict Orthodox Christian communities the women do cover their heads in Church, usually with a head scarf, but they don't go around the streets with their heads and faces covered.
So Simon your account is rather misleading.
Was going to say. Covering hair is VERY different than head-to-toe, or even just full head and face covering 👌👌
Well, the hijab only covers the hair, rather than the face or any other part of the body.
Indeed. Was meant to have expanded to say that most don't have an issue with women wearing a Hijab, it's the Burqa people take issue with, which the bible does not mention
Come on, Simon. You're showing your bias and your ignorance and lack of research. It took me about a mintue to find the full quote, but you, a historian, couldn't find this information?! I find that hard to believe. You'd have to willfully misquote St. Paul and others in order to extrapolate your nonsense interpretation. And one has to ask, why?
Here is the full quote from St. Hippolytus:
St. Hippolytus of Rome ca. 170-235
When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens shall pray by themselves, apart from the believers. And [all] women, whether believers or catechumens, shall stand for their prayers by themselves in a separate part of the church. And when [the catechumens] finish their prayers, they must not give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure. Only believers shall salute one another, but men with men and women with women; a man shall not salute a woman.
And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering. (Apostolic Tradition Part II.18)
He clearly references women veiling whilst in church, not all the time. The other Church Fathers who spoke on this subject reference women veiling in church. Not all the time.
Likewise, St. Paul references women veiling in church and in official liturgical functions, as was the practise for centuries. Nothing in St. Paul or the Fathers say women should wear a veil 24/7 or wear anything akin to Islamic dress.
Mr Webb suggests that "The next time that we feel inclined to make slighting comments about Muslim customs [ie. religious dress-codes in public], we might bear this in mind!".
I am sure he knows he is missing the point. It is not about what rules to follow according to religious texts/books.
(And his advice is misguided, as this practice is now antiquated and foreign. It needs to be confronted — see below.)
It is about whether the national/regional people's culture have choosen to follow these rules or not.
Because culture changes (Mr Webb and everyone knows) over time/generations, then (some) rules will be abandoned.
Western people have made this change (eg. religious practices/expressions are a personal/private matter not to be flaunted in public), muslims have not.
·
Currently, the cultural muslims (eg. the veiled ones, therefore being extremely religious, according to english culture) disrespect english people's (changed/evolved) culture (here: dress-codes), and exploit english people's freedoms, which they have not earned but being given for free.
Thus, they need to be confronted in public places and told to respect english culture: its dress-codes and that religious practices is a private matter.
This is what is called 'integration', ie. foreigners/new-comers learn/are taught/shown the host people's way of life, which is what muslims do to new-comers in their countries.
·
That, is an argument for the english people (and non-english, eg. a refugee from Iran were veil-less women are harassed and criminalised) when confronting/integrating a cultural muslim:
–'We do not like hypocrites! It is fine if you want to live (more or less) in/with muslim culture, but then you need return to your own people.'
·
And, as the veil is a symbol of muslims' culture, then it is a question if a veiled one wants blasphemy law and (still) have non-english 'values'. — Most do not:
1) 2024-Apr-06 The Telegraph: "Just one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel":
–"(52 per cent) of British Muslims want to make it illegal to show a picture of the Prophet Mohammed".
–"(32 per cent) want to see Shariah law implemented in the UK".
·
2) 2016-Apr-11 Channel 4/ICM Research: "C4 survey and documentary reveals What British Muslims Really Think":
23% support the introduction of Sharia Law;
52% do not believe that homosexuality should be legal in Britain.
·
Disregarding this kind of muslims' disrespect against the english people's way of life/culture, it is not their fault: –the english have been too polite/nice/understanding, which is why they are now paying the price:
1) 2025-May-09 Simon Webb (Substack): "Britain has effectively introduced a new blasphemy law, but one which applies only to Islam";
2) Simon Webb/History Debunked (YouTube):
2025-Mar-24: "How the [PRESENCE] of Muslims adversely affected the village of Chew Moor in Lancashire";
2025-Mar-19: "Slowly, but inexorably, Islam works its way into every aspect of English life…";
2024-Nov-23: "How come Muslims now run London, the BBC and the British judicial system?".
·
14th Dalai LAMA (it is a title, his name is Tenzin Gyatso), one of our times most valued persons and renowned spiritual inspirers, says that England should not become a muslim country:
·
2019-Jun-27 Daily Mail (BBC interview):
–"They themselves, I think [are] better in their own land. Better [to] keep Europe for Europeans."
–"A limited number is OK, but whole Europe eventually become MUSLIM country? Impossible. Or AFRICAN country? Also impossible."
·
A note: The problem/worry/danger of veiled/cultural muslims is not their PRESENCE, but their (increasing?) numbers.
English people will be nice and make exception if they are few, just like they do not require sikh men to follow the Law by wearing a motor-cycle helmet (because of the blanket).
Rules for thee, but not for me?
The bible has also lost the teaching of christ. Was changed by Roman men kings etc, Peter was made head of the church even though Christ said Mary should be the one they went to. But let's not get upset, men have used religion to control the world and women for ever thankfully christ walked with women beside him not behind him as second class but as equals. He also taught God was within , no one could mediate on your behalf, buying a stairway to heaven and blood sacrifice was barbarian. Hair was covered to protect from sunlight and attracting sex mad fallen angels sons of rebellion and hatred of Gods will, so who has the most laws and violence towards women showing their hair? Fallen angels or men or are they one in the same group?
"Peter was made head of the church even though Christ said Mary should be the one they went to."
This is a laughable heresy! Get going and find the scripture that supports your ridiculous opinion! I'll fetch the popcorn and await the result of your scholarly research! 😂
So there you have it. St. Paul also states that in Christ there is no man or woman. With the coming of Christ, another way was put forward other than brutality . Muhammad codified brutality. Islam is also the ultimate political game changer ( backed up by the threat of hellfire and damnation in the afterlife) with the death sentence for good measure if you leave whilst on Earth and one cannot help thinking that they still adhere to wearing biblical dress both as a political gesture and as a mark of moral superiority.
I'm a recovered Lutheran, glad to be an Athiest!
There are worse Christian sects than the Lutherans!
Very true.
Dear Louise, were you named after St. Louise de Marillac, who suffered until she found God's plan for her life?
The Protestant rebellion began as a looting operation and it's ending as a clown show. I don't blame anybody for rejecting such a shallow and opportunistic ideology. Atheism however, is a pernicious mix of narcissism and nihilism. Have you ever heard Sister Wendy talking about the art of Catholic Rome? These three geniuses were inspired by true faith. They struggled with the internal conflicts of belief and these treasures were the results. This is not lost to us but waiting to be found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyqrrMfYoDA
Dear Martin ~~ Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I too love the magnificent art inspired by the Church -- I spent four wonderful months in Europe in my youth. Italy in general and Rome in particular were the highlights of that trip. The sculpture, painting, and architecture were breathtaking. And don't forget the glories of Medieval manuscripts! While I must somewhat disagree with your assessment of Atheism (I am no nihilist), I agree with you and Sister Wendy (whose videos I love) in crediting the Church for the soaring expressions of beauty and the divine.
I have loved Greek and Roman mythology since childhood. I have read Harris, de Botton, Hitchens and Dawkins, as well as Karen Armstrong's many books and Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages." Nicholas Wade puts it all together for me in "The Faith Instinct." Joseph Campbell and the King James Bible (I still have my Confirmation Bible in red leather with my name embossed on the spine) both have places of honor in my bookshelves. So I hope you see that I have not rejected religion out-of-hand. I just find it impossible personally to reconcile the transcendent with the immanent. I try to balance appreciation with respectful non-belief.
I close my reply with an acknowledgement of the good churches do. I live now in the American South, and respect the many good works my religious friends do in the community and beyond. I do what I can, as well.
Dear Louise, in your first reply to Mr Webb, you said you were "glad to be an atheist" but now you seem to be more agnostic. I call this progress! 😇
My wife is from Rome, so I have benefited from many private tours of her eternal hometown. In return, I once took her to visit St. Paul's in London. Architecturally, it is a marvel of perspective, every line is perfect but immediately, I realised she was profoundly disappointed with the building as a place of God. In comparison with even tiny chapels in Italy, with their devotional imagery, St. Paul's is a cold and sterile place, with no soul. Not unlike the English themselves!
I think your concern about God being immanent and transcendent, is the heart of many people's personal conflict with God. "If God is all powerful, why should he be concerned with me?"
Such thoughts lead naturally to the question of why God allows evil in his world? I reposted a short video about the subject of Logos on my YouTube channel in which Dr. E. Michael Jones deals directly with these conflicts. He is a very controversial and contentious scholar but I think on this occasion, he provides a clear explanation of the history and philosophical concepts of Logos.
This video changed my entire world view and although that is too much to ask for anybody else, I believe that EMJ's message is essentially positive and hopeful. There is a reason for existence, we are not just a collection of chemicals, wandering aimlessly through time and space. We should be graceful and thankful about being here!
https://youtu.be/FnmAyfBPhjw
Fortunately we're not Middle Eastern goat herders who practice genital mutilation so there's absolutely no reason why any British person should take any notice of what the Bible says.
An awful lot of people do though!
I took notice of the naked adolescent boy crawling out of the window and falling to his death from Buckingham Palace, England moves on 🤦🏿♀️
Light the blue touch paper.....and whoosh...😅
Well... actually if one reads the early church fathers veiling of the face is mentioned clearly countless times. In Greece free women veiled themselves quite complete. I'll explain it a bit better: Greek women covered themselves with all kinds of pieces of cloth as a veil – from the cloak they pulled up over their heads and face to a type of shawl that hid the face and head partially drawn to cover the mouth and the nose if in the presence of unrelated men, and in some Greek poleis when they ventured out into the public, they would wear veils called the tegidion that hid their entire faces, with the exception of their eyes. It was literally a rectangular piece of cloth with two holes cut out for eyes, fastened by a forehead band.
If the iconography rarely shows this state of the face completely hidden, it very frequently reflects a posture that is quite typical of the veiling of women (let us understand as women, not goddesses or heroines). Indeed, she repeats over and over again the gesture shown in the funerary stele and by which, in the presence of something that risks hurting her "modesty", the woman seizes a flap of her garment with her right or left hand to bring it back to the bare part of her shoulders, including her face.
With this historical background, the type of veil Paul mentioned the women of Corinthian would be very familiar with.
If anyone presumes Paul would not be familiar with it? well Paul was from Tarsus.
Here is a description of something akin to a veil covering the women quite complete of the women of Tarsus: " And yet what need have we to mention deities? Take Athenodorus, who became governor of Tarsus, whom Augustus held in honour — had he known your city to be what it is today, would he, do you suppose, have preferred being here to living with the emperor? In days gone by, therefore, your city was renowned for orderliness and sobriety, and the men it produced were of like character; but now I fear that it may be rated just the opposite and so be classed with this or that other city I might name. And yet many of the customs still in force reveal in one way or another the sobriety and severity of deportment of those earlier days. Among these is the convention regarding feminine attire, a convention which prescribes that women should be so arrayed and should so deport themselves when in the street that nobody could see any part of them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body, and that they themselves might not see anything off the road. " -Dio Chrysostom (40-120 AD), Orations/Speeches, Discourse 33, chapters 48-49.
Instances in early Church writings mentioning such a complete veil:
-Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215 AD):
Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home…. nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. – Instructor of Children, book 3, chapter 11
It has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. – Instructor of Children, book 2, chapter 11:
-They say that the wife of Æneas, through excess of propriety, did not, even in her terror at the capture of Troy, uncover herself; but, though fleeing from the conflagration, remained veiled. – Instructor of Children, book 3, chapter 11.
-Ordinances of the Apostles (Didascalia Apostolorum):
And when you walk in the street, cover your head with your robe, that by reason of your veil your great beauty may be hidden. And adorn not your natural face; but walk with downcast looks, being veiled. – Chapter 3.
Cover your face from strange men with a veil of modesty…. – Chapter 3.
-Apostolic Constitutions:
She is to veil her face, and conceal it with modesty from strange men. – Book 1, section 3.
-Ambrose of Milan (339 – 397 AD):
Let custom itself teach us. A woman covers her face with a veil for this reason, that in public her modesty may be safe…. But if she cover her head with a veil that she may not accidentally see or be seen (for when the head is veiled the face is hidden), how much more ought she to cover herself with the veil of modesty, so as even in public to have her own secret place. – Two Books Concerning Repentance, Chapter 14.
I believe when Christianity spread it adapted to what other cultures like some of western Europe the veil/headscarf mainly covered the hair, cause of the local custom where the head was understood as the back of the head and the hair covered, therefore it changed to that but the original custom in Greece and Rome for early Christian women veiled their entire head face included. But the custom shifted to covering the head and hair only in much of western Europe.
Your essay is 853 words long but you never actually read 1 Corinthians 11, did you?
Had you bothered, you would notice that Paul had advice for how BOTH men and women should present themselves in churches. Men's heads should be uncovered, women should wear some sort of hat. That's all.
As I wrote earlier, there has never been Canon Law in the Catholic Church about head coverings and Webb was being typically dissembling, when he suggested that Christian women should be wearing head coverings, if they say grace before meals!
Not long ago, I visited Westminster Cathedral in London, plenty of women were there, with and without hats (or shawls) covering their hair but when a scruffy hippy attempted to enter wearing a baseball hat, the security declined him access, because he refused to remove his hat! I am sure you would oppose this sort of unadulterated sexism!
I was meaning the type of veil to be worn initially what it looked like. If you understand the historical cultural background, you would know it covered much more than a hat would (why ignore it is important for context? in a society where a free woman exposing her face in public was not appropriate, a hat in church would not cover as much the veil i mentioned would).
The original text in Corinthians never mentioned a type of hat. The word utilized was (from : Strong's #2619: katakalupto from 2596 and 2572; to cover wholly, i.e. veil: --cover, hide.)
The man is not to go in church service veiled as a woman would.
As it is mentioned 1 Corinthians 11:4-13: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." (therefore, it is hinted she is to veil).
So, now you realise that St. Paul had sartorial advice for both men and women attending Church? Well done, my chiding of you was effective. Hooray, golf clap! The purpose of my posts are to expose Webb's outrageous attempt at creating false equivalence between Christianity and Islam. The Catholic church never had any Canon Law mandating what people must wear while attending Mass. It should be obvious to everybody, except Judaizers like Webb, that people are encouraged to dress modestly, when they are taking part in Christian services. It's a church, not a beach party!
Mr Webb's misquotation of 1 Corinthians 11:5 (he wrote "first Corinthians, chapter 11 verse 2", might be forgiven as a typo but his subsequent mangling of 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (note the actual quote is made of three verses), provides evidence of Webb's sinister ideological convictions.
Why doesn't Webb tell the truth? In 1 Corinthians 11, St. Paul is advising both men and women of how they should present themselves while attending churches. Men should not cover their heads but women should. That's all. There is no Canon Law about enforcing the custom, so it was always considered a polite convention.
Webb then makes a ham-fisted non-sequitur, by claiming that because in 1 Thessalonians 5, St. Paul appealed for Christians to live their lives in a state of grace with God, he was actually demanding that women wear veils during the saying of grace before meals! This is a crass and ignorant interpretation of the scripture. As I said, there is no Canon Law about this subject, so I expect an apology from Mr Webb where he admits he was wrong and promises in future to desist from sabotaging Christian civilisation.
I have been a long-time subscriber to "History Debunked" but the censorship policy of the platform, makes it almost impossible for me to post any comments. There is a long list of words that get me instantly shadowbanned on Simon's and all other channels. They will not allow me to say "Jew", which is why I have to refer to them cryptically. I have explained this to Mr Webb many times but he never accepts this reality. He is allowed to write about Jews all day long on YT, because he never criticises them; or does so in a trite manner, which the platform ignores.
There is a sizeable faction within his comments section who believe that Simon Webb is a Jew. I don't believe this and often oppose such suggestions, primarily because he has no reason to conceal that identity. In fact, if he did claim to be a member of the tribe, the owners would promote him and this would increase his revenue!
Mr Webb is a Judaizer, by which I do not mean the Wiki historic definition of the term. Wikipedia explains Judaizers as an early faction of Christians who wanted to keep the Levitical laws. This does not apply to Webb but he does advocate for Jewish power and refuses to accept the chaos and subversion they bring to Christian societies. It has always been the intention of the Jews to destroy our civilisation. They are responsible for communism, Feminism, Troonish nonsense, pornography, climate change lies, and worse of all, mass third world migration to our homelands.
Why does Webb support the tribe? The reason is that his ideological world view aligns with theirs, which is why he is allowed to maintain a fully monetised channel on YouTube. Follow the money! He complains about immigration but never suggests or supports solutions. For the Jews and other Judaizers , he is a pressure valve. He allows normies to vent steam and then trot back to mindless drudgery, until the next footie game kicks-off. Webb blames poor old Rastus and Mohamed for the outrages they cause but will never explore the Jewish plots that enabled them to be in our countries.
I took St. Paul as my Catholic confirmation name. He is one of the most astonishing men ever to have lived and redeemed himself of early cruelty towards Christians, by becoming their greatest teacher. What did he say about the tribe he left? How many minutes would St. Paul's channel last on YouTube? On Simon's channel, I am not permitted to quote this scripture from 1 Thessalonians!
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%202%3A14-16&version=NCB
"Indeed, brethren, you have become imitators of the Churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you have suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the Prophets and also persecuted us.
They displease God and have become enemies of the entire human race by trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way, they constantly reach the full measure of their sins. The wrath of God has begun to overtake them at last."
All you say is true. Yet after the death of both Eligha and Elisha: one beheaded, and the other either hung upon a cross or impailed from arse to brain, the truth is, Elisha spoke not the words you claim, these words are taken up after his death and made as religious doctrine, the seed of the sower.
Elisha once spoke, to clear Mankind of this command, ",thou shalt not commit adultery."
Therefore by pleading with the people in his day, Elisha spoke: gather before no alter and make any vows', for the angels in heaven are never found in marriage.
I prefer to see in my community the glory of God. I prefer to see women with the right to preen their hair in public. After all, Eve was given to Mankind for his pleasure.
Remember this! All the gospels admit that Elisha was slain among you before Islam was created as enmity among you by Elisha and Eligha, whom both paid for this.
"See?"