Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology

[Exodus16]

Notice that the third fall depended on the second, just as the second fall depended upon the first. The daughters of (fallen) men were attractive to the angels, and lured them just as satan used the tree of knowledge to attract and lure Adam and Eve.
Wait who's luring whom?
This just got all "Leda and the Swan"

To clarify you are saying:
1. Satan fell
2. Humanity
3. 1/3 of the Angels fell

In an earlier comment. I spoke about a progressive fall of humanity. As I remember the steps to this were:
1. Mankind was ejected from Eden with a curse and a promise
2. Noah's ark after which lifespans were shortened, animals were given to man as food and the rainbow and its promise
3. Tower of Babel after which the languages of the earth were confused

[aron]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Wait who's luring whom?
This just got all "Leda and the Swan"

To clarify you are saying:
1. Satan fell
2. Humanity
3. 1/3 of the Angels fell

Notice that Genesis 6 is after Genesis 3? Unless that's irrelevant in what is otherwise clearly a chronological narrative, or there's some unnamed event in which the tail of the Dragon sweeps 1/3 of the stars out of heaven, and/or the "sons of God" were already poisoned before descending to earth to connubiate with poisoned humanity.

Leda and the Swan I don't know about - Greek myth? Not really interested, as my curiosity does have its limits.

Most Protestant Christians aren't interested in such subjects as the fall of the angels, either. And those that are, if Google is any indicator, often link them to Nephilim, Area 51, and whether Condoleezza Rice is an alien reptile. Again, my curiosity has limits.

But I'll say this: if you begin to consider it, it does help explain things like Paul writing to sisters to cover their heads "for the sake of the angels", and so forth.

And to me, to gloss over such matters is like saying that you're going after Hitler, and when someone points out the location of a Panzer division you say, "I don't care about them." Well, okay then.

[Exodus16]

I referred to W.B Yeates poem Leda and the Swan bc from your comment it was unclear did the women seduce the angels or did the angels initiate the pairings.
It matters, due to the implications of how women are viewed and treated.
Based on Eve being deceived in the garden, there are already consequences for the function and position of women in the church. If women are such a seductive force that they can sexually corrupt angels from the distance of earth to heaven, then covering shoulders in meetings or a doily on the head are really rather feeble containment attempts - probably safest to go with a full body Burka.

I was taught that head covering wasn't about sex but authority. Soldiers cover their heads in recognition of the chain of command. Satan rebelled against God, he stepped out from under His authority. Women covering their heads indicates they come under their husbands' authority. This is a powerful sign to angels, bc submitting in the fallen condition of humanity is much harder than submitting to God's righteous authority.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

I referred to W.B Yeates poem Leda and the Swan bc from your comment it was unclear did the women seduce the angels or did the angels initiate the pairings.

It matters, due to the implications of how women are viewed and treated.
Based on Eve being deceived in the garden, there are already consequences for the function and position of women in the church. If women are such a seductive force that they can sexually corrupt angels from the distance of earth to heaven, then covering shoulders in meetings or a doily on the head are really rather feeble containment attempts - probably safest to go with a full body burka

I understand your concerns. Nonetheless it's worth considering what the writers & readers of the NT believed, before deciding how appropriate or even harmful such views might seem today.

Thanks for coming onboard. Your views are valuable. Here it's okay to have an opinion or point of view.