ES is claiming that Cain was the child of the devil.
ES post 713Cain was of his Father, the ‘Devil!’
Is this now accepted non-Catholic belief?
If it is what proof is there of this. I just re-read Genesis about 2 weeks ago and don't recall seeing this.
I hope this isn't going to one of those cases where you all close ranks and ignore the elephant in the room.
Nope...It's not accepted belief...There are some of us however who do accept the idea that the sin of Eve was fornication with the devil...We could be wrong but it seems plausible...
John 8:44 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Joseph; I've had this headache for at LEAST 12 years; now just be a good boy, roll over, and go to SLEEP!
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.Which clearly depicts Cain as the physical offspring of Adam and Eve, and does not address his spiritual lineage.
Thinking that all non Catholics are Protestants will cause ignorant comments like that.
Your statement: ES is claiming that Cain was the child of the devil.Cain and Able were not true brothers; they had different ‘fathers.’ES is claiming that Cain was the child of the devil.
ES post 713Cain was of his Father, the ‘Devil!’
Is this now accepted non-Catholic belief?
If it is what proof is there of this. I just re-read Genesis about 2 weeks ago and don't recall seeing this.
I hope this isn't going to one of those cases where you all close ranks and ignore the elephant in the room.
Which you got from: ES post 713Cain was of his Father, the ‘Devil!’
See the quote marks around 'Devil?' And the phrase "of his Father?"
Denotes something different then biological father, in this case "spiritual father"
Many Christians believe we all have a spiritual father. For Christians, it is the God of the Bible. For non Christians it is the devil.
Is this now accepted non-Catholic belief?
Read with proper comprehension, yes by a number of Christians.
Read with misunderstanding of the nuances, no not at all.
I hope this helps...
However, one can be a child of God and hold to such a fringe doctrine. a
. The issue of Adam and Eve and sexual relations has also seen some other strange views, if not as radical as the serpent seed. Harding says, "some of the Fathers [as Athanasius and John Damascene] were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin." (Harding: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm)
For John of Damascus wrote,In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed416 . But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves417 . And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return418 , when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed419 . So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children420.
...God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” — John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XXIV; http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/cat_stjohndamascus_exact_exposition_Orthodox_Faith_bk04.shtml
In addition, Augustine taught that,
the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
For the belief was, as Harding (above) holds, before they sinned, Adam and Eve had perfect command of their passions (reproductive actions].
But having lost that due to the Fall, then men as Augustine held that martial relations must involve carnal sinful lust, and even interprets Heb. 13:4 which states that the marriage bed is undefiled (unlike under the Law) to simply mean if it is free from adultery!
(If this was painful I do not think it would be considered iniquitous. But as per the logic that a function which at the last is uncontrollable is sinful, perhaps another yet daily bodily function of relief which can uncontrollable (if you cannot find a bathroom) is also sin.)
Tertullian argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,'' partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor.'' An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.]
Jerome saw marriage as so inferior (at the least) to virginity, celibacy and continence, that he presented a false dilemma engaged in specious reasoning to support him, teaching,
"It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil." (''Letter'' 22). On First Corinthians 7 he reasons, "It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil."
"If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray.
You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer.
his too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html
So much for 2 x 2 evangelism!