Who "fathered" Adam?

[Salamander]

Since some believe it is "impossible" for God, (with Whom all things are possible), to "father" ( not Father, though Father), Jesus, that He had to have a human father and mother to exist past his birth, in comparison to the first Adam: who "fathered" him?

Since it is considered "esoteric" by those who hold to their own theories as being aesthetic: was Adam created w/o need to have been taught by a "father", was he ever taught anything, or is it certainly POSSIBLE for God to "Father" Adam as well as Jesus; especially since Jesus was about His Father's business without His supposed "father/ Joseph" ever knowing this until Joseph found Jesus amazing the "scholars"?

And, rsr, I can't help the previous "discussion" went deviate, I neither initiated the downslaught, nor did I intend it to "develope" that way.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Gen1:26 Adam was not "fathered"he was created.

 

[Johnv]

Who cares "who fathered" Adam? It's not important to the story of Adam. But I concur with POB.

 

[Salamander]

I see the deviate spirit prevails over those who cannot simply discuss theology without making rude comments.

I agree, Bill, but was then Adam created as having no need of fatherly direction, or did God the Father take the role?

JohnV, I will be sending you a PM momentarilly.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
I see the deviate spirit prevails over those who cannot simply discuss theology without making rude comments.

What was rude about my comment? It's a valid theological question. Who cares? It's immaterial to Adam's role in Genesis.

In fact, I'm surprised that there any theological need to compare Jesus with Adam in regards to fatherhood. It's completely apples and oranges.

Further, I'm not aware of a single person who thinks it's impossible for God to father Jesus. I certainly do not.

JohnV, I will be sending you a PM momentarilly.

I'm a bit of a loss as to why you felt the need to forward someone else's opinion of me to me. Everyone's entitled to an opinion without fear of retribution from the subject of that opinion. After 15k+ posts, I'm bound to have said something that another will wildly disagree with. Doesn't make him/her or me a bad guy.

[ December 01, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[Scott J]

Does not Genesis record that God visited with Adam and talk with Him?

I suspect that God could relate a great deal in a very short period of time. Maybe just being in His direct presence reveals knowledge.

 

[Artimaeus]

Luk 3:38 son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

Adam seems to have been fathered by God in some manner.

 

[bapmom]

Doesn't God Father all of His children?

After all, He calls Himself the Father numerous times.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Since some believe it is "impossible" for God, (with Whom all things are possible), to "father" ( not Father, though Father), Jesus,

I think the thread starts out with a strawman (who believes the above?). Thus I don't understand the relevance or the point of the resulting comparison/argument about Adam.

 

[bapmom]

you're right natters

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
I see the deviate spirit prevails over those who cannot simply discuss theology without making rude comments.

What was rude about my comment? It's a valid theological question. Who cares? It's immaterial to Adam's role in Genesis.

In fact, I'm surprised that there any theological need to compare Jesus with Adam in regards to fatherhood. It's completely apples and oranges.</font>[/QUOTE]It's theologically important enough for the Holy Ghost to inspire the writer to report Jesus as the "Last Adam" so a comparison is quite in order, I'm just sorry your wish to dodge the question and nothing to offer other than "who cares". That is a flippant remark.

Further, I'm not aware of a single person who thinks it's impossible for God to father Jesus. I certainly do not.

Since you agree, then it is therefore wrong to insist upon the use of "father" in the place of "step-father" in regard to Joseph. Both apples and oranges are fruit, but they are diamtrically different.

JohnV, I will be sending you a PM momentarilly.

I'm a bit of a loss as to why you felt the need to forward someone else's opinion of me to me. Everyone's entitled to an opinion without fear of retribution from the subject of that opinion. After 15k+ posts, I'm bound to have said something that another will wildly disagree with. Doesn't make him/her or me a bad guy. [/QUOTE] Others opinions of us should matter to the point we are concerned about our testimony to a lost world. If our brethren think we're "evil", then what does the lost world think&gt;? Doesn't matter? Better re-read your Bible.

I only sent you that for your consideration, and as your friend.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by natters:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
Since some believe it is "impossible" for God, (with Whom all things are possible), to "father" ( not Father, though Father), Jesus,

I think the thread starts out with a strawman (who believes the above?). Thus I don't understand the relevance or the point of the resulting comparison/argument about Adam. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, you're "right", you don't understand the relevance. To call Joseph the fatherr of Jesus takes away from the fact of God His father, and offers confusion to the reader to differentiate between the two opposing statements.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Does not Genesis record that God visited with Adam and talk with Him?

I suspect that God could relate a great deal in a very short period of time. Maybe just being in His direct presence reveals knowledge.

Exactly! That is why the importance of holding to the FACT of the Father of Jesus be limited to Who is His REAL Father, not His step-father being called "father of Jesus".

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by bapmom:
Doesn't God Father all of His children?

After all, He calls Himself the Father numerous times.

Yes, but Adam only had One Father/ God: Jesus only has One Father/ God.

If one considers a child and his reasoning abilities, to say that God "fathered" Adam would make sense, since the human race began with only One Father, there could be no other father: "he" didn't exist.

The point is that Jesus didn't need Joseph to "father" Him, but that goes along with saying that Jesus did need Joseph to get Mary and Him out of the country to escape the hand of Herod to put all Hebrew male children to death at age 2 and below, but we as Christians ought to understand that God initiated that departure.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Yep, you're "right", you don't understand the relevance. To call Joseph the fatherr of Jesus takes away from the fact of God His father, and offers confusion to the reader to differentiate between the two opposing statements.

Ah, I see. You think people are not smart enough to figure out this "contradiction". For what it's worth, these "two opposing statements" have never "offered confusion" to me or anyone I've talked to.

 

[russell55]

To call Joseph the fatherr of Jesus takes away from the fact of God His father

No it doesn't. The exact meaning of the word father is different in the two instances. God is Jesus father in one sense of the word, and Joseph is his father in another.

and offers confusion to the reader to differentiate between the two opposing statements.

Um, the two statements aren't opposing. They only appear to be opposing to someone who doesn't understand that words have various shades of meaning in different contexts.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Does not Genesis record that God visited with Adam and talk with Him?

I suspect that God could relate a great deal in a very short period of time. Maybe just being in His direct presence reveals knowledge.

Exactly! That is why the importance of holding to the FACT of the Father of Jesus be limited to Who is His REAL Father, not His step-father being called "father of Jesus". </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see where you got your conclusion from my argument.

A child whose biological father died may very legitimately call his mother's new husband his father due to a shared relationship, not biology.

There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus modeled with Joseph the kind of relationship a son should have with his earthly father... neither is there any doubt that He modeled with God the Father the kind of relationship a son should have with Him.

I just really don't have a problem with "father" being used in a temporal and eternal sense.