1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Who "fathered" Adam?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Salamander, Dec 1, 2005.

  1. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  2. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Ratings:
    +0
    Gen1:26 Adam was not "fathered"he was created.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    Who cares "who fathered" Adam? It's not important to the story of Adam. But I concur with POB.
     
  4. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    :confused: 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.
    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 ]
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  7. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  8. bapmom

    bapmom New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Ratings:
    +0
    Doesn't God Father all of His children?

    After all, He calls Himself the Father numerous times.
     
  9. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  10. bapmom

    bapmom New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Ratings:
    +0
    you're right natters
     
  11. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +0
    :confused: 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.

    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.
    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.
     
  12. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  13. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +0
    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".
     
  14. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  15. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  16. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.

    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.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
Loading...