Was Jesus a descendant of David?

Matthew and Luke would have us believe Jesus was both the product of a virgin birth AND a direct line-male descendant of David. They cannot both be true... And perhaps neither are. I addressed the virgin birth here and here . Let us take a look at the other claim. Messiah! The first evidence in support of Jesus being a descendant of David is simply the fact that he was hailed as messiah, and given being a descendant of David was a requirement, this must be taken as evidence that that was the case. How careful were the Jews to trace genealogies? For the priests it was vital to show your eligibility for the job, but I doubt it was important for a carpenter. It is quite plausible people would assume descent. He is the messiah, therefore he must be a descendant of David. Paul Paul gives us this, which seems pretty clear: Rom 1:2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 wh

Origins of Intelligent Design

 I have just come across a very interesting article,  The Evolution of Creationist Movements by Nicholas J. Matzke One of the most interesting bits is this quote, by William J. Bennetta, president of The Textbook League and a longtime activist opposing pseudoscience in textbooks. He said this in 1988, shortly after the Edwards case that banned creation science: Here are some of the things creationists will be doing most assiduously during the coming decade: [...] The creationists will produce a new version of the pseudoscience, and they will try to induce respectable secular publishers to issue books incorporating the new material. They will hope to use the books for validating their litany about teaching "all the evidence" and for validating the misinformation that they will be spreading among science teachers. Because the term "creation-science" has been sullied most recently in Edwards v. Aguillard, the creationists' new pseudoscience will carry a new name,

Atlas Shrugged (Movie)

I watch Atlas Shrugged on a streaming-service last night. This is a three movie marathon, and not for the faint-hearted. i was motovated to mostly because the book by Ayn Rand is referenced a lot in the video game Bioshock. Ayn uses the book to espouse her philosophy, which can be considered super-capitalism. Quoting Wiki: Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute". She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics. Philosophy The protagonist is Dagny who runs a railroad company in depression-torn 2017. The company is owned by her brother James, and most of the first two books is about the political shenanigans he, other big company owners and politicians engage in.

The Virgin Birth... Again

Christmas is but six weeks away, and our thoughts turn inevitably to the dubious claims of a virgin birth... Looking only at Luke's account, it is interesting to note that it is actually consistent with an angel visiting the virgin Mary and telling her she would conceive, Mary then going to tell Elizabeth about it, and staying with Elizabeth three months, then returning home to her family. She then had sex with Joseph, conceiving Jesus with the help of the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. ... 34 But Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I [v]am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the [w]holy Child will be called the Son of God. 36 And behold, even your relative Elizabeth herself has conceived a son in her old age, and [x]she who was called infertile is now in her

Hartshorne's Modal Argument

Hartshorne's argument is a development of Anselm's ontological argument. From here : The argument’s logical symbols are the tilde (~) for negation, the arrow (→) for strict implication, M for “is logically possible” (thus, “~M~” means “is logically necessary”), and p* stands for “God exists,” where God is defined as “a being unsurpassable by any other conceivable being.” (In Hartshorne’s dipolar theism, the divine can, in some senses, surpass itself but it is unsurpassable by any other being). The argument is presented as follows: Mp* Mp* → ~M~p* Therefore, ~M~p* If that is not clear, an easier to understand version can be found from Joe Hinman here and here : (1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible. (2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible. (3) God can be conceived without contradiction (4) therefore, God is not impossible (5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary . (6) Since god is necessary he

On Nouveau

Nouveau (now posting as "Authentic Nouveau"), is a poster on CARM. His posts are barely coherent, but he frequently likes to pretend that Darwin was racist and that Hitler based his ideas on Darwinism. Here is a recent sample (from  here , but note that CARM frequently delete old threads, so the link may not work in a few months). Nazis love to claim Hitler was a Christian. KKK were of the same Devil that Atheeists obey. Can you name the documented liar who lies time and again about Ananias and saphira? Lastly, Atheeists in their pride of dishonesty can't quote The Lord Jesus Christ who defines HIS kingdom Satan doesn't give you permission to quote the Bible correctly. You also are not given permission to accuse Stalin and misc other brutal and wicked atheeist ring leaders. I addressed the lie that Darwin was racist here . I have addressed the lie that Hitler used Darwinism here . More recently, I also made a post pointing out these claims are more true of Christiani

"A Journey Through the Old Testament" by Elmer Towns

I came across this book in a discussion with Joe Hinman; it is freely available on line here . The author is one of the founders of Liberty University. It is a history of the world - assuming creationism is right. I thought it might be fun to read it. It starts unconventionally by saying God created a whole bunch of stuff before the creation week: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is a summary statement that includes all that went before the first creative day (i.e., heavens) and all the Creation of the next six days. Time and space begin in Genesis 1:1. Fall of Lucifer He does this to make room for the fall of Lucifer, of which he say: The fall of Lucifer occurred before the seven days of Creation. He goes on to say of angels: Only three are specifically named in Scripture: Lucifer, Michael, and Gabriel. That is not actually true; Lucifer is never named as an angel. It is symptomatic of his approach to the fall of that supposed angel, which is to say, he grabs v