How To Get To Heaven When You Die (2 Viewers)

[tonydead]

BARBECUE BRISKET – AN XI STEP PROGRAM

Barbecue, in its most popular American incarnations, is mostly a child of Southern culture. Barbecued brisket on the other hand, is a part of non-overlapping Texas cuisine.

Competition style brisket – essentially Texan – and what this recipe is all about, is cooked so that it can be sliced into medium-thick slices which are juicy enough for sauce optional. That means a final internal temperature of right around 195*. Meditate on that very narrow, technical window before you start thinking about creativity.

Southern style may mean “pulled” brisket, which is actually shredded. Brisket won’t pull unless cooked to over 200* – 205*. Without a lot of saucing, that means dry, stick-to-your-teeth brisket.

Brisket is the Holy Grail of barbecue because it’s considered difficult to make. It’s actually a lot more involved and finicky than difficult. Do the right things – none of them very hard – in the right sequence; don’t do the wrong things; and… voila! Good brisket every time.

Of those rights and wrongs, some are just good barbecue practice: Tight, tuned pit; good fire management; NO DAMN PEEKING; use a thermometer.Note: If you’re not using a Maverick RediChek ET-73 Wireless Smoker Thermometer or something very much like it, you’re making life a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

Because brisket is such a long cook the importance of a tight (as opposed to drafty), reasonably well tuned (even temperatures throughout the cook chamber) cooker, and a steady temperature are heightened. You can make good brisket in an ECB (el cheapo Brinkman) or un-modified small offset, but it ain’t easy. Good equipment makes more of a difference with brisket than with just about any other cut.

The brisket-specific process is somewhat involved, but really not that difficult as long as you’re willing to devote the time and care it takes to go through the steps. Shop, Trim, Marinate, Inject, Rub, Smoke, Rest, Carve, and Serve.

Maybe not difficult but there’s a lot to learn if you’ve never done it before. So, print this out, grab a cup of coffee, and find yourself a nice chair.

BARBECUED BRISKET

Yield: 8 – 12 servings, depending on size of the actual brisket

Difficulty: Lots of Prep; Lots of Steps; Long cook, requires good fire management.

Ingredients:

• 8 – 12 lb packer cut brisket; USDA Choice, CAB or better.

• 4 tbs (1/4 cup) Worcestershire Sauce, divided

• 1-1/4 cup Red Wine, divided

• 3 tbs Extra Virgin Olive Oil

• 1 cup Beef stock or Broth

• 2 tbs Worcestershire

• 6 Cloves Garlic, peeled and smashed, but not chopped

• 4 tbs Butter; or alternatively, substitute Truffle Oil for some or all of the butter.

• 1/2 cup Diamond kosher salt

• 1/4 cup sweet paprika

• 3 tbs coarsely fresh ground black pepper

• 3 tbs paprika,

• 2 tbs mild chili powder, or 2 tbs ground chipotle chili, or 1 tbs chile de arbol or cayenne pepper

• 1 tbs granulated garlic

• 1 tbs granulated onion

• 2 tsp dry Colman’s or other hot mustard powder

• 1/2 tsp dried sage

• 1/2 tsp dried thyme

Technique:

I. Shop – Takes as long as it takes. May be done up to 2 months in advance:

Purchase a “packer cut” whole brisket, Choice or CAB if possible.

A. What’s a packer cut? And, what’s a “whole brisket?”

A whole brisket is the “primal,” and includes two separate muscles called the flat and the point. The point is leaner, the point is richer. As a general term, “packer cut” refers to how it comes to the butcher from the meat packer – seldom the same person or company. In this case, I’m using the term to let you know you want the brisket still in it’s vacuum packed, plastic bag.

You can make great barbecued brisket using only the point or flat, yes. But everything else being equal, a whole brisket is better than a piece. Pieces smaller than four pounds or so are problematic. They often cook dry and despite your best effort to track internal temp shred rather than slice. So, whole brisket if possible and deal with the leftovers. Actually, I wouldn’t worry too much about leftovers. They won’t be left for long.

A “packer” may mean calling around. Plenty of supermarkets either don’t carry them or make them special order. And if they are special order, many supers will charge you the same price per pound as they would for a trimmed brisket flat (the most expensive part).

B. Choice? CAB? Prime? Wagyu?

Everything else being equal, the better the quality of the raw meat, the better the quality of the cooked meat. You don’t look surprised.

Select, Choice and Prime are the familiar USDA (sometimes called “rolled”) grades. If you don’t have thousands of dollars on the line in a competition, Choice is plenty good.

A lot of meat is “ungraded,” which may only mean that it isn’t graded by the USDA. Some excellent industry standards include CAB (certified Angus beef), BTC (better than Choice) and so on. If you can find “black face,” “wag-yu,” “kobe” or some other designation indicating the Japanese, black-face breed, at an affordable price, you’ve hit the jackpot. Call me with your supplier’s name.

You can certainly make great brisket with Select grade. I’m not saying you can’t. Just not as great. Repeat after me: Better raw meat means better cooked meat. Worth the extra money? It’s your wallet.

I buy BTC black angus from a higher end Korean butcher with a higher end Korean clientele. Brisket is a big deal in Korean cuisine, the butcher has a great supplier, etc., etc. It takes less evaluation on my part, which is a good thing.

C. What to Look For

Congratulations on finding a source. Try to buy between 9 and 11 lbs, with white fat, as marbled and as pliable as possible. Because a packer is covered by fat on one side, and tightly packed in a bag which has some meat juice, it’s often not easy to read the marbling. Pliability counts all the more.

Pliable? That’s right, pliable. Ask your butcher to bring out a few for you to test by picking up the brisket by each end and letting it bend; then holding it with both ends and seeing how easily it bends in the middle. The more flexible the better.

Shape helps determine how evenly the brisket will cook. Ideally, you don’t want it too thin at one end and/or too thick at the other. While 9 – 11 lbs is usually the best range, sometimes you have a choice of excellent larger and smaller briskets. If you’re worried about too small a brisket, figure about 40% waste on a packer, and 12oz per cooked, dinner serving. If 12 ounces seems large, what can I tell you? This stuff is good and people eat a lot of it.

D. Two Months?!

That vacuum packing will allow you to “wet age” the meat. If you’re not familiar with “wet-aging” the boucher’s, technical term for the process is: “Leaving it in the bag in the refrigerator for what a lot of people would consider too long a time.” Wet aging isn’t necessary, but does make a small, positive difference.

II. Trim – Takes about 10 minutes. Don’t do it more than two days before the cook

The fat on top of the brisket is called the cap and is not particularly palatable. You’ve got to substantially or entirely remove it somewhere along the line before service. Since it won’t allow any flavor at all from the marinade or rub to penetrate, you might as well remove it before marinating or rubbing.

If you’re buying from a decent butcher just a couple of days before your cook, have her trim the fat cap to no more than 1/4?, or right down to red meat. A fleck here and there of thinly trimmed cap is perfect.

If you’re reasonably proficient with a knife go ahead and try that yourself. If you’re not, and afraid that you’ll cut too deeply into the meat by trimming, it’s easier to remove the fat entirely than go for a thin trim.

It’s easier still to just leave the fat on and get it after the brisket is cooked. That means you won’t be able to rub the bottom of your meat, but wotthehell, wotthehell. You can’t have everything. And, in the greater scheme of brisket sins, there are much worse.

After trimming or not trimming, turn the brisket over so the lean side is up. Check for large flecks of fat, or pieces of thin, gray-white membrane. Use a small knife to remove them completely.

III. Marinate – About 30 minutes. You can start as far ahead as 36 hours before your intended service:

Marinade Ingredients:

• 4 tbs Red wine

• 2 tbs Worcestershire sauce

• 3 tbs Extra Virgin Olive Oil

In a pan just large enough to hold the brisket, make a marinade of 3 tbs each of red wine, Worcestershire sauce and extra virgin olive oil. Slosh the brisket around in the marinade, making sure all surfaces are moistened. Allow the brisket to marinate at least 1/2 an hour at room temperature, or as long as a 24 hours in the refrigerator.

After about 15 minutes on the counter, the marinade will mix with the beef juices and partially coagulate into syrup. Syrup is good. Syrup is desirable.

Turn the brisket over occasionally during the marinade period. Reserve the marinade.

IV. Inject – Roughly 45 minutes including preparing and doing the injection:

Injection Ingredients:

• 1 cup beef stock or broth

• (Reserved) Marinade syrup

• 1 cup wine

• 2 tbs Worcestershire

• 6 cloves garlic, peeled and smashed, but not chopped

• 4 tbs salted butter, very cold, cut into 4 pieces; or, alternatively substitute Truffle Oil for some or all of the butter

Put the stock in a pan, set it over medium high heat, bring to a boil, reduce heat to a simmer and reduce by one third, about 10 minutes.

Meanwhile drain the marinade from the brisket.

When the stock is reduced, add the marinade, wine, Worcestershire and garlic. Reduce by one third again.

Strain through a fine sieve, tea strainer or cheesecloth to remove any solids that might clog your injector’s needle, return to heat, bring back to a simmer and remove from heat.

Add the butter 1 tbs at a time, whisking each piece in just as the previous piece has melted from the residual heat. Mixture may thicken as the butter forms an emulsion. At this point the rich mouthfeel is incidental, you’re just trying to hold things together enough to distribute evenly when you inject. If you’re using truffle oil allow the inject to cool a little so as not to cook off the truffle aroma.

Truffle oil is creative and addictive. Your guests won’t know be able to quite put their finger on how beef became crack. But that’s the long on short of it.

On the other hand, if you’re cooking for competition, creativity is not your friend. Be much better, but don’t be much different.

Whatever your ingredients, fill your injecting syringe with the mixture and inject the brisket. Make many small injections, rather than a few large ones. Large injections will puddle rather than disperse. No matter how careful you are when you inject, the injecting fluid will squirt out from the meat in totally unexpected places. Messy but hilarious, you’ve got to take your entertainment where you find it.

Word to the wise: Less clean up, if you clear a large area on your counter and work in a large sheet or roasting pan.

There should be plenty of left over injection, refrigerate and reserve for your wrap liquid and eventual sauce.

V. Rub – Just a couple of minutes to mix, you want it on about thirty before you put the meat in the cooker. You don’t really get much more penetration than you get in half in an hour anyway.

Basic Beef Rub Ingredients:

• 1/2 cup Diamond kosher salt

• 1/4 cup sweet paprika

• 3 tbs coarsely fresh ground black pepper

• 3 tbs paprika,

• 2 tbs mild chili powder, or 2 tbs ground chipotle chili, or 1 tbs chile de arbol or cayenne pepper

• 1 tbs granulated garlic

• 1 tbs granulated onion

• 2 tsp dry Colman’s or other hot mustard powder

• 1/2 tsp dried sage

• 1/2 tsp dried thyme

Mix all thoroughly. Cover the brisket generously with rub. If the fat cap is untrimmed, don’t bother using rub on that side.

Note: Double or even triple the recipe for the rub. It keeps well, is useful on grilled beef and lamb, and quite good on popcorn.

VI. Smoke – Smoking will take between 8 and 20 hours (Oy!) depending mostly on weight and temperature.

Sorry about the vagueness, but times for cooking brisket low and slow are very difficult to predict, even with a known weight. It’s partly the individuality of the meat, partly the wide range of acceptable temperatures, partly the temperature variance that’s inherent in outdoor cooking.

Note: The hotter the temperature, the more predictable the time.

Prepare your smoker to run the steadiest possible temperature, between 225 and 275.

I prefer 275, but your relationship with your smoker is what it is, and it will do what it will do. Don’t make yourself nuts by trying to make it do something that’s too much trouble for you. If you’re using a small offset use water, a water-wine mix, or beer in the water pan. If you’re using a WSM, use sand or some other dry material. If you have one, use a digital probe type thermometer, placed as close to where the meat will go to monitor cooking process.

When the smoker is prepped, place the brisket in the cooking chamber, fat side down. If you have one, insert the probe from a digital thermometer to keep track of internal temperatures.

Smoke over red oak if possible, but nearly any of the usual smoke woods will turn out well.

Do not open cook chamber door for three hours. After three hours, flip the brisket over fat side up. If your cooker runs uneven temps from side to side, rotate the meat as well. Replenish the water pan. Continue replenishing water pan every three hours. If necessary rotate the brisket at those times.

Figure total cook time according to average chamber temperature and weight of brisket. 225 deg – ~2hrs/lb. 275 deg – 1-1/4 hrs/lb or a bit less. Stop adding smoke wood chunks or chips at one half of estimated time or when meat reaches internal temperature of 150, whichever comes first. If you’re burning “sticks” or logs for heat, don’t worry about it. You’re cool.

VII. Wrap – A 5 minute process, no more. 10, tops:

To wrap or not to wrap? It may be the question, but it surely isn’t the rub. We already did the rub. Smartassitude over, some people don’t wrap. If you’re not sure whether or not you should, you should.

Have a large sheet pan ready, with long strips of aluminum foil hanging off both ends. When the brisket hits around 150* internal, or is half through your estimated cooking time, remove it from the smoker, and place it on the foil. Fold the foil, but don’t seal it. . Before sealing packet add a little bit of the injection mix to the pack plus a rough chopped onion. Seal the foil and return the brisket to your ‘cue.

When the brisket hits an internal temperature of 185*, remove the wrap and return the brisket to the smoker, continue cooking until brisket reaches an internal temperature of 195*.

A. The Stall

It’s likely that during the cooking process, somewhere above 150*, continuing until up to 185*, the internal temperature increase will slow or stop. This is called “the stall.” It’s common with whole butts or picnics and almost universal with brisket. It’s normal. Don’t worry about, be patient. Temperatures will rise. Eventually. While you wait, consider the glacier.

It’s easy to lose focus during the stall and try to push the fire harder than it will go, or ascribe the geologic rate of temperature change to the stall and let it go out. Just manage the fire, okay?

It’s also easy to panic and start “mopping” as a way of looking at the meat and hoping that the combined action of your basting brush, eyeballs and anxiety will make things go faster. Knock it off. And, NO PEEKING DAMMIT.

B. After the Stall is Over, Before the Brisket’s Done

Usually, but not always, when the temperature gets a little around 185* it starts increasing more quickly. If it does, you want to keep an eye on it. This is one of many times a remote-read thermometer like the ET-73 is worth its weight in gold.

When brisket reaches 195* (or 191 if it’s still stalling), it’s done remove it from the cooker and rest it.

VIII. Rest – Brisket does best with an extensive rest. We’re talking 2 – 5 hours:

After you’ve got it out of your cooker, wrap it in cling wrap. Yes, cling wrap. Trust me, it’s better than aluminum foil – but aluminum is cool too. Set the meat in an insulated chest, the same type you use for holding things cold. In other words a cooler…for instance, an Igloo.

You want a cooler just large enough to hold the meat. After you’ve got the meat in the cooler, pack it with wadded newspaper to fill the remaining air space. Cover the cooler and make sure the cover is closed. I suggest weight the top or even taping it closed, if it doesn’t have a latch.

Rest for at least 2 hours, the extended rest is part of the cooking process. Don’t shortcut it. The cooler will hold the meat safely for more than 6 hours, but let’s be conservative.

IX. Carve – It takes, tautologically, just as long as it takes. Don’t, for heaven’s sake, dawdle. Remember. The wolf is at the door. Awhoo:

A. Divide and Conquer

Separate the point from the flat. You should be able to easily see the division between the two, and divide them with your knife. The point will have a rough triangular shape, the flat will be more rectangular.

The reason for separation is because their respective grains are perpendicular to one another. To cut both at the same time in their natural relationship would be to cut at least one of them wrong. Can’t have that.

B. Be like Ron Popeil and Cut the Fat

If you have a substantial fat cap, trim it. You can remove it with a spoon if you feel like showing off.

Occasionally there will be a band of fat which divides the flat. If the flat splits into two pieces with a layer of fat between them, separate the pieces and completely remove the fat. Cut one of the flats in half, cutting against the grain.

C. Test for Texture

Carve a slice off the freshly one of the freshly cut faces – still cutting against the grain, about 1/4? thick. Pick it up, preferably with your fingers, and taste it. If it wants to fall apart or is very, very tender you’ll be carving thicker slices. If it’s tough, you’ll be carving thinner slices. 1/4” is usually just right.

D. Always Against the Grain

Always, always cut across the grain. If you’re good with a knife, try a 20 degree bias to get some width.

Carve the point into slices across the grain as well. Plan on carving the slices roughly twice as thick as the slices you took from the flat.

E. Try a Little Tenderness

The point is usually substantially fattier than the flat. At 190 plus, it may be so tender it falls into chunks. If so, you may mix the chunks with hot barbecue sauce and serve on buns as “sloppy joes.” REAL SLOPPY JOES by the way.

Some people cut the point into chunks, re-season them with rub, put them in a pan, and back into the cooker – where, they become “burnt ends.” Got beans?

X. Serve – Same wolf, same door, same awhoo.

Some people prefer the point, some the flat, some a mix.

[Nummy noises]

Serve with your preferred tomato based barbecue sauce. Texas, Memphis, Cajun and Kansas City styles are good. Bordelaise in its classic or barbecue form is beaucoup wonderful. Alas, Carolina style sauces are not good partners to brisket. Save your Confederate money.

Accompaniments can range from standard barbecue to rather high end. Generally, beef prefers savory companions rather than the sweeter ones which go so well with pork.

If you drink: A full and fruity red like a Zin, Syrah or Shiraz is nice. Beer is never misunderstood.

XI. Leftovers – Don’t count on it:

What?

 

[BobbyLayne]

BARBECUE BRISKET – AN XI STEP PROGRAM

Barbecue, in its most popular American incarnations, is mostly a child of Southern culture. Barbecued brisket on the other hand, is a part of non-overlapping Texas cuisine.

Competition style brisket – essentially Texan – and what this recipe is all about, is cooked so that it can be sliced into medium-thick slices which are juicy enough for sauce optional. That means a final internal temperature of right around 195*. Meditate on that very narrow, technical window before you start thinking about creativity.

Southern style may mean “pulled” brisket, which is actually shredded. Brisket won’t pull unless cooked to over 200* – 205*. Without a lot of saucing, that means dry, stick-to-your-teeth brisket.

Brisket is the Holy Grail of barbecue because it’s considered difficult to make. It’s actually a lot more involved and finicky than difficult. Do the right things – none of them very hard – in the right sequence; don’t do the wrong things; and… voila! Good brisket every time.

Of those rights and wrongs, some are just good barbecue practice: Tight, tuned pit; good fire management; NO DAMN PEEKING; use a thermometer.Note: If you’re not using a Maverick RediChek ET-73 Wireless Smoker Thermometer or something very much like it, you’re making life a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

Because brisket is such a long cook the importance of a tight (as opposed to drafty), reasonably well tuned (even temperatures throughout the cook chamber) cooker, and a steady temperature are heightened. You can make good brisket in an ECB (el cheapo Brinkman) or un-modified small offset, but it ain’t easy. Good equipment makes more of a difference with brisket than with just about any other cut.

The brisket-specific process is somewhat involved, but really not that difficult as long as you’re willing to devote the time and care it takes to go through the steps. Shop, Trim, Marinate, Inject, Rub, Smoke, Rest, Carve, and Serve.

Maybe not difficult but there’s a lot to learn if you’ve never done it before. So, print this out, grab a cup of coffee, and find yourself a nice chair.

BARBECUED BRISKET

Yield: 8 – 12 servings, depending on size of the actual brisket

Difficulty: Lots of Prep; Lots of Steps; Long cook, requires good fire management.

Ingredients:

• 8 – 12 lb packer cut brisket; USDA Choice, CAB or better.

• 4 tbs (1/4 cup) Worcestershire Sauce, divided

• 1-1/4 cup Red Wine, divided

• 3 tbs Extra Virgin Olive Oil

• 1 cup Beef stock or Broth

• 2 tbs Worcestershire

• 6 Cloves Garlic, peeled and smashed, but not chopped

• 4 tbs Butter; or alternatively, substitute Truffle Oil for some or all of the butter.

• 1/2 cup Diamond kosher salt

• 1/4 cup sweet paprika

• 3 tbs coarsely fresh ground black pepper

• 3 tbs paprika,

• 2 tbs mild chili powder, or 2 tbs ground chipotle chili, or 1 tbs chile de arbol or cayenne pepper

• 1 tbs granulated garlic

• 1 tbs granulated onion

• 2 tsp dry Colman’s or other hot mustard powder

• 1/2 tsp dried sage

• 1/2 tsp dried thyme

Technique:

I. Shop – Takes as long as it takes. May be done up to 2 months in advance:

Purchase a “packer cut” whole brisket, Choice or CAB if possible.

A. What’s a packer cut? And, what’s a “whole brisket?”

A whole brisket is the “primal,” and includes two separate muscles called the flat and the point. The point is leaner, the point is richer. As a general term, “packer cut” refers to how it comes to the butcher from the meat packer – seldom the same person or company. In this case, I’m using the term to let you know you want the brisket still in it’s vacuum packed, plastic bag.

You can make great barbecued brisket using only the point or flat, yes. But everything else being equal, a whole brisket is better than a piece. Pieces smaller than four pounds or so are problematic. They often cook dry and despite your best effort to track internal temp shred rather than slice. So, whole brisket if possible and deal with the leftovers. Actually, I wouldn’t worry too much about leftovers. They won’t be left for long.

A “packer” may mean calling around. Plenty of supermarkets either don’t carry them or make them special order. And if they are special order, many supers will charge you the same price per pound as they would for a trimmed brisket flat (the most expensive part).

B. Choice? CAB? Prime? Wagyu?

Everything else being equal, the better the quality of the raw meat, the better the quality of the cooked meat. You don’t look surprised.

Select, Choice and Prime are the familiar USDA (sometimes called “rolled”) grades. If you don’t have thousands of dollars on the line in a competition, Choice is plenty good.

A lot of meat is “ungraded,” which may only mean that it isn’t graded by the USDA. Some excellent industry standards include CAB (certified Angus beef), BTC (better than Choice) and so on. If you can find “black face,” “wag-yu,” “kobe” or some other designation indicating the Japanese, black-face breed, at an affordable price, you’ve hit the jackpot. Call me with your supplier’s name.

You can certainly make great brisket with Select grade. I’m not saying you can’t. Just not as great. Repeat after me: Better raw meat means better cooked meat. Worth the extra money? It’s your wallet.

I buy BTC black angus from a higher end Korean butcher with a higher end Korean clientele. Brisket is a big deal in Korean cuisine, the butcher has a great supplier, etc., etc. It takes less evaluation on my part, which is a good thing.

C. What to Look For

Congratulations on finding a source. Try to buy between 9 and 11 lbs, with white fat, as marbled and as pliable as possible. Because a packer is covered by fat on one side, and tightly packed in a bag which has some meat juice, it’s often not easy to read the marbling. Pliability counts all the more.

Pliable? That’s right, pliable. Ask your butcher to bring out a few for you to test by picking up the brisket by each end and letting it bend; then holding it with both ends and seeing how easily it bends in the middle. The more flexible the better.

Shape helps determine how evenly the brisket will cook. Ideally, you don’t want it too thin at one end and/or too thick at the other. While 9 – 11 lbs is usually the best range, sometimes you have a choice of excellent larger and smaller briskets. If you’re worried about too small a brisket, figure about 40% waste on a packer, and 12oz per cooked, dinner serving. If 12 ounces seems large, what can I tell you? This stuff is good and people eat a lot of it.

D. Two Months?!

That vacuum packing will allow you to “wet age” the meat. If you’re not familiar with “wet-aging” the boucher’s, technical term for the process is: “Leaving it in the bag in the refrigerator for what a lot of people would consider too long a time.” Wet aging isn’t necessary, but does make a small, positive difference.

II. Trim – Takes about 10 minutes. Don’t do it more than two days before the cook

The fat on top of the brisket is called the cap and is not particularly palatable. You’ve got to substantially or entirely remove it somewhere along the line before service. Since it won’t allow any flavor at all from the marinade or rub to penetrate, you might as well remove it before marinating or rubbing.

If you’re buying from a decent butcher just a couple of days before your cook, have her trim the fat cap to no more than 1/4?, or right down to red meat. A fleck here and there of thinly trimmed cap is perfect.

If you’re reasonably proficient with a knife go ahead and try that yourself. If you’re not, and afraid that you’ll cut too deeply into the meat by trimming, it’s easier to remove the fat entirely than go for a thin trim.

It’s easier still to just leave the fat on and get it after the brisket is cooked. That means you won’t be able to rub the bottom of your meat, but wotthehell, wotthehell. You can’t have everything. And, in the greater scheme of brisket sins, there are much worse.

After trimming or not trimming, turn the brisket over so the lean side is up. Check for large flecks of fat, or pieces of thin, gray-white membrane. Use a small knife to remove them completely.

III. Marinate – About 30 minutes. You can start as far ahead as 36 hours before your intended service:

Marinade Ingredients:

• 4 tbs Red wine

• 2 tbs Worcestershire sauce

• 3 tbs Extra Virgin Olive Oil

In a pan just large enough to hold the brisket, make a marinade of 3 tbs each of red wine, Worcestershire sauce and extra virgin olive oil. Slosh the brisket around in the marinade, making sure all surfaces are moistened. Allow the brisket to marinate at least 1/2 an hour at room temperature, or as long as a 24 hours in the refrigerator.

After about 15 minutes on the counter, the marinade will mix with the beef juices and partially coagulate into syrup. Syrup is good. Syrup is desirable.

Turn the brisket over occasionally during the marinade period. Reserve the marinade.

IV. Inject – Roughly 45 minutes including preparing and doing the injection:

Injection Ingredients:

• 1 cup beef stock or broth

• (Reserved) Marinade syrup

• 1 cup wine

• 2 tbs Worcestershire

• 6 cloves garlic, peeled and smashed, but not chopped

• 4 tbs salted butter, very cold, cut into 4 pieces; or, alternatively substitute Truffle Oil for some or all of the butter

Put the stock in a pan, set it over medium high heat, bring to a boil, reduce heat to a simmer and reduce by one third, about 10 minutes.

Meanwhile drain the marinade from the brisket.

When the stock is reduced, add the marinade, wine, Worcestershire and garlic. Reduce by one third again.

Strain through a fine sieve, tea strainer or cheesecloth to remove any solids that might clog your injector’s needle, return to heat, bring back to a simmer and remove from heat.

Add the butter 1 tbs at a time, whisking each piece in just as the previous piece has melted from the residual heat. Mixture may thicken as the butter forms an emulsion. At this point the rich mouthfeel is incidental, you’re just trying to hold things together enough to distribute evenly when you inject. If you’re using truffle oil allow the inject to cool a little so as not to cook off the truffle aroma.

Truffle oil is creative and addictive. Your guests won’t know be able to quite put their finger on how beef became crack. But that’s the long on short of it.

On the other hand, if you’re cooking for competition, creativity is not your friend. Be much better, but don’t be much different.

Whatever your ingredients, fill your injecting syringe with the mixture and inject the brisket. Make many small injections, rather than a few large ones. Large injections will puddle rather than disperse. No matter how careful you are when you inject, the injecting fluid will squirt out from the meat in totally unexpected places. Messy but hilarious, you’ve got to take your entertainment where you find it.

Word to the wise: Less clean up, if you clear a large area on your counter and work in a large sheet or roasting pan.

There should be plenty of left over injection, refrigerate and reserve for your wrap liquid and eventual sauce.

V. Rub – Just a couple of minutes to mix, you want it on about thirty before you put the meat in the cooker. You don’t really get much more penetration than you get in half in an hour anyway.

Basic Beef Rub Ingredients:

• 1/2 cup Diamond kosher salt

• 1/4 cup sweet paprika

• 3 tbs coarsely fresh ground black pepper

• 3 tbs paprika,

• 2 tbs mild chili powder, or 2 tbs ground chipotle chili, or 1 tbs chile de arbol or cayenne pepper

• 1 tbs granulated garlic

• 1 tbs granulated onion

• 2 tsp dry Colman’s or other hot mustard powder

• 1/2 tsp dried sage

• 1/2 tsp dried thyme

Mix all thoroughly. Cover the brisket generously with rub. If the fat cap is untrimmed, don’t bother using rub on that side.

Note: Double or even triple the recipe for the rub. It keeps well, is useful on grilled beef and lamb, and quite good on popcorn.

VI. Smoke – Smoking will take between 8 and 20 hours (Oy!) depending mostly on weight and temperature.

Sorry about the vagueness, but times for cooking brisket low and slow are very difficult to predict, even with a known weight. It’s partly the individuality of the meat, partly the wide range of acceptable temperatures, partly the temperature variance that’s inherent in outdoor cooking.

Note: The hotter the temperature, the more predictable the time.

Prepare your smoker to run the steadiest possible temperature, between 225 and 275.

I prefer 275, but your relationship with your smoker is what it is, and it will do what it will do. Don’t make yourself nuts by trying to make it do something that’s too much trouble for you. If you’re using a small offset use water, a water-wine mix, or beer in the water pan. If you’re using a WSM, use sand or some other dry material. If you have one, use a digital probe type thermometer, placed as close to where the meat will go to monitor cooking process.

When the smoker is prepped, place the brisket in the cooking chamber, fat side down. If you have one, insert the probe from a digital thermometer to keep track of internal temperatures.

Smoke over red oak if possible, but nearly any of the usual smoke woods will turn out well.

Do not open cook chamber door for three hours. After three hours, flip the brisket over fat side up. If your cooker runs uneven temps from side to side, rotate the meat as well. Replenish the water pan. Continue replenishing water pan every three hours. If necessary rotate the brisket at those times.

Figure total cook time according to average chamber temperature and weight of brisket. 225 deg – ~2hrs/lb. 275 deg – 1-1/4 hrs/lb or a bit less. Stop adding smoke wood chunks or chips at one half of estimated time or when meat reaches internal temperature of 150, whichever comes first. If you’re burning “sticks” or logs for heat, don’t worry about it. You’re cool.

VII. Wrap – A 5 minute process, no more. 10, tops:

To wrap or not to wrap? It may be the question, but it surely isn’t the rub. We already did the rub. Smartassitude over, some people don’t wrap. If you’re not sure whether or not you should, you should.

Have a large sheet pan ready, with long strips of aluminum foil hanging off both ends. When the brisket hits around 150* internal, or is half through your estimated cooking time, remove it from the smoker, and place it on the foil. Fold the foil, but don’t seal it. . Before sealing packet add a little bit of the injection mix to the pack plus a rough chopped onion. Seal the foil and return the brisket to your ‘cue.

When the brisket hits an internal temperature of 185*, remove the wrap and return the brisket to the smoker, continue cooking until brisket reaches an internal temperature of 195*.

A. The Stall

It’s likely that during the cooking process, somewhere above 150*, continuing until up to 185*, the internal temperature increase will slow or stop. This is called “the stall.” It’s common with whole butts or picnics and almost universal with brisket. It’s normal. Don’t worry about, be patient. Temperatures will rise. Eventually. While you wait, consider the glacier.

It’s easy to lose focus during the stall and try to push the fire harder than it will go, or ascribe the geologic rate of temperature change to the stall and let it go out. Just manage the fire, okay?

It’s also easy to panic and start “mopping” as a way of looking at the meat and hoping that the combined action of your basting brush, eyeballs and anxiety will make things go faster. Knock it off. And, NO PEEKING DAMMIT.

B. After the Stall is Over, Before the Brisket’s Done

Usually, but not always, when the temperature gets a little around 185* it starts increasing more quickly. If it does, you want to keep an eye on it. This is one of many times a remote-read thermometer like the ET-73 is worth its weight in gold.

When brisket reaches 195* (or 191 if it’s still stalling), it’s done remove it from the cooker and rest it.

VIII. Rest – Brisket does best with an extensive rest. We’re talking 2 – 5 hours:

After you’ve got it out of your cooker, wrap it in cling wrap. Yes, cling wrap. Trust me, it’s better than aluminum foil – but aluminum is cool too. Set the meat in an insulated chest, the same type you use for holding things cold. In other words a cooler…for instance, an Igloo.

You want a cooler just large enough to hold the meat. After you’ve got the meat in the cooler, pack it with wadded newspaper to fill the remaining air space. Cover the cooler and make sure the cover is closed. I suggest weight the top or even taping it closed, if it doesn’t have a latch.

Rest for at least 2 hours, the extended rest is part of the cooking process. Don’t shortcut it. The cooler will hold the meat safely for more than 6 hours, but let’s be conservative.

IX. Carve – It takes, tautologically, just as long as it takes. Don’t, for heaven’s sake, dawdle. Remember. The wolf is at the door. Awhoo:

A. Divide and Conquer

Separate the point from the flat. You should be able to easily see the division between the two, and divide them with your knife. The point will have a rough triangular shape, the flat will be more rectangular.

The reason for separation is because their respective grains are perpendicular to one another. To cut both at the same time in their natural relationship would be to cut at least one of them wrong. Can’t have that.

B. Be like Ron Popeil and Cut the Fat

If you have a substantial fat cap, trim it. You can remove it with a spoon if you feel like showing off.

Occasionally there will be a band of fat which divides the flat. If the flat splits into two pieces with a layer of fat between them, separate the pieces and completely remove the fat. Cut one of the flats in half, cutting against the grain.

C. Test for Texture

Carve a slice off the freshly one of the freshly cut faces – still cutting against the grain, about 1/4? thick. Pick it up, preferably with your fingers, and taste it. If it wants to fall apart or is very, very tender you’ll be carving thicker slices. If it’s tough, you’ll be carving thinner slices. 1/4” is usually just right.

D. Always Against the Grain

Always, always cut across the grain. If you’re good with a knife, try a 20 degree bias to get some width.

Carve the point into slices across the grain as well. Plan on carving the slices roughly twice as thick as the slices you took from the flat.

E. Try a Little Tenderness

The point is usually substantially fattier than the flat. At 190 plus, it may be so tender it falls into chunks. If so, you may mix the chunks with hot barbecue sauce and serve on buns as “sloppy joes.” REAL SLOPPY JOES by the way.

Some people cut the point into chunks, re-season them with rub, put them in a pan, and back into the cooker – where, they become “burnt ends.” Got beans?

X. Serve – Same wolf, same door, same awhoo.

Some people prefer the point, some the flat, some a mix.

[Nummy noises]

Serve with your preferred tomato based barbecue sauce. Texas, Memphis, Cajun and Kansas City styles are good. Bordelaise in its classic or barbecue form is beaucoup wonderful. Alas, Carolina style sauces are not good partners to brisket. Save your Confederate money.

Accompaniments can range from standard barbecue to rather high end. Generally, beef prefers savory companions rather than the sweeter ones which go so well with pork.

If you drink: A full and fruity red like a Zin, Syrah or Shiraz is nice. Beer is never misunderstood.

XI. Leftovers – Don’t count on it:

What?

Two months? Dude that's absurd. For a "small, positive difference"??!?

Easily the most ridiculous post in this thread.

 

[Politician Spock]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

what are your thoughts on Marcion of Sinope and the current edition of the Bible?

feel free to discuss the Apocrypha and how it relates to the "...actual eyewitness to the events..."

I don't consider the Apocrypha part of Scripture, so I don't care what it says. The Biblical Manuscripts in the Original Languages has not been altered. The Translations are just that, translations of the Bible, hence you have variations in those.

First of all, no one knows what the original writings said, as we don't have the originals of any writing. The closest we have is a copy of a copy of a copy. And it is clearly evident from the copies we do have that they were being altered over time. For example, the entire story of Jesus telling the crowd that whoever is without sin should cast the first stone, doesn't appear in copies until around the 10th century. There are thousands of changes that have been found to the writings in their original language, a lot of which has significant doctrinal influences. The variations that come from translations only adds to it. To suggest that we can believe the writings are unaltered is insane. I used to believe that. But I was delusional. Anyone who believes that is delusional.

For clarity, you are referring to John 7:53-8:11.

Regarding that specific passage, and general thoughts on inerrancy, I found this response from gotquestions.org to be useful:

Question: "Does John 7:538:11 belong in the Bible?"

Answer: The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 7:538:11. This section of Scripture, sometimes referred to as the pericope adulterae, has been the center of much controversy over the years. At issue is its authenticity. Did the apostle John write John 7:538:11, or is the story of the adulterous woman forgiven by Jesus a later, uninspired insertion into the text?

The Textus Receptus includes John 7:538:11, and the majority of Greek texts do. That is the reason the King James Version of the New Testament (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the section as an original part of the Gospel of John. However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the story of the woman taken in adultery.

The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:538:11 was not originally part of Johns Gospel. No church father commented on the section until the twelfth century, and, even then, his comment was that accurate Greek manuscripts did not contain it. Among the manuscripts that do contain the section, either wholly or in part, there are variations of placement. Some manuscripts put the pericope adulterae after John 7:36, others after John 21:25, and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after Luke 21:38 or 24:53).

There is internal evidence, too, that John 7:538:11 is not original to the text. For one thing, the inclusion of these verses breaks the flow of Johns narrative. Reading from John 7:52 to John 8:12 (skipping the debated section) makes perfect sense. Also, the vocabulary used in the story of the adulterous woman is different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel of John. For example, John never refers to the scribes anywhere in his bookexcept in John 8:3. There are thirteen other words in this short section that are found nowhere else in Johns Gospel.

It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story of Jesus into Johns Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long timeit was an oral traditionand a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus. The only thing we should consider inspired Scripture is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).

Those who favor the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery point to the sheer number of Greek manuscripts that contain the passage. They explain its omission in early manuscripts as an attempt by overzealous church leaders to prevent misunderstandings. Here is the theory of those who favor inclusion: John wrote the passage just as it appears in the Textus Receptus. But later church leaders deemed the passage morally dangeroussince Jesus forgives the woman, wives might think they could commit adultery and get away with it. So, the church leaders tampered with the Word of God and removed the passage. To leave the passage in, they reasoned, would be to make Jesus seem soft on adultery. Later scribes, following the lead of the Holy Spirit, re-inserted the pericope, which should never have been removed in the first place.

The fact, however, remains that John 7:538:11 is not supported by the best manuscript evidence. Thus, there is serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible. Many call for Bible publishers to remove these verses (along with Mark 16:920) from the main text and put them in footnotes.

Because were talking about certain editions of the Bible being wrong in certain ways, we should include a few words on the inerrancy of Scripture. The original autographs are inerrant, but none of the original autographs are extant (in existence). What we have today are thousands of ancient documents and citations that have allowed us to (virtually) re-create the autographs. The occasional phrase, verse, or section may come under scholastic review and debate, but no important doctrine of Scripture is put in doubt due to these uncertainties. That the manuscripts are the subject of ongoing scholarship does not prove there is something wrong with Gods Word; it is a refining fireone of the very processes God has ordained to keep His Word pure. A belief in inerrancy underpins a reverent, careful investigation of the text.

Commentary by Gary Burge

© Copyright 2002-2016 Got Questions Ministries

www.gotquestions.org

Yep, that's what I was talking about. I disagree with that last paragraph though. I, like many, wanted the bible to be the god's word. In fact, I still want that to be true. But there is ZERO evidence of it being true, while there exists evidence that it's not. I see no problem having faith in it being true if there were no evidence that it's not. But to have that faith while there is evidence that it's not is ignorance. One has to ignore the evidence that opposes their faith based belief.

I won't get into a debate regarding the plethora of evidence that it's not god's word. But there are some simple concepts that speak against it that are undebatable. The first being that a god who is capable of inspiring people to write inerrant truth is certainly capable of preserving that writing from being altered. Since we know god did not preserve it, it's unlikely he wrote it. Combine that with the fact that it was a piss poor strategy on god's part to attempt to communicate inerrant truth via writings when the vast majority of people throughout history have been illiterate, and of those that were/are literate, most were/are not literate in the language it was written. It's far more likely that the writings were used by those to obtain power over the masses as the masses who couldn't read tended to look at writings as some kind of authority given their inability to study and challenge them. Hence, the overbearing usage of the phrase "it is written". When the writings began to be challenged, that's when the need to canonize some writings and not others became necessary to settle debates. Which eventually led to apologetics as the writings have a lot of inconsistencies. Again, as I said before, I want it all to be true. I always did and still do today. But I can't ignore what I know now. It was easier to be ignorant when it didn't require intentional ignorance.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Yep, that's what I was talking about. I disagree with that last paragraph though. I, like many, wanted the bible to be the god's word. In fact, I still want that to be true. But there is ZERO evidence of it being true, while there exists evidence that it's not. I see no problem having faith in it being true if there were no evidence that it's not. But to have that faith while there is evidence that it's not is ignorance. One has to ignore the evidence that opposes their faith based belief.

I won't get into a debate regarding the plethora of evidence that it's not god's word. But there are some simple concepts that speak against it that are undebatable. The first being that a god who is capable of inspiring people to write inerrant truth is certainly capable of preserving that writing from being altered. Since we know god did not preserve it, it's unlikely he wrote it. Combine that with the fact that it was a piss poor strategy on god's part to attempt to communicate inerrant truth via writings when the vast majority of people throughout history have been illiterate, and of those that were/are literate, most were/are not literate in the language it was written. It's far more likely that the writings were used by those to obtain power over the masses as the masses who couldn't read tended to look at writings as some kind of authority given their inability to study and challenge them. Hence, the overbearing usage of the phrase "it is written". When the writings began to be challenged, that's when the need to canonize some writings and not others became necessary to settle debates. Which eventually led to apologetics as the writings have a lot of inconsistencies. Again, as I said before, I want it all to be true. I always did and still do today. But I can't ignore what I know now. It was easier to be ignorant when it didn't require intentional ignorance.

If you don't mind I'm going to parse this as I most often read the forums on my iPhone. It becomes pretty much unreadable at a certain point.

I appreciate the response. I'm not sure I follow the all or nothing logic but that's probably just due to the limitations of my own intellectual horsepower and not a reflection of your explanation.

Seems like you have quite an extensive background in biblical study. Was that from formal training or just something you explored on your own when you were younger?

I can relate to personal beliefs evolving over time. I was not brought up in the church - our family was pretty much the classic "Christmas & Easter" church attendees - but I did seek a greater spiritual awareness when I was in my early teens. I made a decision for Christ when I was 15, served as a volunteer missionary in the Appalachian region while in high school, led a youth group after h.s., and was a lay leader while I was in the military. I fell away around 1986-87ish, though not for intellectual reasons. I was disappointed in local church leaders, or at least that was my excuse.

I never really stopped believing, but it wasn't the central part of my life beyond age 25. Not much changed on that front in the last 28-29 years until recently. But over the last few months I've started to get back into the word, praying, watching services online, listening to CCM. I have not found a corporate worship service I feel comfortable at yet but hope to find a church that is focused on gospel centered preaching and worship that lifts high the name of Jesus.

Anyway, I digress....just wanted to give you thumbnail background of my life experience as I think all of us tend to view things through the prism of our own experience.

Question....I was curious about one thing you wrote in a previous post (might have been responding to our friendly Witness Bear):

There are thousands of changes that have been found to the writings in their original language, a lot of which has significant doctrinal influences. The variations that come from translations only adds to it. To suggest that we can believe the writings are unaltered is insane.

What exactly did you have in mind regarding "significant doctrinal influences"?

Now I'm not a textual critic. I know about as much ancient Greek and Hebrew as I do Chinese (both my kids are Asian), which is to say, I have a sizeable vocabulary but no ability to converse. My understanding - relying upon academics who do this for a living - is the statement "well there are more variants than there are words in the NT" is misleading. As I understand it, we now have about 16,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Scholars have identified 400,000 variants. That's about 25 variants per manuscript. For the record, the Greek NT has around 138K words.

(compare this to the early 18th century when 100 manuscripts and 30K variants were identified...so 300 years ago scholars found, on average, 300 variants per manuscript, but archaeological discoveries have shown the ancient manuscripts are even more accurate than we once supposed.)

But what is a variant? Does it alter the meaning of the text? In more than 99.99% of the NT, it does not. It usually involves spelling differences which cannot be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes. Only a few variants change the meaning.

I noticed on an earlier page in this thread you recommended Misquoting Jesus. (ASIDE - it's not Bart Ehrman's fault as I'm sure he didn't chose the title, authors rarely do in my experience, but how ironic that nothing in his book actually concerns the words of Jesus.) One favorable and even handed review of that book seems to address your argument:

... the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them. (p. 211)

This is a fairly un-nuanced argument. Must all people have all of God’s word at every moment for it to be possible to believe that God ‘wanted people to have his actual words’? Or will it suffice to believe that God wanted some people to have some of his words for some of the time? Just what are the conditions that Ehrman is demanding for inspiration to be logical? He does not say. Ehrman’s whole emphasis here, however, is on human reception. Yet there is no need for reception of the whole of God’s word by the entire human race for it to function as his word. God may speak through a single verse that someone encounters, or through a single book of the Bible that has been translated into a particular language. Similarly, for us to insist on a perfectly printed version of the Greek New Testament bound under a single cover before we can believe that the text is inspired is a rather anthropocentric condition. We would also be insisting that scripture could only be verbally inspired for us in the twenty-first century if God fulfilled for us conditions that could not possibly have been fulfilled for Christians prior to the invention of printing. It is not irrational to suppose that God has not made his word available to all people at all times and places. Yet it is possible to maintain that in our time and place the whole original text of the New Testament is available in a relatively limited number of Greek witnesses.By the way, I find it fascinating that many of the reviews of the book Misquoting Jesus and his earlier more exhaustive work Orthodox Corruption of Scripture are not dismissed out of hand, but praised for being "Textual Criticism 101." There are definitely problematic passages in the Bible and I think believers should embrace and explore those controversial sections.

John 7:53 - 8:11 is one such instance. Though hardly a scholar, I have always known that passage was not in the earliest manuscripts. It's often bracketed and footnoted as such in most modern translations (FTR I'm an ESV man these days.) The same can be said for Mark 16:9-20 (last 12 verses), or I John 5:7-8. Those three passages are definitely open to question and present textual issues as to their authenticity. There's also a section in Luke 3 where one 14th century manuscript messed up the genealogy.

But does any of that actually fundamentally alter the theology of the New Testament? In what way?

Now if you want to chose to be an atheist, or you want to use this sort of stuff to mock believers, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm not here to change anyone's mind. It won't be me sitting on the Bema Seat. Not really here to debate anyone, internet badminton is tedious. I just wanted to present the other side of the argument.

I struggle with faith and doubt as much as the next person. Although I get where Paddington comes from - I've spent plenty of time in evangelical churches - I think he seems so cocksure about everything it's a bit of a turn off, even for believers. Seems like it would be more productive to have a conversation with genuine intellectual curiosity attached to it.

This is what I believe, and here is how I evolved to that position. OK, I can see that, I had somewhat similar experience, but my view was altered because...

That's not too much to ask, is it? Of course some hate seeing this thread in the FFA. You can ignore it, I've been here 8-9 years and never once ventured into the Ran A 10K thread. Or post recipes. Just don't post ones that ask you to wet cure meat for two weeks.

 

[Politician Spock]

You are correct that the vast majority of changes we have discovered in biblical texts over time have zero impact on doctrine. For the most part they are a forgotten punctuation here, a different letter there. However, the fact that those changes that have altered doctrine is a small subset of all changes doesn't mean it's a small problem. Given there are tens of thousands of changes that are now documented, the small subset is quite a collection of many, many changes.

As for my background, I was saved when I was 14. I'm pretty sure most Christians would say today that I was never saved, as obviously I no longer believe in that faith. That's what I used to say about former Christians too. All I can say is that I was all in. I was 100% committed, and felt what I thought was the moving of the holy spirit in my life. I experienced answers to prayer (note: I still believe in God today because of my prayer experiences). I did the youth groups, the bible studies, the small groups, etc, etc.... I did it all for over 30 years. Reading the bible was very rewarding when I was younger... but as I got older it got less and less rewarding and started to raise more and more questions. I searched for answers among family, friends, the church, the internet.... but they all seemed to want to stay at a high level apologetic approach to the issues I had. I wanted to deep dive and find the answers. So at the age of 42 I enrolled in seminary. Not only did my questions not get answered, but my classes were producing even more questions. So despite having a 3.7 GPA after spending thousands of dollars in tuition and books, I dropped out of seminary and began studying the history of Christianity. Bart Erhman was but one of the authors of books I studied. What I like about Bart's works is the amount of facts he presents. He presents opinion too, and after viewing the facts, I share a lot of the same opinions as he does, but it's the facts that I needed. From his works and others the facts just lined up too much evidence to accept that the bible is inerrant. There is also a lot of history that doesn't make the church look good, and a lot of assumptions the church makes that are quite leaps of logic. The belief that the modern day church is the extension of the early Jerusalem church over time is a poor assumption, and it's far more likely that the two have very little to do with each other. I believe there was a Jesus, and he had a huge following. I also believe he and that following were very Jewish and had no desire to be anything but Jewish. They believed Jesus had been anointed to be the next King of Israel, the one who would end the gentile occupation of their land, and return the 10 lost tribes. I believe they accepted gentiles into their beliefs, assuming the gentile converted to Judaism. I believe they had a falling out with Paul because Paul was teaching things he got from visions, and only from his visions. Paul even specifically states he didn't get what he taught from any man. I believe the doctrines of Christianity today are a result of what Paul taught, and most of the books in the bible were written (and altered) by believers of Paul's religion. What was the early Jerusalem church did NOT become the modern church. When Jerusalem was overthrown and eventually Judea became no more, there was no more country for Jesus, nor his family (James, and his other brothers) to rule over. The early Jerusalem church that believed Jesus and (as a result of royal family inheritance) James and his other brothers were anointed to be the King of Israel, died off when their country died off. The christian church, which is a result of Paul's visions, has let its followers believe that it's the natural result of the early Jerusalem church when there's no evidence of this, and a lot of evidence that modern scholars have uncovered that suggest it's not. Again, christianity is something I want to be true. My life would be a whole lot easier if I could continue believing it's true. I built my life around it. My marriage. My home. My friends. I have zero desire for it to not be true. But the facts say otherwise.

 

[BobbyLayne]

You are correct that the vast majority of changes we have discovered in biblical texts over time have zero impact on doctrine. For the most part they are a forgotten punctuation here, a different letter there. However, the fact that those changes that have altered doctrine is a small subset of all changes doesn't mean it's a small problem. Given there are tens of thousands of changes that are now documented, the small subset is quite a collection of many, many changes.

As for my background, I was saved when I was 14. I'm sure pretty most Christians would say today that I was never saved, as obviously I no longer believe in that faith. That's what I used to say about former Christians too. All I can say is that I was all in. I was 100% committed, and felt what I thought was the moving of the holy spirit in my life. I experienced answers to prayer (note: I still believe in God today because of my prayer experiences). I did the youth groups, the bible studies, the small groups, etc, etc.... I did it all for over 30 years. Reading the bible was very rewarding when I was younger... but as I got older it got less and less rewarding and started to raise more and more questions. I searched for answers among family, friends, the church, the internet.... but they all seemed to want to stay at a high level apologetic approach to the issues I had. I wanted to deep dive and find the answers. So at the age of 42 I enrolled in seminary. Not only did my questions not get answered, but my classes were producing even more questions. So despite having a 3.7 GPA after spending thousands of dollars in tuition and books, I dropped out of seminary and began studying the history of Christianity. Bart Erhman was but one of the authors of books I studied. What I like about Bart's works is the amount of facts he presents. He presents opinion too, and after viewing the facts, I share a lot of the same opinions as he does, but it's the facts that I needed. From his works and others the facts just lined up too much evidence to accept that the bible is inerrant. There is also a lot of history that doesn't make the church look good, and a lot of assumptions the church makes that are quite leaps of logic. The belief that the modern day church is the extension of the early Jerusalem church over time is a poor assumption, and it's far more likely that the two have very little to do with each other. I believe there was a Jesus, and he had a huge following. I also believe he and that following were very Jewish and had no desire to be anything but Jewish. They believed Jesus had been anointed to be the next King of Israel, the one who would end the gentile occupation of their land, and return the 10 lost tribes. I believe they accepted gentiles into their beliefs, assuming the gentile converted to Judaism. I believe they had a falling out with Paul because Paul was teaching things he got from visions, and only from his visions. Paul even specifically states he didn't get what he taught from any man. I believe the doctrines of Christianity today are a result of what Paul taught, and most of the books in the bible were written (and altered) by believers of Paul's religion. What was the early Jerusalem church did NOT become the modern church. When Jerusalem was overthrown and eventually Judea became no more, there was no more country for Jesus, nor his family (James, and his other brothers) to rule over. The early Jerusalem church that believed Jesus and (as a result of royal family inheritance) James and his other brothers were anointed to be the King of Israel, died off when their country died off. The christian church, which is a result of Paul's visions, has let its followers believe that it's the natural result of the early Jerusalem church when there's no evidence of this, and a lot of evidence that modern scholars have uncovered that suggest it's not. Again, christianity is something I want to be true. My life would be a whole lot easier if I could continue believing it's true. I built my life around it. My marriage. My home. My friends. I have zero desire for it to not be true. But the facts say otherwise.

Thank you for sharing. This seems very heartfelt and authentic. You're certainly not compelled to explain this to me or any other internet stranger, but I really appreciate it.

RE: the bolded, I'll just say this...without getting too deep into theological issues like adoption, predestination, free will, et al...I look back on my own life, and realize now that God has been relentlessly pursuing me for 40 years. I believe in once saved always saved...and though I fell away for a (very long) season, it was always God's intention that I should be saved. Again, I don't want to get bogged down in nuance, but I believe in both omnipotence and free will. He knew me before he formed the heavens and the earth. Yet the decision was always mine. I haven't quite worked all of that out yet but it is what I sincerely believe.

Did you ever read much about the life of C.S. Lewis? I share none of his achievement but when he calls himself the most reluctant convert....here, let me look up the quote so I don't get it wrong...

I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.

...that resonates with me to some extent. My life would be far more simpler if I continued in the pursuit of happiness and left behind for good all of my acquired knowledge of Jesus Christ. The easy road would be to allow that to continue wasting away in the corners of my mind. But knowledge alone is not enough, and for some (for me) it's a stumbling block. "Knowledge puffeth up" in the KJV - it creates a pride that hinders our relationship with God.

Jesus has come into my life in a way that is real, powerful, and undeniable. It's funny, we often speak of making a decision for Christ. We say "I have decided to follow Jesus." I believe God wants to have a personal relationship with his people. But with age and wisdom I have come to realize even that didn't come from me; he initiated the relationship. He brought people into my life and caused me to be places and hear things and read his word and it has fundamentally changed me.

I cannot change you or persuade you, or anyone else reading this. I have no desire to even make the attempt. If God has intended a work in your life, it will happen. The only question is how much time you waste before you acknowledge him. Or not.

The original premise of this thread is somewhat....farcical. Is there anyone living in the United States for whom the Gospel has not been declared? I mean, seriously, how many people can truthfully say "Oh, my goodness...I've never heard of this man Jesus. You say he lived a perfect life and then died on a cross as a substitute for my own sin? I never knew that!" I mean come on, who's zooming who. Everyone knows the Gospel. Most reject it, reject the Bible, reject God, and not in an accidental way. Like I said above, I'm cool with that - I'm not here to judge anyone.

But if anyone has struggled with their faith, or has doubts, or pursued it for awhile but it didn't take, or is going through the motions...this thread could function as a place to try to work that out. Or just post why you rejected Christ and/or Christianity.

I'm not big on religion, ritual or superstition. People abuse religion all the time and throughout history. Rituals and recitations and routines won't save anyone. But a genuine prayerful relationship with God - that's something I think everyone should spend some time thinking about. The Father wants to have a relationship with you. That is possible through his Son. You can learn much through his word, guided by his Spirit.

I don't have perfect knowledge, and as I said earlier, I have no desire to engage in apologetics or debate points. I'll share knowledge if I think it's applicable. I'll pray for anyone who asks or with anyone who desires. Feel free to PM if you're not comfortable sharing publicly.

At the end of the day "So then each of us will give an account of himself to God." We're all accountable for ourselves.

 

[cstu]

John 7:538:11 says I'm going to make #### up!

 

[BobbyLayne]

John 7:53 - 8:11

But yeah

It definitely reads fine if you jump from 7:52 to 8:12.

 

[Politician Spock]

Ultimately BobbyLayne, I feel today that I'm letting God be God. It was my belief that the bible was inerrant that was limiting who I would accept him to be.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Good discussion over the last several posts by Bobby and Spock. I enjoyed reading it. I'm struck by just how far I've developed in my non-belief. I can't even comprehend anymore the idea of believing all the stuff you guys believe. You talk about answered prayers and simply knowing that your vision of what God is surely is correct. I'd love to hear details from your lives that make you so sure, when I see absolutely no evidence from mine. I guess it's just a matter of a different interpretation of events. And I come from a religious background. I simply view that stuff now in much the same way I view my belief in Santa Claus when I was little. Great stories. It explains why there are presents under the tree, but when I figured out the real deal, the fairy tales are exposed for just that: fairy tales.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Good discussion over the last several posts by Bobby and Spock. I enjoyed reading it. I'm struck by just how far I've developed in my non-belief. I can't even comprehend anymore the idea of believing all the stuff you guys believe. You talk about answered prayers and simply knowing that your vision of what God is surely is correct. I'd love to hear details from your lives that make you so sure, when I see absolutely no evidence from mine. I guess it's just a matter of a different interpretation of events. And I come from a religious background. I simply view that stuff now in much the same way I view my belief in Santa Claus when I was little. Great stories. It explains why there are presents under the tree, but when I figured out the real deal, the fairy tales are exposed for just that: fairy tales.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

 

[BobbyLayne]

This inerrancy discussion is really fascinating to me, and I read it all very interestedly, but I do confess to have already landed on this subject.

Even if were without error, I couldn't in good faith claim it was without any error, because we're arguing about the nature of a document none of us have ever seen.

I hate being a blithering cut-n-paste idiot, but as a young-in-the-word believer I feel somewhat insecure about posting inaccurate or misleading guidance here.

From a very good blog called Canon Fodder, which is authored by two seminary professors who specialize in the NT and the early Christian church:

[SIZE=16pt]If you're looking for a way to critique the authority of Scripture, there are seemingly endless options. There are historical critiques (e.g., many of these books are forgeries). There are logical critiques (e.g., the Gospels contradict themselves). There are moral critiques (e.g., God is immoral to order the slaughter of entire cities). And there are hermeneutical critiques (e.g., no one can agree on what the Bible means).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]In recent years, however, a more foundational challenge has arisen. All of the above critiques are essentially the same; they all argue the words of the Bible are not true. But this newer and more foundational challenge is not about whether the words of the Bible are true, but whether we have the words of the Bible at all. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]At the core of this challenge is the fact that we only have handwritten copies of these books we treasure. And, in reality, we only have copies of copies of copies. And given that scribes made mistakes, and that the transmission process was imperfect, how can we be sure that these texts have been preserved? How can we be sure we actually have the words of Scripture?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Bart Ehrman's best-selling book Misquoting Jesus focuses on this issue as it pertains to the New Testament text: [/SIZE]

What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them . . . in thousands of ways.

[SIZE=16pt]If Ehrman is correct, then he has uncovered the single thread that would unravel the entire garment of the Christian faith. There is no need to critique the content of the New Testament if we don't even have the New Testament.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]But is this argument cogent? I think not. There are two places it can be challenged: (1) the role of the autographs and (2) the degree of corruption in the extant manuscripts.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=18pt]Role of the Autographs[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Ehrman's focus on the autographs (or the absence of them) is not unusual in modern critiques of biblical authority. However, this sort of argument often creates the impression (even if it is unintentional) that the autographs are the original text—almost as if the original text were a physical object that has been lost. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]But the original text is not a physical object. The autographs contain the original text, but the original text can exist without them. A text can be preserved in other ways. One such way is that the original text can be preserved in a multiplicity of manuscripts. In other words, even though a single surviving manuscript might not contain (all of) the original text, the original text could be accessible to us across a wide range of manuscripts. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Preserving the original text across multiple manuscripts, however, could only happen if there were enough of these manuscripts to give us assurance that the original text was preserved (somewhere) in them. Providentially, when it comes to the quantity of manuscripts, the New Testament is in a class all its own. Although the exact count is always changing, currently we possess more than 5,500 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek alone. No other document of antiquity even comes close.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Even though we do not possess the autographs, textual scholars have acknowledged that the multiplicity of manuscripts allows us to access the original text. Eldon Jay Epp notes, “The point is that we have so many manuscripts of the NT . . . that surely the original reading in every case is somewhere present in our vast store of material.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Gordon Fee concurs: “The immense amount of material available to NT textual critics . . . is their good fortune because with such an abundance of material one can be reasonably certain that the original text is to be found somewhere in it.” [/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Of course, one might wonder why God chose to preserve the text in this manner. Why not just preserve the autographs? Why didn't God just allow Christians to keep the autographs sealed away in a vault somewhere? For one, it is historically unlikely that the autographs could have survived until the present day, especially if they were being regularly used.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]But it is also possible that God may have not wanted the autographs to survive. One can imagine how easily (and quickly) such documents would become objects of veneration, if not worship. They might have become the equivalent of Gideon's ephod (Judges 8:27http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Judg 8.27[/SIZE]) — [SIZE=16pt]a good gift the people begin to treat as an idol[/SIZE].

[SIZE=16pt]Of course, we cannot know for sure why God providentially did not preserve the autographs. But, in one sense, it is fitting. It reminds us that the Word of God, like God himself, is not bound to a physical location or to a physical object. It is a Word that is not contained. It is a Word that goes forth.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=18pt]Corruption of the Manuscripts[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]If, as we have seen, there are good reasons to think that the original text is preserved across the entire manuscript tradition (as opposed to being contained in a single manuscript), then there is still the question of how we identify the original text. How do we distinguish the original text from textual changes or corruptions? Can this even be done?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Ehrman would suggest it cannot. The reason for his skepticism is that the copies we posses are “error-ridden” and contain “thousands” of differences. In other words, the manuscripts are in such poor shape, so full of corruptions, that no methodology could extract the original text from them. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Again, this is a vast overstatement. While there are certainly many, many textual differences (hundreds of thousands, in fact), the key point is that the vast majority of these scribal changes are minor and insignificant—e.g., spelling mistakes, use of synonyms, and word-order changes. In the end, these do not substantively change the meaning of the text.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Of course, there are more substantive textual changes (much fewer in number) that do affect the meaning of the text. But these changes would only be a problem if we could not identify them as changes. Or to put differently, these kinds of variants would only be a problem if we could assume that every one of them was as equally viable as every other.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Thankfully, textual scholars can determine, with a relative degree of certainty, which of these readings were original and which were not. There are still some gray areas, some instances where a choice between variants is unclear. But, generally speaking, we can have confidence that the words we read are the words of the original authors. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]Historically, Christian affirmations of biblical authority are often expressly restricted to the “autographs.” And there are obvious reasons for this view. Biblical authority does not apply to whatever a later scribe might happen to write down—it applies to what the biblical authors actually wrote.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16pt]But does the lack of autographs mean such affirmations of biblical authority are meaningless? No, because the authority does not reside in a physical object, but in the original text. And the original text has been preserved in another way, namely through the multiplicity of manuscripts. [/SIZE]

Not sure if that is relevant because, as you put, "you've already landed" on his topic. But perhaps it will be useful to someone else stumbling along here.

ETA: tidying up the formatting

proninja, great to see you up and posting this morning. Hoping for a full and speedy recovery.

 

[BobbyLayne]

There is also a lot of history that doesn't make the church look good, and a lot of assumptions the church makes that are quite leaps of logic. The belief that the modern day church is the extension of the early Jerusalem church over time is a poor assumption, and it's far more likely that the two have very little to do with each other. I believe there was a Jesus, and he had a huge following. I also believe he and that following were very Jewish and had no desire to be anything but Jewish. They believed Jesus had been anointed to be the next King of Israel, the one who would end the gentile occupation of their land, and return the 10 lost tribes. I believe they accepted gentiles into their beliefs, assuming the gentile converted to Judaism. I believe they had a falling out with Paul because Paul was teaching things he got from visions, and only from his visions. Paul even specifically states he didn't get what he taught from any man. I believe the doctrines of Christianity today are a result of what Paul taught, and most of the books in the bible were written (and altered) by believers of Paul's religion. What was the early Jerusalem church did NOT become the modern church. When Jerusalem was overthrown and eventually Judea became no more, there was no more country for Jesus, nor his family (James, and his other brothers) to rule over. The early Jerusalem church that believed Jesus and (as a result of royal family inheritance) James and his other brothers were anointed to be the King of Israel, died off when their country died off. The christian church, which is a result of Paul's visions, has let its followers believe that it's the natural result of the early Jerusalem church when there's no evidence of this, and a lot of evidence that modern scholars have uncovered that suggest it's not. Again, christianity is something I want to be true.

Good morning Spock,

Parsing again, this time to stay on point, and returning again to this post as my morning seems relevant.

You make a lot of great points here. It's an undeniable fact the the Pauline epistles are foundational to the NT. The sheer volume is astonishing - at least 13 of the 27 books are attributed to him. But reading through Luke 15-17 as my morning devotional today, I'm reminded when Paul writes in the first chapter of Romans "to the Jew first then the Gentile", this was always God's plan, and not incongruent with the teachings found in the synoptic Gospels.

Anyway, I would challenge you to re-read those 3 chapters of Luke.

One other thing I wanted to share with you (& everyone else) is a sermon I watched online a few weeks ago; the preaching starts around 35:00 minute mark. It's pretty good foundational stuff on evolution, creationism and believing in "a God of antiquity" (as some suppose) in a modern age and in the face of modern science.

Remember, my renewal in my walk with Jesus is relatively newish, so this meant a lot to me to review.

Good stuff.

http://www.harvestspringlake.org/media/sermons/media-item/424/in-the-beginning-part-1---pastor-david-wisen

(BACKGROUND ASIDE - this is from Harvest Bible Chapel in Sping Lake, MI. If anyone is from the Chicagoland area, this church is an offshoot of HBC Rolling Meadows - there are several other campuses around Chicago. The man speaking here is a pastor named Dave Wisen. He is an heir through marriage to the Van Kampen fortune. About six years ago he left behind managing the family wealth to plant this church in the Grand Haven/Tri-Cities area. My family is from west Michigan and several extended family members attend worship services there.)

 

[tonydead]

Good discussion over the last several posts by Bobby and Spock. I enjoyed reading it. I'm struck by just how far I've developed in my non-belief. I can't even comprehend anymore the idea of believing all the stuff you guys believe. You talk about answered prayers and simply knowing that your vision of what God is surely is correct. I'd love to hear details from your lives that make you so sure, when I see absolutely no evidence from mine. I guess it's just a matter of a different interpretation of events. And I come from a religious background. I simply view that stuff now in much the same way I view my belief in Santa Claus when I was little. Great stories. It explains why there are presents under the tree, but when I figured out the real deal, the fairy tales are exposed for just that: fairy tales.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

..and extremely convenient.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Good discussion over the last several posts by Bobby and Spock. I enjoyed reading it. I'm struck by just how far I've developed in my non-belief. I can't even comprehend anymore the idea of believing all the stuff you guys believe. You talk about answered prayers and simply knowing that your vision of what God is surely is correct. I'd love to hear details from your lives that make you so sure, when I see absolutely no evidence from mine. I guess it's just a matter of a different interpretation of events. And I come from a religious background. I simply view that stuff now in much the same way I view my belief in Santa Claus when I was little. Great stories. It explains why there are presents under the tree, but when I figured out the real deal, the fairy tales are exposed for just that: fairy tales.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

..and extremely convenient.

TBH it's rather inconvenient. Far easier for each of us to follow our own hearts and desires than to seek the will of the Creator.

 

[Van Dyman]

This inerrancy discussion is really fascinating to me, and I read it all very interestedly, but I do confess to have already landed on this subject.

Even if were without error, I couldn't in good faith claim it was without any error, because we're arguing about the nature of a document none of us have ever seen.

WHOA! Welcome back!

 

[jomar]

Good discussion over the last several posts by Bobby and Spock. I enjoyed reading it. I'm struck by just how far I've developed in my non-belief. I can't even comprehend anymore the idea of believing all the stuff you guys believe. You talk about answered prayers and simply knowing that your vision of what God is surely is correct. I'd love to hear details from your lives that make you so sure, when I see absolutely no evidence from mine. I guess it's just a matter of a different interpretation of events. And I come from a religious background. I simply view that stuff now in much the same way I view my belief in Santa Claus when I was little. Great stories. It explains why there are presents under the tree, but when I figured out the real deal, the fairy tales are exposed for just that: fairy tales.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

..and extremely convenient.

TBH it's rather inconvenient. Far easier for each of us to follow our own hearts and desires than to seek the will of the Creator.

maybe the will of the creator was for us to follow our own hearts and desires.

we can never know if there is any Creator, let alone what his will is if he does exist. If he wanted us to know either, I'm sure he could make that happen and make it happen in a way that all people would recognize. but then that wouldn't be faith. I've never quite understood why people think that some all-powerful, all knowing being is so pre-occupied with us having to have faith in him when he gives us nothing to believe he is there. I know if I was a god, I'd have better things to concern myself with.

I'm quite certain that if there is a god, he would merely want us to live a good life, helping others, loving others, etc.... forget all of the mumbo jumbo of having to accept his son as your savior, some son he sent down to earth to die for our sins, etc, etc, etc..... that just sounds made up and some sort of fairy tale. if god has a problem with my ability to reason, that's on him because he created me this way and supposedly knew it was gonna happen. so who's fault is it that I don't have faith?

 

[Quint]

Good discussion over the last several posts by Bobby and Spock. I enjoyed reading it. I'm struck by just how far I've developed in my non-belief. I can't even comprehend anymore the idea of believing all the stuff you guys believe. You talk about answered prayers and simply knowing that your vision of what God is surely is correct. I'd love to hear details from your lives that make you so sure, when I see absolutely no evidence from mine. I guess it's just a matter of a different interpretation of events. And I come from a religious background. I simply view that stuff now in much the same way I view my belief in Santa Claus when I was little. Great stories. It explains why there are presents under the tree, but when I figured out the real deal, the fairy tales are exposed for just that: fairy tales.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

..and extremely convenient.

TBH it's rather inconvenient. Far easier for each of us to follow our own hearts and desires than to seek the will of the Creator.

maybe the will of the creator was for us to follow our own hearts and desires.

we can never know if there is any Creator, let alone what his will is if he does exist. If he wanted us to know either, I'm sure he could make that happen and make it happen in a way that all people would recognize. but then that wouldn't be faith. I've never quite understood why people think that some all-powerful, all knowing being is so pre-occupied with us having to have faith in him when he gives us nothing to believe he is there. I know if I was a god, I'd have better things to concern myself with.

I'm quite certain that if there is a god, he would merely want us to live a good life, helping others, loving others, etc.... forget all of the mumbo jumbo of having to accept his son as your savior, some son he sent down to earth to die for our sins, etc, etc, etc..... that just sounds made up and some sort of fairy tale. if god has a problem with my ability to reason, that's on him because he created me this way and supposedly knew it was gonna happen. so who's fault is it that I don't have faith?

Welcome to Deism. Glad to have you in the club.

 

[jomar]

Welcome to Deism. Glad to have you in the club.

I used to call myself a Deist some years back as I transitioned from Catholicism to agnostic/atheist. don't think so anymore. really, I have no idea if there is some higher power. Its possible I guess, but highly doubtful. I hope there would be but that doesn't count for anything. Its not a big question in my life. I figure it'll work itself out and I'll find out when the time comes. I'm comfortable explaining myself to any higher power should he require it. If He turns out to be anything close to the jerk described in the bible, then most if not all of us are in trouble.

 

[Politician Spock]

Good morning Spock,

Parsing again, this time to stay on point, and returning again to this post as my morning seems relevant.

You make a lot of great points here. It's an undeniable fact the the Pauline epistles are foundational to the NT. The sheer volume is astonishing - at least 13 of the 27 books are attributed to him. But reading through Luke 15-17 as my morning devotional today, I'm reminded when Paul writes in the first chapter of Romans "to the Jew first then the Gentile", this was always God's plan, and not incongruent with the teachings found in the synoptic Gospels.

Anyway, I would challenge you to re-read those 3 chapters of Luke.

According to Paul that was always God's plan. The question is, was Paul right?

As for the gospels validating that, the gospels were written somewhere around two to four decades after Paul started writing his letters. The gospels were probably written by followers of Paul. It's only because of tradition that christians believe they were written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There's no evidence those were the names of the authors, nor any evidence that they were eyewitness accounts. In fact, the books of Matthew and Luke very clearly used an external source, that modern scholars call "Q", which could have been a writing from the early Jerusalem church that followers of Paul used to embellish and support Paul's teachings.

It's also interesting that almost everything that Matthew and Luke sourced from "Q" is never referenced by Paul in his letters. Of course, the fact that Paul wrote his letter first explains that, but it also reveals how little Paul knew of what Jesus taught. As he shouldn't given he never met Jesus, and Paul says what he taught did not come from any man. What Paul taught comes entirely from what he claims was visions of Jesus appearing to him and teaching him these things. It's likely the gospels were written to tie the teachings of Paul to the teachings of Christ. Most people who study this see Paul and Christ teaching two very different beliefs, with some clearly contrasting concepts.

My stance on the matter is that most books of the New Testament were either written by Paul or by believers in Paul. There are two that I believe weren't. They are James and Revelation, which were two that were just barely selected as part of the canon. James presents a very anti-Pauline version of christianity. And Revelation goes so far to indicate that Paul was a false apostle.

 

[cstu]

Welcome to Deism. Glad to have you in the club.

I used to call myself a Deist some years back as I transitioned from Catholicism to agnostic/atheist. don't think so anymore. really, I have no idea if there is some higher power. Its possible I guess, but highly doubtful. I hope there would be but that doesn't count for anything. Its not a big question in my life. I figure it'll work itself out and I'll find out when the time comes. I'm comfortable explaining myself to any higher power should he require it. If He turns out to be anything close to the jerk described in the bible, then most if not all of us are in trouble.

Everyone seems to want to go to Heaven but I would be walking around on egg shells for eternity afraid I'll be tortured forever for saying the wrong thing.

 

[Jayrok]

I've also enjoyed the discussion the last couple of pages with Spock and BL. Spock's comments remind of essentially where I was a few years ago. In fact, in the not too distant past, he and I (among others) used to debate these same types of issues right here in the FFA.

I agree with much of what Spock has said here regarding inerrancy and the early Christian church (especially the Jerusalem church), but disagree with some as well.

Ehrman has published excellent material on matters of the New Testament and is always a good read. I tend to agree with him with regards to who the historical Jesus was (if there was indeed such a figure). With regards to Paul, I recommend some other authors such as Elaine Pagels, Hermann Detering and Robert Price.

Robert Price's The Amazing Colossal Apostle is not the easiest read, but presents a lot of scholarly material surrounding Paul in terms of who he was (or wasn't) and how his epistles came to be.

 

[Politician Spock]

I forgot to add (and I think it's important enough to say), that much of the non-Q content in the gospels are stories that are very similar to pagan stories of messiah like characters. We know today that these pagan stories existed centuries before the time of Christ. Paul, being a Roman citizen, and one very knowledgeable of Hellenistic culture, should have known these stories very well. And while not going so far as attributing these existing stories to Jesus in his letters, it's likely that his followers attributed those stories to Jesus in their writings. This is one of the reasons that some make strong arguments that Jesus never existed, as a lot of what is attributed to Jesus is simply borrowed from paganism. As I said before I believe Jesus did exist, but his apostles, disciples and followers did not believe he was god, nor did they witness him do all the stories borrowed from paganism. They wanted their king. They wanted the gentile occupation of their land to end. They wanted the ten lost tribes returned. That's what all of them expected the messiah to be. Not one of them expected the messiah to be what Paul says Jesus was. If you want to know what Jesus taught, and filter out all the Pauline stuff, get a book on what passages inside Matthew and Luke are attributed to the Q source. That's about as close as you can get to know who Jesus was.

ETA: the book of James also does a good job of saying what Jesus' apostles, disciples and followers actually believed.

 

[tonydead]

..and extremely convenient.

TBH it's rather inconvenient. Far easier for each of us to follow our own hearts and desires than to seek the will of the Creator.

I don't follow my heart, my heart is a muscle that supplies blood, oxygen and pressure to all the other cells in my body including my brain. I prefer to keep my heart focused on that task and let my brain figure out where I'm going.

 

[cstu]

I forgot to add (and I think it's important enough to say), that much of the non-Q content in the gospels are stories that are very similar to pagan stories of messiah like characters. We know today that these pagan stories existed centuries before the time of Christ. Paul, being a Roman citizen, and one very knowledgeable of Hellenistic culture, should have known these stories very well. And while not going so far as attributing these existing stories to Jesus in his letters, it's likely that his followers attributed those stories to Jesus in their writings. This is one of the reasons that some make strong arguments that Jesus never existed, as a lot of what is attributed to Jesus is simply borrowed from paganism. As I said before I believe Jesus did exist, but his apostles, disciples and followers did not believe he was god, nor did they witness him do all the stories borrowed from paganism. They wanted their king. They wanted the gentile occupation of their land to end. They wanted the ten lost tribes returned. That's what all of them expected the messiah to be. Not one of them expected the messiah to be what Paul says Jesus was. If you want to know what Jesus taught, and filter out all the Pauline stuff, get a book on what passages inside Matthew and Luke are attributed to the Q source. That's about as close as you can get to know who Jesus was.

ETA: the book of James also does a good job of saying what Jesus' apostles, disciples and followers actually believed.

I find it very strange that none of the original apostles (or anyone who joined them after Jesus' death) wrote anything down. It wasn't as though writing didn't exist and Saul/Paul had no problem doing it. I would think the first thing you do when an even like this happens is to write it down.

And besides the lack of written accounts by the apostles themselves, are there any non-Biblical accounts of the apostles? Would be nice if a historian had at least written about what the apostles were preaching but it seems like they all when unknown in their own time same as Jesus.

 

[Politician Spock]

I find it very strange that none of the original apostles (or anyone who joined them after Jesus' death) wrote anything down. It wasn't as though writing didn't exist and Saul/Paul had no problem doing it. I would think the first thing you do when an even like this happens is to write it down.

And besides the lack of written accounts by the apostles themselves, are there any non-Biblical accounts of the apostles? Would be nice if a historian had at least written about what the apostles were preaching but it seems like they all when unknown in their own time same as Jesus.

If we accept the careers the apostles were in before Jesus called them, most of them would very likely be illiterate.

If god wanted books to be written that believers could accept as being inerrant, he very likely wouldn't choose illiterate people to be the 12 Jesus focused on for 3 and a half years.... Better yet, god would have just had Jesus himself write the books.

It's also suspect that Jesus would go out of his way to mention to the apostles that a "helper" would be coming after he's gone, but he made no mention that he was going to appear to some other dude and share with him a hidden mystery that they weren't good enough to receive after dedicating three and a half years of their lives to him.

 

[tonydead]

I forgot to add (and I think it's important enough to say), that much of the non-Q content in the gospels are stories that are very similar to pagan stories of messiah like characters. We know today that these pagan stories existed centuries before the time of Christ. Paul, being a Roman citizen, and one very knowledgeable of Hellenistic culture, should have known these stories very well. And while not going so far as attributing these existing stories to Jesus in his letters, it's likely that his followers attributed those stories to Jesus in their writings. This is one of the reasons that some make strong arguments that Jesus never existed, as a lot of what is attributed to Jesus is simply borrowed from paganism. As I said before I believe Jesus did exist, but his apostles, disciples and followers did not believe he was god, nor did they witness him do all the stories borrowed from paganism. They wanted their king. They wanted the gentile occupation of their land to end. They wanted the ten lost tribes returned. That's what all of them expected the messiah to be. Not one of them expected the messiah to be what Paul says Jesus was. If you want to know what Jesus taught, and filter out all the Pauline stuff, get a book on what passages inside Matthew and Luke are attributed to the Q source. That's about as close as you can get to know who Jesus was.

ETA: the book of James also does a good job of saying what Jesus' apostles, disciples and followers actually believed.

I find it very strange that none of the original apostles (or anyone who joined them after Jesus' death) wrote anything down. It wasn't as though writing didn't exist and Saul/Paul had no problem doing it. I would think the first thing you do when an even like this happens is to write it down.

And besides the lack of written accounts by the apostles themselves, are there any non-Biblical accounts of the apostles? Would be nice if a historian had at least written about what the apostles were preaching but it seems like they all when unknown in their own time same as Jesus.

Mythology

Jesus - Dionysus - Osiris

Father God, Mother Virgin, Dying and returning (resurrection). God of forgiveness (died for our sins) and/or judgement.

Jesus stole the myths from previous Gods and then the rise of Christianity stomped out their religions.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

How does a rational adult mind really believe all this stuff? The evidence is shaky, at best, for the existence of Jesus, and not even that strong for the existence of the Abrahamic God. You literally have to set aside everything you know to be true about reality and replace it with blind faith. Faith in something/someone that you only know about because someone else told you about them.

Santa Claus indeed.

 

[BobbyLayne]

secular accounts (outside of the Bible)of the historical Jesus

 

[BobbyLayne]

When were the Gospel accounts written & by whom

 

[BobbyLayne]

Is Christianity syncretistic? Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan "Crucified Saviors" Examined

 

[matuski]

When were the Gospel accounts written & by whom

FIRST SENTENCE.

If it can be established that the Gospels were written early, say before the year A.D. 70, then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself.

This is like saying if a biography on Hitler was written last year (died ~70 years ago), then we have good reason to believe it is written by his disciples.

 

[Jayrok]

BobbyLayne -- I didn't realize you were an apologist. I think you're fighting a tired, uphill battle if you plan to post links to articles like those. Those historical Jesus claims have been debated over and over again for years and years.

I will say that I do not believe that Jesus was copied from other types of "crucified saviors." That is also a tired argument from the other side, IMO. Although I do believe the NT was influenced by philosophies and cultures (some pagan) that thrived in that part of the world during that time.

 

[matuski]

Is Christianity syncretistic? Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan "Crucified Saviors" Examined

All those big red X's are trying pretty hard to distract from the fact that between the many parallel gods, every attribute listed overlaps several times over (the green check marks are cumulative across all charts). Attested to by your own link.

The claim isn't that these stories were copied from one single god, but from the many.

This article nicely closes the argument against the one you are trying to support. These attributes aren't only unoriginal, but were likely borrowed from gods who themselves borrowed it before. So.. like a hand me down of hand me downs.

 

[Politician Spock]

How does a rational adult mind really believe all this stuff? The evidence is shaky, at best, for the existence of Jesus, and not even that strong for the existence of the Abrahamic God. You literally have to set aside everything you know to be true about reality and replace it with blind faith. Faith in something/someone that you only know about because someone else told you about them.

Santa Claus indeed.

Honestly I feel like I left a cult. The desire to want it to be true can be very powerful. I still want it to be true. I mean really, why would anyone not want it to be true? But the evidence says otherwise.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

Which god?

A, Adad, Adapa, Adrammelech, Aeon, Agasaya, Aglibol, Ahriman, Ahura Mazda, Ahurani, Ai-ada, Al-Lat, Aja, Aka, Alalu, Al-Lat, Amm, Al-Uzza (El-'Ozza or Han-Uzzai), An, Anahita, Anath (Anat), Anatu, Anbay, Anshar, Anu, Anunitu, An-Zu, Apsu, Aqhat, Ararat, Arinna, Asherali, Ashnan, Ashtoreth, Ashur, Astarte, Atar, Athirat, Athtart, Attis, Aya, Baal (Bel), Baalat (Ba'Alat), Baau, Basamum, Beelsamin, Belit-Seri, Beruth, Borak, Broxa, Caelestis, Cassios, Lebanon, Antilebanon, and Brathy, Chaos, Chemosh, Cotys, Cybele, Daena, Daevas, Dagon, Damkina, Dazimus, Derketo, Dhat-Badan, Dilmun, Dumuzi (Du'uzu), Duttur, Ea, El, Endukugga, Enki, Enlil, Ennugi, Eriskegal, Ereshkigal (Allatu), Eshara, Eshmun, Firanak, Fravashi, Gatamdug, Genea, Genos, Gestinanna, Gula, Hadad, Hannahanna, Hatti, Hea, Hiribi, The Houri, Humban, Innana, Ishkur, Ishtar, Ithm, Jamshid or Jamshyd, Jehovah, Jesus, Kabta, Kadi, Kamrusepas, Ki (Kiki), Kingu, Kolpia, Kothar-u-Khasis, Lahar, Marduk, Mari, Meni, Merodach, Misor, Moloch, Mot, Mushdama, Mylitta, Naamah, Nabu (Nebo), Nairyosangha, Nammu, Namtaru, Nanna, Nebo, Nergal, Nidaba, Ninhursag or Nintu, Ninlil, Ninsar, Nintur, Ninurta, Pa, Qadshu, Rapithwin, Resheph (Mikal or Mekal), Rimmon, Sadarnuna, Shahar, Shalim, Shamish, Shapshu, Sheger, Sin, Siris (Sirah), Taautos, Tammuz, Tanit, Taru, Tasimmet, Telipinu, Tiamat, Tishtrya, Tsehub, Utnapishtim, Utu, Wurusemu, Yam, Yarih (Yarikh), Yima, Zaba, Zababa, Zam, Zanahary (Zanaharibe), Zarpandit, Zarathustra, Zatavu, Zazavavindrano, Ziusudra, Zu (Imdugud), Zurvan

China (170):
Ba, Caishen, Chang Fei, Chang Hsien, Chang Pan, Ch'ang Tsai, Chao san-Niang, Chao T'eng-k'ang, Chen Kao, Ch'eng Huang, Cheng San-Kung, Cheng Yuan-ho, Chi Po, Chien-Ti, Chih Jih, Chih Nii, Chih Nu, Ch'ih Sung-tzu, Ching Ling Tzu, Ch'ing Lung, Chin-hua Niang-niang, Chio Yuan-Tzu, Chou Wang, Chu Niao, Chu Ying, Chuang-Mu, Chu-jung, Chun T'i, Ch'ung Ling-yu, Chung Liu, Chung-kuei, Chung-li Ch'an, Di Jun, Fan K'uei, Fei Lien, Feng Pho-Pho, Fengbo, Fu Hsing, Fu-Hsi, Fu-Pao, Gaomei, Guan Di, Hao Ch'iu, Heng-o, Ho Po (Ping-I), Hou Chi, Hou T'u, Hsi Ling-su, Hsi Shih, Hsi Wang Mu, Hsiao Wu, Hsieh T'ien-chun, Hsien Nung, Hsi-shen, Hsu Ch'ang, Hsuan Wen-hua, Huang Ti, Huang T'ing, Huo Pu, Hu-Shen, Jen An, Jizo Bosatsu, Keng Yen-cheng, King Wan, Ko Hsien-Weng, Kuan Ti, Kuan Ti, Kuei-ku Tzu, Kuo Tzu-i, Lai Cho, Lao Lang, Lei Kung, Lei Tsu, Li Lao-chun, Li Tien, Liu Meng, Liu Pei, Lo Shen, Lo Yu, Lo-Tsu Ta-Hsien, Lu Hsing, Lung Yen, Lu-pan, Ma-Ku, Mang Chin-i, Mang Shen, Mao Meng, Men Shen, Miao Hu, Mi-lo Fo, Ming Shang, Nan-chi Hsien-weng, Niu Wang, Nu Wa, Nu-kua, Pa, Pa Cha, Pai Chung, Pai Liu-Fang, Pai Yu, P'an Niang, P'an-Chin-Lien, Pao Yuan-ch'uan, Phan Ku, P'i Chia-Ma, Pien Ho, San Kuan, Sao-ch'ing Niang, Sarudahiko, Shang Chien, Shang Ti, She chi, Shen Hsui-Chih, Shen Nung, Sheng Mu, Shih Liang, Shiu Fang, Shou-lao, Shun I Fu-jen, Sien-Tsang, Ssu-ma Hsiang-ju, Sun Pin, Sun Ssu-miao, Sung-Chiang, Tan Chu, T'ang Ming Huang, Tao Kung, T'ien Fei, Tien Hou, Tien Mu, Ti-tsang, Tsai Shen, Ts'an Nu, Ts'ang Chien, Tsao Chun, Tsao-Wang, T'shai-Shen, Tung Chun, T'ung Chung-chung, T'ung Lai-yu, Tung Lu, T'ung Ming, Tzu-ku Shen, Wa, Wang Ta-hsien, Wang-Mu-Niang-Niang, Weiwobo, Wen-ch'ang, Wu-tai Yuan-shuai, Xi Hou, Xi Wangmu, Xiu Wenyin, Yanwang, Yaoji, Yen-lo, Yen-Lo-Wang, Yi, Yu, Yu Ch'iang, Yu Huang, Yun-T'ung, Yu-Tzu, Zaoshen, Zhang Xi, , Zhin, Zhongguei, , Zigu Shen, , Zisun, Ch'ang-O

balto slavic: (125)
Aba-khatun, Aigiarm, Ajysyt, Alkonost, Almoshi, Altan-Telgey, Ama, Anapel, As-ava, Ausaitis, Austeja, Ayt'ar, Baba Yaga (Jezi Baba), Belobog (Belun), Boldogasszony, Breksta, Bugady Musun, Chernobog (Crnobog, Czarnobog, Czerneboch, Cernobog), Cinei-new, Colleda (Koliada), Cuvto-ava, Dali, Darzu-mate, Dazhbog, Debena, Devana, Diiwica (Dilwica), Doda (Dodola), Dolya, Dragoni, Dugnai, Dunne Enin, Edji, Elena, Erce, Etugen, Falvara, The Fates, The Fatit, Gabija, Ganiklis, Giltine, Hotogov Mailgan, Hov-ava, Iarila, Isten, Ja-neb'a, Jedza, Joda-mate, Kaldas, Kaltes, Keretkun, Khadau, Khursun (Khors), Kostrubonko, Kovas, Krumine, Kupala, Kupalo, Laima, Leshy, Marina, Marzana, Matergabiae, Mat Syra Zemlya, Medeine, Menu (Menulis), Mir-Susne-Khum, Myesyats, Nastasija, (Russia) Goddess of sleep., Nelaima, Norov, Numi-Tarem, Nyia, Ora, Ot, Patollo, Patrimpas, Pereplut, Perkuno, Perun, Pikuolis, Pilnytis, Piluitus, Potrimpo, Puskaitis, Rod, Rugevit, Rultennin, Rusalki, Sakhadai-Noin, Saule, Semargl, Stribog, Sudjaje, Svantovit (Svantevit, Svitovyd), Svarazic (Svarozic, Svarogich), Tengri, Tairgin, Triglav, Ulgen (Ulgan, lgn), Veles (Volos), Vesna, Xatel-Ekwa, Xoli-Kaltes, Yamm, Yarilo, Yarovit, Ynakhsyt, Zaria, Zeme mate, Zemyna, Ziva (Siva), Zizilia, Zonget, Zorya, Zvoruna, Zvezda Dennitsa, Zywie

Hindu (72):
Aditi, Adityas, Ambika, Ananta (Shesha), Annapurna (Annapatni), Aruna, Ashvins, Balarama, Bhairavi, Brahma, Buddha, Dakini, Devi, Dharma, Dhisana, Durga, Dyaus, Ganesa (Ganesha), Ganga (Ganges), Garuda, Gauri, Gopis, Hanuman, Hari-Hara, Hulka Devi, Jagganath, Jyeshtha, Kama, Karttikeya, Krishna, Krtya, Kubera, Kubjika, Lakshmi or Laksmi, Manasha, Manu, Maya, Meru, Nagas, Nandi, Naraka, Nataraja, Nirriti, Parjanya, Parvati, Paurnamasi, Prithivi, Purusha, Radha, Rati, Ratri, Rudra, Sanjna, Sati, Shashti, Shatala, Sitala (Satala), Skanda, Sunrta, Surya, Svasti-devi, Tvashtar, Uma, Urjani, Vach, Varuna, Vayu, Vishnu (Avatars of Vishnu: Matsya; Kurma; Varaha; Narasinha; Vamana; Parasurama; Rama; Krishna; Buddha; Kalki), Vishvakarman, Yama, Sraddha

Japan (53):
Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone, Ama no Uzume, Ama-terasu, Amatsu Mikaboshi, Benten (Benzai-Ten), Bishamon, Chimata-No-Kami, Chup-Kamui, Daikoku, Ebisu, Emma-O, Fudo, Fuji, Fukurokuju, Gekka-O, Hachiman, Hettsui-No-Kami, Ho-Masubi, Hotei, Inari, Izanagi and Izanami, Jizo Bosatsu, Jurojin, Kagutsuchi, Kamado-No-Kami, Kami, Kawa-No-Kami, Kaya-Nu-Hima, Kishijoten, Kishi-Mojin, Kunitokotatchi, Marici, Monju-Bosatsu, Nai-No-Kami, No-Il Ja-Dae, O-Kuni-Nushi, Omoigane, Raiden, Shine-Tsu-Hiko, Shoten, Susa-no-wo, Tajika-no-mikoto, Tsuki-yomi, Uka no Mitanna, Uke-mochi, Uso-dori, Uzume, Wakahirume, Yainato-Hnneno-Mikoi, Yama-No-Kami, Yama-no-Karni, Yaya-Zakurai, Yuki-Onne

India (43)
Agni, Ammavaru, Asuras, Banka-Mundi, Brihaspati, Budhi Pallien, Candi, Challalamma, Chinnintamma, Devas, Dyaush, Gauri-Sankar, Grhadevi, Gujeswari, Indra, Kali, Lohasur Devi, Mayavel, Mitra, Prajapati, Puchan, Purandhi, Rakshas, Rudrani, Rumina, Samundra, Sarasvati, Savitar, Siva (Shiva), Soma, Sura, Surabhi, Tulsi, Ushas, Vata, Visvamitra, Vivasvat, Vritra, Waghai Devi, Yaparamma, Yayu, Zumiang Nui, Diti

Other Asian: (31)
Dewi Shri, Po Yan Dari, Shuzanghu, Antaboga, Yakushi Nyorai, Mulhalmoni, Tankun, Yondung Halmoni, Aryong Jong, Quan Yin , Tengri, Uminai-gami, Kamado-No-Kami, Kunitokotatchi, Giri Devi, Dewi Nawang Sasih, Brag-srin-mo, Samanta-Bhadra, Sangs-rgyas-mkh, Sengdroma, Sgeg-mo-ma, Tho-og, Ui Tango, Yum-chen-mo, Zas-ster-ma-dmar-mo, Chandra, Dyaus, Ratri, Rodasi, Vayu, Au-Co

African: 250 Gods, Demigods and First Men
Abassi , Abuk , Adu Ogyinae , Ag, Agwe , Aida Wedo , Ajalamo, Aje, Ajok, Akonadi, Akongo, Akuj, Amma, Anansi, Asase Yaa, Ashiakle, Atai , Ayaba, Aziri, Baatsi, Bayanni, Bele Alua, Bomo rambi, Bosumabla, Buk, Buku, Bumba, Bunzi, Buruku, Cagn, Candit, Cghene, Coti, Damballah-Wedo, Dan, Deng, Domfe, Dongo, Edinkira, Ef�, Egungun-oya, Eka Abassi, Elephant Girl Mbombe, Emayian, Enekpe, En-Kai, Eseasar, Eshu, Esu, Fa, Faran, Faro, Fatouma, Fidi Mukullu, Fon, Gleti, Gonzuole, G, Gua, Gulu, Gunab, Hammadi, Hbiesso, Iku, Ilankaka, Imana, Iruwa, Isaywa, Juok, Kazooba, Khakaba, Khonvum, Kibuka, Kintu, Leb, Leza, Libanza, Lituolone, Loko, Marwe, Massim Biambe, Mawu-Lisa (Leza), Mboze, Mebeli, Minepa, Moombi, Mukameiguru, Mukasa, Muluku, Mulungu, Mwambu, Nai, Nambi, Nana Buluku, Nanan-Bouclou, Nenaunir, Ng Ai, Nyaliep, Nyamb, Nyankopon, Nyasaye, Nzame, Oboto, Obumo, Odudua-Orishala, Ogun, Olokun, Olorun, Orisha Nla, Orunmila, Osanyin, Oshe, Osun, Oya, Phebele, Pokot-Suk, Ralubumbha, Rugaba, Ruhanga, Ryangombe, Sagbata, Shagpona, Shango, Sopona, Tano, Thixo, Tilo, Tokoloshi, Tsui, Tsui'goab, Umvelinqangi, Unkulunkulu, Utixo, Wak, Wamara, Wantu Su, Wele, Were, Woto, Xevioso, Yangombi, Yemonja, Ymoa, Ymoja, Yoruba, Zambi, Zanahary , Zinkibaru,

Australian: 93 Gods, Goddesses and Places in the Dreamtime
Alinga, Anjea, Apunga, Arahuta, Ariki, Arohirohi, Bamapana, Banaitja, Bara, Barraiya, Biame, Bila, Boaliri, Bobbi-bobbi, Bunbulama, Bunjil, Cunnembeille, Daramulum, Dilga, Djanggawul Sisters, Eingana, Erathipa, Gidja , Gnowee, Haumia, Hine Titama, Ingridi, Julana, Julunggul, Junkgowa, Karora, Kunapipi-Kalwadi-Kadjara, Lia, Madalait, Makara, Nabudi, Palpinkalare, Papa, Rangi, Rongo, Tane, Tangaroa, Tawhiri-ma-tea, Tomituka, Tu, Ungamilia, Walo, Waramurungundi, Wati Kutjarra, Wawalag Sisters, Wuluwaid, Wuragag, Wuriupranili, Wurrunna, Yhi,

Buddhism: 10 Gods and Relatives of God
Aizen-Myoo, Ajima,Dai-itoku-Myoo, Fudo-Myoo, Gozanze-Myoo, Gundari-Myoo, Hariti, Kongo-Myoo, Kujaku-Myoo, Ni-O,

Carribean: 62 Gods, Monsters and Vodun Spirits
Agaman Nibo , Agwe, Agweta, Ah Uaynih, Aida Wedo , Atabei , Ayida , Ayizan, Azacca, Baron Samedi, Ulrich, Ellegua, Ogun, Ochosi, Chango, Itaba, Amelia, Christalline, Clairm, Clairmezin, Coatrischie, Damballah , Emanjah, Erzuli, Erzulie, Ezili, Ghede, Guabancex, Guabonito, Guamaonocon, Imanje, Karous, Laloue-diji, Legba, Loa, Loco, Maitresse Amelia , Mapiangueh, Marie-aime, Marinette, Mombu, Marassa, Nana Buruku, Oba, Obtala, Ochu, Ochumare, Oddudua, Ogoun, Olokum, Olosa, Oshun, Oya, Philomena, Sir�ne, The Diablesse, Itaba, Tsilah, Ursule, Vierge, Yemaya , Zaka,

Celtic: 166 Gods, Goddesses, Divine Kings and Pagan Saints
Abarta, Abna, Abnoba, Aine, Airetech,Akonadi, Amaethon, Ameathon, An Cailleach, Andraste, Antenociticus, Aranrhod, Arawn, Arianrod, Artio, Badb,Balor, Banbha, Becuma, Belatucadros, Belatu-Cadros, Belenus, Beli,Belimawr, Belinus, Bendigeidfran, Bile, Blathnat, Blodeuwedd, Boann, Bodus,Bormanus, Borvo, Bran, Branwen, Bres, Brigid, Brigit, Caridwen, Carpantus,Cathbadh, Cecht, Cernach, Cernunnos, Cliodna, Cocidius, Conchobar, Condatis, Cormac,Coronus,Cosunea, Coventina, Crarus,Creidhne, Creirwy, Cu Chulainn, Cu roi, Cuda, Cuill,Cyhiraeth,Dagda, Damona, Dana, Danu, D'Aulnoy,Dea Artio, Deirdre , Dewi, Dian, Diancecht, Dis Pater, Donn, Dwyn, Dylan, Dywel,Efnisien, Elatha, Epona, Eriu, Esos, Esus, Eurymedon,Fedelma, Fergus, Finn, Fodla, Goewyn, Gog, Goibhniu, Govannon , Grainne, Greine,Gwydion, Gwynn ap Nudd, Herne, Hu'Gadarn, Keltoi,Keridwen, Kernunnos,Ler, Lir, Lleu Llaw Gyffes, Lludd, Llyr, Llywy, Luchta, Lug, Lugh,Lugus, Mabinogion,Mabon, Mac Da Tho, Macha, Magog, Manannan, Manawydan, Maponos, Math, Math Ap Mathonwy, Medb, Moccos,Modron, Mogons, Morrig, Morrigan, Nabon,Nantosuelta, Naoise, Nechtan, Nedoledius,Nehalennia, Nemhain, Net,Nisien, Nodens, Noisi, Nuada, Nwywre,Oengus, Ogma, Ogmios, Oisin, Pach,Partholon, Penard Dun, Pryderi, Pwyll, Rhiannon, Rosmerta, Samhain, Segidaiacus, Sirona, Sucellus, Sulis, Taliesin, Taranis, Teutates, The Horned One,The Hunt, Treveni,Tyne, Urien, Ursula of the Silver Host, Vellaunus, Vitiris, White Lady,

Egyptian: 85 Gods, Gods Incarnate and Personified Divine Forces:
Amaunet, Amen, Amon, Amun, Anat, Anqet, Antaios, Anubis, Anuket, Apep, Apis, Astarte, Aten, Aton, Atum, Bastet, Bat, Buto, Duamutef, Duamutef, Hapi, Har-pa-khered, Hathor, Hauhet, Heket, Horus, Huh, Imset, Isis, Kauket, Kebechsenef, Khensu, Khepri, Khnemu, Khnum, Khonsu, Kuk, Maahes, Ma'at, Mehen, Meretseger, Min, Mnewer, Mut, Naunet, Nefertem, Neith, Nekhbet, Nephthys, Nun, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra , Re, Renenet, Sakhmet, Satet, Seb, Seker, Sekhmet, Serapis, Serket, Set, Seth, Shai, Shu, Shu, Sia, Sobek, Sokar, Tefnut, Tem, Thoth,

Hellenes (Greek) Tradition (540 Gods, Demigods, Divine Bastards)
Acidalia, Aello, Aesculapius, Agathe, Agdistis, Ageleia, Aglauros, Agne, Agoraia, Agreia, Agreie, Agreiphontes, Agreus, Agrios, Agrotera, Aguieus, Aidoneus, Aigiokhos, Aigletes, Aigobolos, Ainia,Ainippe, Aithuia , Akesios, Akraia, Aktaios, Alalkomene, Alasiotas, Alcibie, Alcinoe, Alcippe, Alcis,Alea, Alexikakos, Aligena, Aliterios, Alkaia, Amaltheia, Ambidexter, Ambologera, Amynomene,Anaduomene, Anaea, Anax, Anaxilea, Androdameia,Andromache, Andromeda, Androphonos, Anosia, Antandre,Antania, Antheus, Anthroporraistes, Antianara, Antianeira, Antibrote, Antimache, Antimachos, Antiope,Antiopeia, Aoide, Apatouria, Aphneius, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apotropaios, Areia, Areia, Areion, Areopagite, Ares, Areto, Areximacha,Argus, Aridnus,Aristaios, Aristomache, Arkhegetes, Arktos, Arretos, Arsenothelys, Artemis, Asclepius, Asklepios, Aspheleios, Asteria, Astraeos , Athene, Auxites, Avaris, Axios, Axios Tauros,Bakcheios, Bakchos, Basileus, Basilis, Bassareus, Bauros, Boophis, Boreas , Botryophoros, Boukeros, Boulaia, Boulaios, Bremusa,Bromios, Byblis,Bythios, Caliope, Cedreatis, Celaneo, centaur, Cerberus, Charidotes, Charybdis, Chimera, Chloe, Chloris , Choreutes, Choroplekes, Chthonios, Clete, Clio, clotho,Clyemne, cockatrice, Crataeis, Custos, Cybebe, Cybele, Cyclops, Daphnaia, Daphnephoros, Deianeira, Deinomache, Delia, Delios, Delphic, Delphinios, Demeter, Dendrites, Derimacheia,Derinoe, Despoina, Dikerotes, Dimeter, Dimorphos, Dindymene, Dioktoros, Dionysos, Discordia, Dissotokos, Dithyrambos, Doris, Dryope,Echephyle,Echidna, Eiraphiotes, Ekstatophoros, Eleemon, Eleuthereus, Eleutherios, Ennosigaios, Enodia, Enodios, Enoplios, Enorches, Enualios, Eos , Epaine, Epidotes, Epikourios, Epipontia, Epitragidia, Epitumbidia, Erato, Ergane, Eribromios, Erigdoupos, Erinus, Eriobea, Eriounios, Eriphos, Eris, Eros,Euanthes, Euaster, Eubouleus, Euboulos, Euios, Eukhaitos, Eukleia, Eukles, Eumache, Eunemos, Euplois, Euros , Eurybe,Euryleia, Euterpe, Fates,Fortuna, Gaia, Gaieokhos, Galea, Gamelia, Gamelios, Gamostolos, Genetor, Genetullis, Geryon, Gethosynos, giants, Gigantophonos, Glaukopis, Gorgons, Gorgopis, Graiae, griffin, Gynaikothoinas, Gynnis, Hagisilaos, Hagnos, Haides, Harmothoe, harpy, Hegemone, Hegemonios, Hekate, Hekatos, Helios, Hellotis, Hephaistia, Hephaistos, Hera, Heraios, Herakles, Herkeios, Hermes, Heros Theos, Hersos, Hestia, Heteira, Hiksios, Hipp, Hippia, Hippios, Hippoi Athanatoi, Hippolyte, Hippolyte II, Hippomache,Hippothoe, Horkos, Hugieia, Hupatos, Hydra, Hypate, Hyperborean, Hypsipyle, Hypsistos, Iakchos, Iatros, Idaia, Invictus, Iphito,Ismenios, Ismenus,Itonia, Kabeiria, Kabeiroi, Kakia, Kallinikos, Kallipugos, Kallisti, Kappotas, Karneios, Karpophoros, Karytis, Kataibates, Katakhthonios, Kathatsios, Keladeine, Keraunos, Kerykes, Khalinitis, Khalkioikos, Kharmon, Khera, Khloe, Khlori,Khloris,Khruse, Khthonia, Khthonios, Kidaria, Kissobryos, Kissokomes, Kissos, Kitharodos, Kleidouchos, Kleoptoleme, Klymenos, Kore, Koruthalia, Korymbophoros, Kourotrophos, Kranaia, Kranaios, Krataiis, Kreousa, Kretogenes, Kriophoros, Kronides, Kronos,Kryphios, Ktesios, Kubebe, Kupris, Kuprogenes, Kurotrophos, Kuthereia, Kybele, Kydoime,Kynthia, Kyrios, Ladon, Lakinia, Lamia, Lampter, Laodoke, Laphria, Lenaios, Leukatas, Leukatas, Leukolenos, Leukophruene, Liknites, Limenia, Limnaios, Limnatis, Logios, Lokhia, Lousia, Loxias, Lukaios, Lukeios, Lyaios, Lygodesma, Lykopis, Lyseus, Lysippe, Maimaktes, Mainomenos, Majestas, Makar, Maleatas, Manikos, Mantis, Marpe, Marpesia, Medusa, Megale, Meilikhios, Melaina, Melainis, Melanaigis, Melanippe,Melete, Melousa, Melpomene, Melqart, Meses, Mimnousa, Minotaur, Mneme, Molpadia,Monogenes, Morpho, Morychos, Musagates, Musagetes, Nebrodes, Nephelegereta, Nereus,Nete, Nike, Nikephoros, Nomios, Nomius, Notos , Nyktelios, Nyktipolos, Nympheuomene, Nysios, Oiketor, Okyale, Okypous, Olumpios, Omadios, Ombrios, Orithia,Orius,Ortheia, Orthos, Ourania, Ourios, Paelemona, Paian, Pais, Palaios, Pallas, Pan Megas, Panakhais, Pandemos, Pandrosos, Pantariste, Parthenos, PAsianax, Pasiphaessa, Pater, Pater, Patroos, Pegasus, Pelagia, Penthesilea, Perikionios, Persephone, Petraios, Phanes, Phanter, Phatria, Philios, Philippis, Philomeides, Phoebe, Phoebus, Phoenix, Phoibos, Phosphoros, Phratrios, Phutalmios, Physis, Pisto, Plouton, Polemusa,Poliakhos, Polias, Polieus, Polumetis, Polydektes, Polygethes, Polymnia, Polymorphos, Polyonomos, Porne, Poseidon, Potnia Khaos, Potnia Pheron, Promakhos, Pronoia, Propulaios, Propylaia, Proserpine, Prothoe, Protogonos, Prytaneia, Psychopompos, Puronia, Puthios, Pyrgomache, Python, Rhea, Sabazios, Salpinx, satyr, Saxanus, Scyleia,Scylla, sirens, Skeptouchos, Smintheus, Sophia, Sosipolis, Soter, Soteria, Sphinx, Staphylos, Sthenias, Sthenios, Strife, Summakhia, Sykites, Syzygia, Tallaios, Taureos, Taurokeros, Taurophagos, Tauropolos, Tauropon, Tecmessa, Teisipyte, Teleios, Telepyleia,Teletarches, Terpsichore, Thalestris, Thalia, The Dioskouroi, Theos, Theritas, Thermodosa, Thraso, Thyonidas, Thyrsophoros, Tmolene, Toxaris, Toxis, Toxophile,Trevia, Tricephalus, Trieterikos, Trigonos, Trismegestos, Tritogeneia, Tropaios, Trophonius,Tumborukhos, Tyche, Typhon, Urania, Valasca, Xanthippe, Xenios, Zagreus, Zathos, Zephryos , Zeus, Zeus Katakhthonios, Zoophoros

Native American: 711 Gods, Heroes, and Anthropomorphized Facets of Nature
Aakuluujjusi, Ab Kin zoc, Abaangui , Ababinili , Ac Yanto, Acan, Acat, Achiyalatopa , Acna, Acolmiztli, Acolnahuacatl, Acuecucyoticihuati, Adamisil Wedo, Adaox , Adekagagwaa , Adlet , Adlivun, Agloolik , Aguara , Ah Bolom Tzacab, Ah Cancum, Ah Chun Caan, Ah Chuy Kak, Ah Ciliz, Ah Cun Can, Ah Cuxtal, Ah hulneb, Ah Kin, Ah Kumix Uinicob, Ah Mun, Ah Muzencab, Ah Patnar Uinicob, Ah Peku, Ah Puch, Ah Tabai, Ah UincirDz'acab, Ah Uuc Ticab, Ah Wink-ir Masa, Ahau Chamahez, Ahau-Kin, Ahmakiq, Ahnt Alis Pok', Ahnt Kai', Aholi , Ahsonnutli , Ahuic, Ahulane, Aiauh, Aipaloovik , Ajbit, Ajilee , Ajtzak, Akbaalia , Akba-atatdia , Akhlut , Akhushtal, Akna , Akycha, Alaghom Naom Tzentel, Albino Spirit animals , Alektca , Alignak, Allanque , Allowat Sakima , Alom, Alowatsakima , Amaguq , Amala , Amimitl, Amitolane, Amotken , Andaokut , Andiciopec , Anerneq , Anetlacualtiliztli, Angalkuq , Angpetu Wi, Anguta, Angwusnasomtaka , Ani Hyuntikwalaski , Animal spirits , Aningan, Aniwye , Anog Ite , Anpao, Apanuugak , Apicilnic , Apikunni , Apotamkin , Apoyan Tachi , Apozanolotl, Apu Punchau, Aqalax , Arendiwane , Arnakua'gsak , Asdiwal , Asgaya Gigagei, Asiaq , Asin , Asintmah, Atacokai , Atahensic, Aticpac Calqui Cihuatl, Atira, Atisokan , Atius Tirawa , Atl, Atlacamani, Atlacoya, Atlatonin, Atlaua, Atshen , Auilix, Aulanerk , Aumanil , Aunggaak , Aunt Nancy , Awaeh Yegendji , Awakkule , Awitelin Tsta , Awonawilona, Ayauhteotl, Azeban, Baaxpee , Bacabs, Backlum Chaam, Bagucks , Bakbakwalanooksiwae , Balam, Baldhead , Basamacha , Basket Woman , Bead Spitter , Bear , Bear Medicine Woman , Bear Woman , Beaver , Beaver Doctor , Big Heads, Big Man Eater , Big Tail , Big Twisted Flute , Bikeh hozho, Bitol, Black Hactcin , Black Tamanous , Blind Boy , Blind Man , Blood Clot Boy , Bloody Hand , Blue-Jay , Bmola , Bolontiku, Breathmaker, Buffalo , Buluc Chabtan, Burnt Belly , Burnt Face , Butterfly , Cabaguil, Cacoch, Cajolom, Cakulha, Camaxtli, Camozotz, Cannibal Grandmother , Cannibal Woman , Canotila , Capa , Caprakan, Ca-the-a, Cauac, Centeotl, Centzonuitznaua, Cetan , Chac Uayab Xoc, Chac, Chahnameed , Chakwaina Okya, Chalchihuitlicue, Chalchiuhtlatonal, Chalchiutotolin, Chalmecacihuilt, Chalmecatl, Chamer, Changing Bear Woman , Changing Woman , Chantico, Chaob, Charred Body , Chepi , Chibiabos , Chibirias, Chiccan, Chicomecoatl, Chicomexochtli, Chiconahui, Chiconahuiehecatl, Chie, Child-Born-in-Jug , Chirakan, Chulyen , Cihuacoatl, Cin-an-ev , Cinteotl, Cipactli, Cirap� , Cit Chac Coh, Cit-Bolon-Tum, Citlalatonac, Citlalicue, Ciucoatl, Ciuteoteo, Cizin, Cliff ogre , Coatlicue, Cochimetl, Cocijo, Colel Cab, Colop U Uichkin, Copil, Coyolxauhqui, Coyopa, Coyote , Cripple Boy , Crow , Crow Woman , Cum hau, Cunawabi , Dagwanoenyent , Dahdahwat , Daldal , Deohako, Dhol , Diyin dine , Djien , Djigonasee , Dohkwibuhch , Dzalarhons , Dzalarhons, Eagentci , Eagle , Earth Shaman , Eeyeekalduk , Ehecatl, Ehlaumel , Eithinoha , Ekchuah, Enumclaw , Eototo, Esaugetuh Emissee , Esceheman, Eschetewuarha, Estanatlehi , Estasanatlehi , Estsanatlehi, Evaki, Evening Star, Ewah , Ewauna, Face , Faces of the Forests , False Faces , Famine , Fastachee , Fire Dogs , First Creator , First Man and First Woman, First Scolder , Flint Man , Flood , Flower Woman , Foot Stuck Child , Ga'an, Ga-gaah , Gahe, Galokwudzuwis , Gaoh, Gawaunduk, Geezhigo-Quae, Gendenwitha, Genetaska, Ghanan, Gitche Manitou, Glispa, Glooskap , Gluscabi , Gluskab , Gluskap, Godasiyo, Gohone , Great Seahouse, Greenmantle , Gucumatz, Gukumatz, Gunnodoyak, Gyhldeptis, Ha Wen Neyu , Hacauitz , Hacha'kyum, Hagondes , Hahgwehdiyu , Hamatsa , Hamedicu, Hanghepi Wi, Hantceiitehi , Haokah , Hastseoltoi, Hastshehogan , He'mask.as , Hen, Heyoka , Hiawatha , Hino, Hisakitaimisi, Hokhokw , Hotoru, Huehuecoyotl, Huehueteotl, Huitaca , Huitzilopochtli, Huixtocihuatl, Hummingbird, Hun hunahpu, Hun Pic Tok, Hunab Ku, Hunahpu Utiu, Hunahpu, Hunahpu-Gutch, Hunhau, Hurakan, Iatiku And Nautsiti, Ich-kanava , Ictinike , Idliragijenget , Idlirvirisong, Igaluk , Ignirtoq , Ikanam , Iktomi , Ilamatecuhtli, Illapa, Ilyap'a, i'noGo tied , Inti, Inua , Ioskeha , Ipalnemohuani, Isakakate, Ishigaq , Isitoq , Issitoq , Ite , Itzamn, Itzananohk`u, Itzlacoliuhque, Itzli, Itzpapalotl, Ix Chebel Yax, Ixbalanque, Ixchel, Ixchup, Ixmucane, Ixpiyacoc, Ixtab, Ixtlilton, Ixtubtin, Ixzaluoh, Iya , Iyatiku , Iztaccihuatl, Iztacmixcohuatl, Jaguar Night, Jaguar Quitze, Jogah , Kaakwha , Kabun , Kabun , Kachinas, Kadlu , Ka-Ha-Si , Ka-Ha-Si , Kaik , Kaiti , Kan, Kana'ti and Selu , Kanati, Kan-u-Uayeyab, Kan-xib-yui, Kapoonis , Katsinas, Keelut , Ketchimanetowa, Ketq Skwaye, Kianto, Kigatilik , Kilya, K'in, Kinich Ahau, Kinich Kakmo, Kishelemukong , Kisin, Kitcki Manitou, Kmukamch , Kokopelli , Ko'lok , Kukulcan, Kushapatshikan , Kutni , Kutya'I , Kwakwakalanooksiwae , Kwatee , Kwekwaxa'we , Kwikumat , Kyoi , Lagua , Land Otter People , Lawalawa , Logobola , Loha, Lone Man , Long Nose , Loon , Loon Medicine , Loon Woman , Loo-wit, Macaw Woman, Macuilxochitl, Maho Peneta, Mahucutah, Makenaima , Malesk , Malina , Malinalxochi, Malsum, Malsumis , Mam, Mama Cocha, Man in moon , Manabozho , Manetuwak , Mani'to, Manitou , Mannegishi , Manu, Masaya, Masewi , Master of Life , Master Of Winds, Matshishkapeu , Mavutsinim , Mayahuel, Medeoulin , Mekala , Menahka, Meteinuwak , Metztli, Mexitl, Michabo, Mictecacihuatl, Mictlan, Mictlantecuhtli, Mikchich , Mikumwesu , Mitnal, Mixcoatl, Mongwi Kachinum , Morning Star, Motho and Mungo , Mulac, Muut , Muyingwa , Nacon, Nagenatzani, Nagi Tanka , Nagual, Nahual, Nakaw, Nanabojo, Nanabozho , Nanabush, Nanahuatzin, Nanautzin, Nanih Waiya, Nankil'slas , Nanook , Naum, Negafook , Nerrivik , Nesaru, Nianque , Nishanu , Nohochacyum, Nokomis, Nootaikok , North Star, Nujalik , Nukatem , Nunne Chaha , Ocasta, Ockabewis, Odzihozo , Ohtas , Oklatabashih, Old Man , Olelbis, Omacatl, Omecihuatl, Ometecuhtli, Onatha , One Tail of Clear Hair , Oonawieh Unggi , Opochtli, Oshadagea, Owl Woman , Pah , Pah, Paiowa, Pakrokitat , Pana , Patecatl, Pautiwa, Paynal, Pemtemweha , Piasa , Pikvhahirak , Pinga , Pomola , Pot-tilter , Prairie Falcon , Ptehehincalasanwin , Pukkeenegak , Qaholom, Qakma, Qiqirn , Quaoar , Quetzalcoatl, Qumu , Quootis-hooi, Rabbit, Ragno, Raven, Raw Gums , Rukko, Sagamores , Sagapgia , Sanopi , Saynday , Sedna, Selu, Shakuru, Sharkura, Shilup Chito Osh, Shrimp house, Sila , Sint Holo , Sio humis, Sisiutl , Skan , Snallygaster , Sosondowah , South Star, Spider Woman , Sta-au , Stonecoats , Sun, Sungrey , Ta Tanka , Tabaldak , Taime , Taiowa , Talocan, Tans , Taqwus , Tarhuhyiawahku, Tarquiup Inua , Tate , Tawa, Tawiscara, Ta'xet , Tcisaki , Tecciztecatl, Tekkeitserktock, Tekkeitsertok , Telmekic , Teoyaomqui, Tepeu, Tepeyollotl, Teteoinnan, Tezcatlipoca, Thobadestchin, Thoume', Thunder , Thunder Bird , Tieholtsodi, Tihtipihin , Tirawa , Tirawa Atius, Tlacolotl, Tlahuixcalpantecuhtli, Tlaloc, Tlaltecuhtli, Tlauixcalpantecuhtli, Tlazolteotl, Tohil, Tokpela , Tonantzin , Tonatiuh, To'nenile, Tonenili , Tootega , Torngasak, Torngasoak , Trickster/Transformer , True jaguar, Tsentsa, Tsichtinako, Tsohanoai Tsonoqwa , Tsul 'Kalu , Tulugaak , Tumas , Tunkan ingan, Turquoise Boy , Twin Thunder Boys, Txamsem , Tzakol, Tzitzimime, Uazzale , Uchtsiti, Ud , Uentshukumi####eu , Ueuecoyotl, Ugly Way , Ugni , Uhepono , Uitzilopochtli, Ukat , Underwater Panthers , Unhcegila , Unipkaat , Unk, Unktomi , Untunktahe , Urcaguary, Utea , Uwashil , Vassagijik , Voltan, Wabosso , Wabun , Wachabe, Wah-Kah-Nee, Wakan , Wakanda , Wakan-Tanka, Wakinyan , Wan niomi , Wanagi , Wananikwe , Watavinewa , Water babies , Waukheon , We-gyet , Wemicus , Wendigo , Wentshukumi####eu , White Buffalo Woman, Whope , Wi , Wicahmunga , Wihmunga , Windigo, Winonah, Wisagatcak , Wisagatcak, Wishpoosh , Wiyot , Wovoka , Wuya , Xaman Ek, Xelas , Xibalba, Xilonen, Xipe Totec, Xiuhcoatl, Xiuhtecuhtli, Xiuhtecutli, Xmucane, Xochipili , Xochiquetzal, Xocotl, Xolotl, Xpiyacoc, Xpuch And Xtah, Yacatecuhtli, Yaluk, Yanauluha , Ya-o-gah , Yeba Ka, Yebaad, Yehl , Yeitso, Yiacatecuhtli, Yolkai Estsan, Yoskeha , Yum Kaax, Yuwipi , Zaramama, Zipaltonal, Zotz,

Norse, 111 Deities, Giants and Monsters:
Aegir, Aesir, Alfrigg, Audumbla, Aurgelmir, Balder, Berchta, Bergelmir, Bor, Bragi, Brisings, Buri, Etin, Fenris, Forseti, Frey, Freyja, Frigga, Gefion, Gerda, Gode, Gymir, Harke, Heimdall, Hel, Hermod, Hodur, Holda, Holle, Honir, Hymir, Idun, Jormungandr, Ljolsalfs, Loki, Magni, Mimir, Mistarblindi, Muspel, Nanna, Nanni, Nerthus, Njord, Norns, Odin, Perchta, Ran, Rig, Segyn, Sif, Skadi, Skirnir, Skuld, Sleipnir, Surt, Svadilfari, tanngniotr, tanngrisnr, Thiassi, Thor, Thrud, Thrudgelmir, Thrym, Thurs, Tyr, Uller, Urd, Vali, Vali, Valkyries, Vanir, Ve, Verdandi, Vidar, Wode, Ymir

Pacific islands: 99 Deities, Demigods and Immortal Monsters:

Abeguwo, Abere, Adaro, Afekan, Ai Tupua'i, 'Aiaru, Ala Muki, Alalahe, Alii Menehune, Aluluei, Aruaka, Asin, Atanea, Audjal, Aumakua, Babamik, Bakoa, Barong, Batara Kala, Buring Une, Darago, Dayang-Raca, De Ai, Dogai, Enda Semangko, Faumea, Giriputri, Goga, Haumea, Hiiaka', Hina, Hine, Hoa-Tapu, 'Imoa, Io, Kanaloa, Kanaloa, Kane, Kapo, Kava, Konori, Ku, Kuhuluhulumanu, Kuklikimoku, Kukoae, Ku'ula, Laka, Laulaati, Lono, Mahiuki, MakeMake, Marruni, Maru, Maui, Melu, Menehune, Moeuhane, MOO-LAU, Ndauthina, Ne Te-reere, Nevinbimbaau, Ngendei, Nobu, Oro, Ove, Paka'a, Papa, Pele, Quat, Rangi, Rati, Rati-mbati-ndua, Ratu-Mai-Mbula, Rua, Ruahatu, Saning Sri, Ta'aroa, Taaroa, Tamakaia, Tane, Tanemahuta, Tangaroa, Tawhaki, Tiki, Tinirau, Tu, Tuli, Turi-a-faumea, Uira, Ukupanipo, Ulupoka, Umboko Indra, Vanuatu, Wahini-Hal, Walutahanga, Wari-Ma-Te-Takere, Whaitiri, Whatu, Wigan,

South American: 53 Deities, Demigods, Beings of Divine Substance:

Abaangui, Aclla, Akewa, Asima Si, Atoja, Auchimalgen, Axomama, Bachu, Beru, Bochica, Boiuna, Calounger, Catequil, Cavillaca, Ceiuci, Chasca, Chie, Cocomama, Gaumansuri, Huitaca, Iae, Ilyap'a, Ina, Inti, Ituana, Jamaina , Jandira, Jarina, Jubbu-jang-sangne, Ka-ata-killa, Kilya, Kuat, Kun, Luandinha, Lupi, Mama Allpa, Mama Quilla, Mamacocha, Manco Capac, Maret-Jikky, Maretkhmakniam, Mariana, Oshossi, Pachamac, Pachamama, Perimb, Rainha Barba, Si, Supai, Toptine, Viracocha, Yemanja (Imanje), Zume Topana.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them

 

[tonydead]

Cold-Case Christianity

 

[CowboysFromHell]

secular accounts (outside of the Bible)of the historical Jesus

The first one was enough for me to stop reading. There was an earthquake and an eclipse. The author concludes from this: "Jesus lived, He was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of His crucifixion."

This is classic god-of-the-gaps stuff, and why I don't understand why reasonable people can't simply acknowledge the fact that they don't know everything about everything, and instead resort to supernatural explanations. It's just intellectually lazy.

 

[Paddington]

Donald Trump ADMITS He Identifies More With Liberals Than Republicans. Vote Ted Cruz He Has Proven Record Of Conservatism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE

 

[joffer]

Donald Trump ADMITS He Identifies More With Liberals Than Republicans. Vote Ted Cruz He Has Proven Record Of Conservatism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE

but he knows two Corinthians

 

[Mister CIA]

The Cruzafiction is nigh.

 

[Paddington]

Ro 3:4 Let it not be! But let God be true, and every man a liar; as it is written, "That You might be justified in Your sayings, and will overcome when You are judged."

 

[Politician Spock]

Ro 3:4 Let it not be! But let God be true, and every man a liar; as it is written, "That You might be justified in Your sayings, and will overcome when You are judged."

Those words by themselves can mean something completely different than the context they were written in. Which is probably your intent in posting that... unless, of course, you are speaking about the advantages and values of being Jewish.

 

[matuski]

Ro 3:4 Let it not be! But let God be true, and every man a liar; as it is written, "That You might be justified in Your sayings, and will overcome when You are judged."

BE AFRAID!

 

[Gold Dragon]

It saddens me to see the loss of faith that Jayrok and Spock have had. I remember some of our great conversations on here over a decade ago. I myself have changed on a lot of my positions too but not to the same extent. But I do agree it is discouraging when we see the faithful abandon reason and critical thinking.

While Spock pursued theological study and went away from faith, I pursued scientific study in medicine. Having to critically evaluate scientific data for biases of collection and interpretation and then applying that data with incomplete information on a daily basis is helpful in thinking about my approach to faith. So much of what we do in the sciences is influenced by many of the same problems of interpreting and appyling religious data because in both cases, biased, flawed humans are doing the work. Sure, in the sciences, we have structures in place to try to minimize this, critical review, repetition of studies, etc. But there are limitations to what we can ask and how much we can know, much to our chagrin.

I also agree that the doctrine of innerrency may have done more harm for Christianity than good. It arrived in the 70s and 80s when Christian faith was being challenged by scientific authority from so many sides, textual criticism, evolution/big bang, archaeology, etc. And like many Christian movements, the response was an over-steering away from the problem in order to preserve authority and tradition rather than to critically think and adapt to new information. In the process, a flawed "systematic" view of Christianity was developed that could easily be torn down by critical thinking and in the process, many critical thinkers were lost like Spock and Jayrok.

The Reformation was similar in the Catholic Church trying to hold on to its authority by appealing to flawed tradition and in the process losing generations of excellent Christians.

But through it all, Christ continues to be made known despite the flaws of the Church and of Christians. He is the one who said that the first will be last and the last first. The one who washed his disciples feet and wanted his followers to care for the least of them, the one who gave up his position of authority in order to suffer for all.

Maybe the evidence for Jesus, God, the Bible and Christianity is not as strong as Christians would like to think. Maybe Christians have done some terrible things in the name of Christ. But I hope folks like Spock and Jayrok will continue to be open to a creator that I believe has been reaching out to humans despite our continual rejection of Him. He has been doing so from the beginning in the Big Bang, evolution, a flawed israel, Jesus, flawed disciples, the bible with all its problems and continues to do so with a flawed church.

 

[cstu]

Maybe the evidence for Jesus, God, the Bible and Christianity is not as strong as Christians would like to think.

Please enlighten me and provide a single shred of evidence.

 

[cstu]

I believe has been reaching out to humans despite our continual rejection of Him

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I am a skeptic at best. But, that doesn't mean I am a card carrying member of the atheist movement.

I don't like to shut people down on the topic of religion. I want to hear what they have to say. I feel this way because I am super comfortable talking about the bible. It takes many of the bible believers several go rounds with me in real life conversation with no shouting or screaming, they always seem shocked when they discover I don't really believe it hook, line and sinker like some of them. The reason is I not only listen to what they have to say but when I do question them it is based on historical facts not emotions and opinions.

The History of Christianity by far one of the best classes I ever took, so in synch with actual world history books. It filled in the cracks and vice versa for a lot of sections of time both within the church and out. Jayrok posted in this thread, he is a cool cat on the Christian History and doesn't usually get rattled much. I think that's because he has done extensive reading on a lot of this and has a good understanding of how religions have shaped history. He's welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Jayrok]

Gold Dragon -- It is always a treat to see you post in the forum. Indeed, it's been over a decade since we've had discussions and debates. I've been on both sides, initially arguing for an inerrant Bible (along side Crosseyed) against the FFA heathens. But sometime in early 2004 I realized I was beginning to have a crisis within my own faith... and it has been along journey. My friend Spock, and the arguments he presents in this thread, remind me of where I was several years ago. I still believe the Bible was written and redacted by flawed humans over a long period of time. But I have softened a bit in my stance against the faith in general because I see the power faith can have in one's life.

I agree that inerrancy may have done more harm than good for Christianity. When people fight for inerrant scripture, I believe they miss the whole point of the writings. Apologists and their arguments tend to push more people away than they think. But pride and the need to be right tend to blind them, I suppose.

I didn't reply to the links BobbyLayne posted above other than a general comment. Admittedly, years ago I probably would have jumped in and tried to tear them down. But I am going to pick one and attempt to show why I think the apologist is wrong and why.

Again, always a pleasure to see the Bruce Lee avatar.

 

[Jayrok]

The History of Christianity by far one of the best classes I ever took, so in synch with actual world history books. It filled in the cracks and vice versa for a lot of sections of time both within the church and out. Jayrok posted in this thread, he is a cool cat on the Christian History and doesn't usually get rattled much. I think that's because he has done extensive reading on a lot of this and has a good understanding of how religions have shaped history. He's welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

You're not wrong, MOP. I think everyone can agree that the world's history has been shaped by religion. Western civilization by one, the far and middle east by another, and so forth. Christianity has been credited with a lot of good deeds, as well as a lot of pain and destruction through the years. And today we can see how radical Islam is shaping a dangerous sub-culture that threatens all of us. I don't know if there is a culture that has not been influenced by some form of religion.