jakejonesiv

Hi Earl,

The ealiest extant interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:8 is found in Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:6.

There, Tertullian argues against Marcion's interpretaton of the "princes" (Latin principes; Gk. archontes) as spritual beings, i.e. the minions of the Demiurge.

It is Tertullian that introduces in rebutal the orthodox opinion that the princes were wordly rulers. He does this by importing the gospels into the context of 1 Cor. 2:8.

Logically, Marcion's position must proceed Tertullian's attempted rebutal. All the scholars in all the lists are just barnacles on Tertullian's boat.

See
Selective quotation, misreadings, and misrepresentations of sources


Jake Jones IV

P.S. Attempts to enter Marion's dogmatics (if indeed he was dogmatic), by refuting the Apostolikon with the Evangelion flounder on the with the understanding that the gospel Tertullian attributed to Marcion cannot possibly be the one he used. Regardless, the priority of Paul lies with the Marcionites and the priority of the gospels with the proto-orthodox.

EarlDoherty

To try to get across anything about ancient mythology to Don, Rick & Co. seems to be a hopeless task. That is perhaps understandable when they are unwilling to grasp or admit anything which risks undermining the literal interpretation of the Gospels and the Gospel-determined historical interpretation of the early Christian record. They can scream all they want at that statement, but that is the essence of the problem. Don rants about my use of the word “dimension” as though semantics is everything and he is incapable of understanding the point I am trying to make. Maybe he is. I’ve tried often enough. I feel like someone who is trying to describe the Apollo moon landing to people who claim that it never happened and was all a conspiracy. (And there are those who claim that.) That there was no “world of myth” in the ancient world is on a par with that kind of claim. Well, I’m sorry, but I feel no obligation to spend my time giving that mentality a comprehensive Mythology 101 course here. I’ve done it in pieces in many postings (as well as in my writings), but I can do nothing about ingrained resistance and refusal to deal with the evidence. If I can’t even get Don to look at the passage in Ascension 7 and admit that this author could conceive of ‘events’ or activities going on in a region above and distinguishable from a position on earth because the writer clearly presents such a thing, then why should I waste my time with him? Does Rick really think that I will bother to “field” his objection to my use of the word “desperate” in regard to mainstream scholarly interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:8? He knows I tend to use color and levity in expressing myself, and I don’t give a damn if he doesn’t like it. My point was clear, regardless of the word I used, and he chose not to address that point, just as Don refuses to address my point about the different things that can go on below the moon. What does it matter how I spell “air”? As a matter of fact, “aer” is used in the literature; yes, it’s ‘archaic’ but who cares? I don’t give a damn either about Jeffrey’s endless lists and demands when he refuses to address or supply the arguments. I don’t pay attention when he tells us that such and such a scholar means something else when he refuses to tell us what that something else is.

So this time I think I’ll simply offer a few quotes from others (with my inevitable comments, of course), in the hope that they will help penetrate that resistance. Don says: on earth in some kind of archaic history, or allegorical, meaning “it never happened”. Well, not only does the latter fly in the face of the very definition of “myth”, it isn’t rational to consider that humanity’s most ingrained habit since it became intelligent is based on devising stories which were regarded by everyone as ‘never happening’. This is an adulteration even of the word “allegorical.” Early Christian literature itself contains all sorts of material which is neither presented as primordial-on-earth or never happening. I’ll mention a few below. I asked Don a series of questions as to whether he thought certain things could have been regarded as merely allegorical (in his sense). He refused to answer. Perhaps he missed my point, that such questions are part of the argument: does it make sense to think that the whole of the ancient world could have regarded such things as allegorical, never ‘happening’ in any way whatsoever? I suspect he simply didn’t want to answer.

I have tried countless times to point out that we cannot interpret ancient mythology literally. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t regarded as “happening” in some fashion. Philo declares that the human mind can’t comprehend God, but that doesn’t stop him (and other philosophers) from talking and saying a lot about him, along with a lot of other aspects of divine emanations, soteriological processes, etc. Does that stop Don from objecting that there are no trees in the air, and no heavenly knives for Attis to castrate himself? This is an objection based on literalness, the very thing I have tried to talk him out of. Is all the imagery in the Odes of Solomon literal? Of course not. Does that mean that the Odist thinks they have no existence? The Odes are one community’s mythological picture of the processes of salvation, of the relationship between God and humanity, between heaven and earth. If what he is describing has no existence, if it is an ‘allegory’ for nothing at all, what meaning can it possibly have? Why would a community think and express itself like that? It may be that we have to broaden what is encompassed by the word “allegory” (it certainly can’t have the restricted significance Don wants to give it, to neuter it completely), but I think such a broader concept is well encompassed simply by the word “mythology”. The epistles give every indication (and in the absence of all historical indications) that those early writers and believers saw Christ as revealed through, operating within, communicating from, scripture. He was a ‘mystery’ which scripture revealed. In Hebrews, as I have often pointed out, Christ acts in scripture. Everything to do with Christ in that epistle is based on and derived from it. Is Christ’s sacrifice performed in the heavenly sanctuary a primordial-on-earth event? Hardly. Is it an “allegory” in Don’s sense? Tell that to the epistle’s author. Colossians 2:15 has Christ nailing the Law to the cross and leading the demons in a triumphant procession. Is that primordial-on-earth? Is it allegory for nothing that ever happened? Tell that to the Pauline authors.

Is the entire Gnostic heavenly Pleroma and its generation allegory? (It’s hardly primordial-on-earth.) Here’s my first quote, from Kurt Rudolph, The Nature and History of Gnosticism (p.154), and we can see how he inserts Jesus of Nazareth into a setting where he is not needed, and is done by reading the Gospels into it (most scholars of Gnosticism now regard much of that movement as predating Christianity as we know it, making Jesus of Nazareth superfluous by definition):

Rudolph then goes on to make the most amazingly naïve assumption that all these mythological events have been derived from historical “Christian saving events from earth” projected “into the world beyond,” to become prototypes of historical events, despite the fact that most Gnostic writings which involve such heavenly mythology show not a hint of an historical Jesus of Nazareth, while some have ‘savior’ figures which also bear no relation to such a figure and are even regarded as pre-Christian. As if an historical event no one shows wider knowledge of until the 2nd century could possibly give rise to all this Platonic and Genesis based mythology-gone-mad. Rudolph wrote this book in the 70s and I doubt that any Gnostic scholar today would be this naïve. And yet this is exactly the situation we face in the early Christian epistles. A world of mythology that speaks of revelation, of scripture, of cosmic sons, creators and sustainers of the universe, never identified with a human being, of soteriological processes that involve descending through heavens, of interaction with Satan and demons and denizens of Sheol but never with Pilate or Caiaphas, and yet this cosmic mystical world of Paul is supposed to all be based on recent earthly events happening to a crucified criminal whom Paul never met and isn’t the slightest bit interested in anything which he did in his life. (But “rulers of this age” must mean Pilate, and there are no trees in the firmament!)

From Israel’s Wisdom Literature by O. S. Rankin (p.237f):

And so on. If anyone fails to see the parallels here to Pauline-type cosmic mythology about Christ, he doesn’t deserve to post anything. If anyone thinks that a crucified man is going to give rise to this type of mythology before he is scarcely cold in his grave, then he is naïve beyond measure. Anyone who can look at all this heavenly mythology in Jewish and Hellenistic culture involving the activity of divinity within spiritual spheres (we can throw in the Ascension, the Similitudes of Enoch, the Shepherd here as well) and then refuse to see even the possibility that the early epistles inhabit the same world, is simply in denial. This is your “world of myth,” Don, and it’s all over the place. You make the mistake of treating all myths the same, as though cosmic mythology of the workings of the spiritual realm of gods and salvation are somehow no different from Homer’s story of the fall of Troy. No, Hector and Achilles were not transferred to a Platonic upper world. But the point of my Appendix in The Jesus Puzzle was to show that the thinking of the era in regard to divine mythology was Platonic, not primordial, and that’s the case even if the majority of my sources styled such mythology “allegory.” Even for them it meant something real. Paul isn’t the allegorizer Plutarch is, but his language and treatment of Christ is mystical and mythological, not historical, and he had something Plutarch didn’t: the Jewish scriptures. That opened up endless possibilities to create his heavenly Christ. He neither needed, nor wanted, any earthly genesis for it. (He certainly did his best to exclude one in everything he said.)

By the way, I have never said that Mithras was crucified. This is perhaps the most egregious example of getting carried away with parallel-o-mania, as someone called it. Did Mithras literally slay a bull in the heavens? Considering that the Hellenistic Mithras cult was probably astrotheological (based on the precession of the equinoxes—don’t tell me that Ulansey’s theory has been questioned, of course it has, all theories get questioned, even attacked, especially by those whose own interests are threatened, but I haven’t seen a better or more convincing theory), then this is yet another example of heaven-based mythology. Perhaps a mind like Plutarch’s would label it “allegory,” but not all ancient minds were as sophisticated as his. The mysteries wouldn’t have survived for centuries among millions if every devotee simply regarded the myths as allegorical, representing nothing real.

My third quote is from Cornelia Dimmitt Church (no I’d never heard of her either) from an essay entitled “Myth and the Crisis of Historical Consciousness” (or via: amazon.co.uk) (or maybe that was the title of the anthology, I’m unsure):

While, unlike Church, I am dubious of the value of most, if not all, biblical myth as containing anything useful to modern scientific reality or future human enlightenment (we really have left primitive times and thinking behind, or should have), she makes a telling case. What is she saying? Her underlying assumption is that placing a reliance on the historical accuracy of the bible is no longer tenable, but that the ‘myth’ embodied in those non-historical stories can still be beneficial, and faith can continue to be based upon it. In other words, we don’t need to any longer accept that the Old Testament, or the Gospels, describe things which actually happened in history. It is not the literal content but the symbols of the myth which matter. She probably does not realize that this means that Paul and the early Christians, lacking any history as the genesis of their faith (it’s all a mystery/secret now revealed by God in scripture), could fashion non-historical myths containing useful symbols of how spiritual processes worked through divine agencies. Call this “allegory” if you like, but these ‘myths’ of descending gods and their interactions with good and evil forces, undergoing suffering and death to guarantee salvation, are free to be fashioned as the believer so chooses. He will do so under the influence of the prevailing mythologies and cosmologies of his time. For Paul, that was all he and his fellow believers needed. If he regarded those spiritual activities in a more graphic way than did Plutarch, that’s fine. There was no standardization, no central authority (that’s clear from his letters and his laments about different gospels and “different Jesuses”). Paul worked within that “world of myth”. Everything in the early Christian writings points that way, and nothing points in the direction of literal history other than what subsequent believers have imposed on them courtesy of their literalization of the Gospels (probably starting with Ignatius and his generation)

The point is, Church argues for the legitimacy and integrity of a non-historical, mythic-based faith, especially now that modern science and historical research has undermined if not discredited any reliance on a literal bible. There is no reason why that legitimacy and integrity cannot be applied to the pre-Gospel phase of Christianity, to the thinking of Paul, especially when everything in that literature points in precisely that direction. Early Christian mythology is based to a large extent on that widespread ancient-world mythology of heavenly processes, whether as to how creation unfolded in Gnostic cosmology, or how Attis was castrated, or how the heavenly Christ was crucified. I can’t get inside Paul’s mind to tell just how he saw the “rulers of this age” performing that act, or inside the mind of the author of Hebrews’ to know how ‘literally’ he saw the offering of blood in the heavenly sanctuary, but my estimation is that it was more graphic to him as part of the workings of the upper world than it would have been to a mind like Plutarch’s. But I am quite sure he wouldn’t have lost any sleep worrying over spiritual knives or trees.

This has been a bit of a rambling post, and there’s a lot more I could have said, but I don’t intend to spend any further time tidying it up or organizing it any better. As far as Don, Rick and others are concerned, it’s an exercise in futility. But maybe they might just get a hint that there may have been other things in the ancient mind than are dreamt of in their limited philosophies, to paraphrase a famous playwright.

But this will be my final effort. I am returning to my (paying) job next week and I’ve got lots of more productive things to do, including arranging a fifth printing of The Jesus Puzzle, at least to fill in the gap before a second edition might be ready.

Earl Doherty

Rick Sumner

Given that I have never discussed "ancient mythology" with Earl, I find this to be an incredibly curious statement. Given that this is the third time he's addressed arguments that have nothing to do with me to me, I probably shouldn't be surprised.

After my recent post about Earl's tendency to read his context into his sources, to treat his sources as though they are addressing his argument, one might expect him to try and avoid doing exactly that. No such luck. This, of course, is Earl's context in his debate with Don.

Discussion would be more productive if this type of rhetoric wasn't so standard in Earl's posts.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

GakuseiDon

Earl, the key question that I asked several times earlier was "Is there any evidence from pagan writings to show that they believed in a 'world of myth'"? Other than a few oblique references to allegorical beliefs, you haven't been able to produce anything from pagan sources.

Let me remind you of your statement:

For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated, and Christ could be hung on a tree by "the god of that world," meaning Satan (see the Ascension of Isaiah 9:14).

Because arguments based on early Christian writings beliefs are often colored with claims of interpolations by later Christian "historicist" revisionists, I thought that it might be better to concentrate on the pagan side. My reasoning was that such revisionists were less likely to have been concerned with an Attis or Mithras acting in a "world of myth". So, slightly modifying your statement to concentrate on the question of pagan belief, we would get:

For the average pagan, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated...

Now, there is simply no evidence for such a belief among "average pagans". Plutarch lists many different interpretations of the Osiris myth, reflecting in each of his "4 species of rational beings", and there is nothing like that that I can see. Think of the Second Century apologists like Justin Martyr (who according to you converted from such a belief) and Tertullian, who compared an earth-bound Jesus with earth-bound pagan gods. They actually write a bit about pagan beliefs, and again there is nothing like what you propose.

This is what I think happened: you somehow got the "world of myth" idea after reading Paul and the AoI, and then you unconsciously read the concept into pagan writings of the time. This resulted in your claim that Paul was following the pagan/"Middle Platonist" belief system of the time. But there doesn't appear to be any evidence for such a "sublunar realm" among the pagans, and I think that this cuts the feet out from under your theory.

All you are left with are a handful of statements from Paul and AoI that you insist on interpreting your way, even when they appear to go against the sense of the context.

So IMHO your theory is pretty well refuted. Of course, I won't pretend to have read all the literature available, so there may be some pagan writing somewhere that describes a "world of myth" belief. But I've followed all the references that you and Carrier have provided as well as I can, and I haven't seen anything, nor have you been able to produce anything from pagan writings without having to fudge your idea to include allegories as evidence.

With that in mind, I'll respond to some of your comments:
Scream with laughter, perhaps. I've said on a few occasions that there is little evidence for a historical Jesus, so questioning his existence is a valid line of enquiry. I also believe that there is very little recoverable history in the Gospels, esp in sections where they parallel the OT, which I pointed out to you in one of my on-line articles and to which you acknowledged. How you worked Rick into that statement I have no idea.

It's not semantics but an attempt to get you to define what you mean. As I've pointed out, "dimension" is a word that means something to us today. You've used "dimension", "locale", "aer", and "realm". I think you keep the definitions vague because you can't find sources for those ideas. You have to import them into the text.

A similar problem exists for your "world of myth". You've given so many synonyms now that I've lost track. Is the vagueness present in the texts of the day? I don't think so. Plutarch's "Isis and Osiris" is very readable and understandable, for example.

Can we clear this up once and for all, please? What exactly do you mean by "dimension"? What do you mean by "world of myth"? If you think these terms were understood variously by the people of the time, then please give some actual quotes from pagan writings to show some of the ranges of meaning that supports your thesis. You're going to have to do it at some stage, I think.

No, you haven't given it, at least not from the pagan perspective, which is what I've been questioning. All you have given is evidence that confirms what I've found: that pagans seemed to have placed these events on earth, or they were allegories. Let me remind you again what I am questioning:

For the average pagan, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated...

I've "admitted" this before, and I will again if you like. The people of that time believed that demons lived in the sky. The question is: what did people believe about them? I've given examples where they were said to be made of air or fire, they lived in the air and on the ground around statutes, and they were able to predict rain because they could fly in the clouds. I've suggested a few times that we compile lists about what the people of the time thought the daemons did in the air, but you've never done this. You've only played the "failure of imagination" card. Yet you yourself have read John Platton's "The Middle Platonists". Did you see ANYTHING in there that would have supported a belief in an Attis castrating himself in the air which wasn't supposed to be allegorical?

If you really want to use pagan beliefs to shine a light on what Paul believed, you will need to show that the pagans actually had those beliefs in the first place. Surely you can see that your lack of evidence from pagan writings is a problem?

Oh please. When Plutarch says that Typhon's dismemberment of Osiris is an allegory for the Nile drying up, of course it is based on something actually happening. But Plutarch doesn't believe that Osiris is actually being dismembered, either on earth or in a sublunar realm. When he tells Clea to not to take the myths literally, he is referring to the Egyptian priests who claim that Osiris is actually buried in tombs within Egypt. He isn't telling Clea not to take the myth that Osiris was dismembered in the sublunar realm literally, is he?

I DID answer. I said "I don't know". I then asked whether YOU knew the answer.

So, Earl, do you know the answer? If you don't, then we are in the same boat. If you do, then please enlighten us.

I've never said that "the whole of the ancient world" could have regarded such things as allegorical, but that the evidence I have seen seems to indicate that at that time, the myths were thought to have occurred on earth, or were allegorical.

I mean, you could help by pointing out the pagan writings that refer to a "world of myth", unless you want to restate your position and include allegories as part of the "world of myth".

BTW, I'd be interested to read your own answer to your question. Since you've stated repeatedly that we can't assume to understand how people thought in those days, I'm interested in how you are going to justify what "made sense" in the ancient world.

Give me an example from pagan writings that is similar to what you are claiming for Paul. If you can't do that, then what are you claiming?

Nope. Though I would put it as "That doesn't stop Don from objecting that Earl hasn't presented evidence of a belief in a sublunar realm that contained trees or knives, nor objecting that there appears to be no evidence of a belief that Attis castrated himself in a sublunar realm".

Right. To summarize your point: "Lack evidence for claim, time to broaden terms".

So, back to Paul again. As I said, I want to focus on the pagan side. So I will skip over some parts.

Like L Ron Hubbard? Or Sai Baba (who isn't even dead)? In fact, Philo's Moses had many of the characteristics that made up Paul's Christ. If Paul believed that Jesus was ushering a New Deal and a New Covenant as a type of new Moses, then we have a ready-made template at the right period of time. Add in influence of Roman Emperors going through deification, how Acts refers to a story where people claimed Paul and his companion were gods, and you have an era where Paul's Christology isn't so outlandish.

I like your choice of words. The "world of myth" is indeed "all over the place". Are you saying that the Shepherd took place in a "world of myth"? Or that the final redactor of AoI, unlike the average pagan and Jew of the time whom in your opinion believed in a "world of myth", somehow missed Christ being crucified up there? You are relying on a handful of statements in AoI and Paul to build a case for which there is no evidence elsewhere.

Yes, agreed. IMO Paul wanted to promote Jesus as a new Moses figure a la Philo, an intermediary bringing in a New Covenant. Jesus's crucifixion was perhaps the new Mt Sinai meeting with God.

So, if those less sophisticated minds didn't think that Mithras killing the bull was allegory, what did they think? Did they think that Mithras killed the bull in a sub-lunar realm? I mean, if your answer is "yes", then please present your evidence. And if your answer is "no" or "I don't know", why bring this up at all?

I agree. So, how do you rule out Paul thinking that Jesus was the new Moses, an intermediary prepared from the beginning of time to bring in the new covenant?

Plutarch believed that Osiris was a pure god who existed outside this corruptible world. Anything to do with order could be ascribed to him, just as anything to do with disorder could be ascribed to Typhon. This is nothing like your "world of myth", unless you want to view Paul believing that Jesus was a cosmological principle rather than a divine spirit figure. Can you see where the comparison just doesn't work?

From what I've read of "Middle Platonist" beliefs: The region from earth to the moon were filled with humans and daemons. The region above the firmament was the realm of purity, the true gods. Some believed that the gods that they worshipped were human "heroes" that had become daemons floating around statues and in the air; some of those daemons had ascended and become gods themselves. Thus Hercules and Ascelpius were humans who became gods, and thus Caesar and the later Roman emperors also were able to become gods.

That is the mythical landscape that Paul, an orthodox Jew who believed that Jesus represented the New Deal to the gentiles, had to work in. As Christianity became more influenced by gentile beliefs, it gradually started to influence how Jesus was depicted. "Heroes" were often thought to have had some divine spark in them, thus the claims that some of the Roman emperors were actually the products of Roman gods having intercourse with Vestal Virgins. I'm all but sure that this is how Jesus's birth narrative was created -- to show Jesus as a "hero", someone worthy enough to ascend beyond the firmament.

Paul and early Christianity makes sense to me when put into the context of the day. And that's where your theory fails, Earl -- IMHO it simply doesn't capture the beliefs of the day.

Malachi151

Better yet, Paul clearly says that he had been spending time with James, the brother of Jesus.

Doesn't this indicate that Paul viewed Jesus as a flesh and blood person who was on Earth?

youngalexander

I think that you are being a trifle precious about this GDon. A cursory glance at my onscreen Concise Oxford supplies the following:

dimension; a measurable extent, such as length, breadth and height
Origin; from Latin dimensio, from dimetiri 'measure out'

Thus presumably it meant something to those who spoke Latin? Also by extension to those who spoke and wrote in other languages at that time. Even if this was not the case, Earl is in fact speaking to us today! As a physicist I am well aware of many modern understandings of the word 'dimension', but also of the rather common usage referring to a "locale" or "realm".

locale; a place associated with particular events

realm; a kingdom or a field or area of activity of interest

air;
Origin; from Latin aer, from Greek aer

It seems to me that they are all reasonable ways of referring to a sub-lunar 'sphere'. Are you now going to tell us that the ancients did not know that the world was a globe, and that 'sphere' is thus also inappropriate?

GakuseiDon

I don't mind if Earl uses "dimension", as long as it is clearly defined and matches our understanding from primary sources. (If he wants to say that they never clearly defined the meaning, then I have no problems as long as there are primary sources to compare against).

I've become frustrated and confused by his inconsistent use of terms. Here are two comments by Earl from one of his more recent webpages. Note the parts I've emphasized. Compare this:

Suffering and death could also take place in the spiritual dimension, on the part of spiritual beings, although such 'corruptible' things could only take place in the realm of corruptibility, the lower reaches of the spiritual dimension, namely below the moon, which also included the material realm of the earth itself...

with this:

It is admittedly impossible to nail down with any precision the exact viewpoint early Christians held in regard to the death of their mythical Christ, except that it took place in a dimension not our own, in "some other place," as one IIDBer put it.

What do you make of the meaning of "dimension" in the passages above? Does it include earth or not?

No. But I will tell you that they believed that there was only one sub-lunar sphere, from moon to earth. When you say "sub-lunar sphere", where are you saying it started and ended?

Johnny Skeptic

Why do you assume that your primary sources were inspired by a being who revealed his true intentions? Paul says that it is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Would you find it to be surprising if your primary sources were inspired by a being who masquerades as an angel of light?

GakuseiDon

Sure, I would be surprised if Plutarch was so inspired. Though I've read that Socrates was inspired by a daemon.

Johnny Skeptic

If good and evil supernatural beings exist, other than by faith, which of course the followers of all religions have, how do Christians suggest that people determine whether or not the most powerful supernatural being has revealed his true intentions? Christians claim that the God of the Bible has revealed his true intentions, but where is their evidence that this is true? A deceptive, evil supernatural being with sufficient power would easily be able to conceal his true intentions if he wished to do so. He would easily be able to heal sick people and inspire people to write whatever he wanted them to write. Similarly, a good supernatural being with sufficient power would be able to reveal his true intentions if he wished to do so. He would be able to heal sick people and inspire people to write whatever he wanted them to write.

Since the God of the Bible allowed hundreds of millions to die without revealing his specific existence and will to them, is it not a reasonable possibility that the creator of the universe plans to eventually reveal his specific existence and will to humans in the next life? In the NIV, Isaiah 55:8 says "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways', declares the Lord." Christians typically refer to this verse when they cannot explain some of the strange things that God does that many people find to be questionable. So, I am now using the same verse to support my position that the creator of the universe might not be the supposed God of the Bible, and his ways might be strange, including not revealing his specific existence and will to humans in this life.

Many Christians claim that since everyone has sinned, God is not obligated to save anyone. If that is true, then the possible creator of the universe, whoever he might be, is not obligated to ever reveal his specific existence and will to anyone, in this life or in the next life, or to ever save anyone. Maybe he hasn’t, and maybe he never will. To assume that he has or hasn’t is mere speculation and guesswork.