I have received a request by a scholar, who shall remain unnamed, to answer a series of rebuttals to specific points found in my article "The Bible and the Paranormal - A New Perspective". I would like to state that I know and respect the person presenting this rebuttal, although I obviously do not always agree with his opinions. I will present his points as they were presented, along with my responses.

The scholar requests:
"I have enjoyed reading your installments of "The Bible and the Paranormal" in UFO Digest but I have some concerns and since I know you I decided to write to you directly rather than just putting out a rebuttal. Maybe you could answer my concerns in your next installment?"
My response:
The length of this series is too long to include this rebuttal and the detailed responses required to answer the many specific challenges he presents, so, I will request that it be posted to UFO Digest as a separate piece.

The scholar states:
"You are absolutely correct that the Bible is full of examples of various types of paranormal phenomena. It is also full of incest, murder, rape and homosexuality. Just because a person has the potential to do these things doesn't mean that they should."
My response:
I am at a loss to explain how the first statement is relevant to the points made concerning the anomalous human powers discussed in the first installment of the series. How do "incest, murder, rape and homosexuality" relate to levitation, psychokinesis, astral projection, telepathy, glossalia, etc.?
In the descriptions of these powers and the statements concerning them, there is no indication in the article that anyone "should" do them. And, it was Jesus or his apostles, who exhibited these powers, or stated that humans could accomplish these things. Whether "they" meant that anyone "should" do these things would seem to be the judgment of the one reading about them.

The scholar states:
"Saul went to the Witch at Endor but he should not have. Look what happened to him."
My response:
For clarification I will point out that the woman Saul contacted at Endor is not described as a "witch", but a woman that had a familiar spirit. There is no indication in scripture that a "witch" is one who has a "familiar spirit".
The statement "Look what happened to him." would seem to imply that the fate of Saul was determined solely on his visit to the woman at Endor and the act he asked her to perform. In other words, the scholar is implying that Saul fell on his sword, when he was defeated by the Philistines, as described in 1 Samuel 31:5, because he was being punished by God for contacting the dead spirit of Samuel. However, the spirit of Samuel told Saul the specific reason for his impending defeat, when he made that contact:
"Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? And the Lord hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David: Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines." (1 Samuel 28:16-19)
There is no indication in this prediction by Samuel that the reason Saul would join him in the grave the next day was because he used the woman at at Endor to contact him. The reason Samuel told Saul he was to die is very clearly stated as being: "Because thou (Saul) obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek,". To attribute "what happened to him" to visiting the woman at Endor is completely incorrect.

The scholar states:
"The key scripture is Deuteronomy 18:10-12. Saul knew this but did it anyway and suffered for it."
My response:
The scholar uses Deuteronomy 18:10-12 to justify his statement that Saul died for his encounter with Samuel, which does state, "There shall not be found among you... a consulter with familiar spirits". The scholar seems to ignore the beginning of the chapter where this event is described, which shows that Saul did exactly what the Deuteronomy 18:11 edict demands: "Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land." (I Samuel 28:3) Surely, in spirit, Saul violated his own edict, but, again, this does not add any weight to the incorrect implication that Saul died for any reason other than that stated by Samuel. To state that Saul "suffered" because he visited the woman at Endor is, also, completely incorrect.

The scholar states:
"Your discussion of ghosts in the Bible is negated I believe by Hebrews 9:27"
My response:
Hebrews 9:27 states: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:". Unless I am mistaken, using this verse, and no other reasoning, the scholar is saying we only die once and the very next thing experienced is the "judgment", with no experiences occurring between. Thus, any concept that there are spirits of the dead is not valid, as he states that all text presented on ghosts in the second installment of my article is "negated" by this verse.
In the section presented on ghosts, there are many aspects to the paradigm, which the concept "negated" implies are invalid. They are as follows:
* The Bible describes death as "giving up the ghost" 19 times in: Genesis 25:8, 17, 35:29, 49:33, Job 3:11, 10:18, 11:20, 13:19, 14:11, Jeremiah 15:9, Lamentations 1:19, Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, 19, Luke 23:46. John 19:30, Acts 5:5, 10, and 12:23.
The word "ghost" in Matthew 27:50 is taken from the Greek word pneuma, pronounced pnyoo'-mah, meaning; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit. Therefore, it would be logical to state that the "ghost" that leaves the body of the deceased is a spirit of that person.
Thus, a ghost is a dead spirit, as is generally understood in the paranormal world. Claiming this is invalid is implying these verses are not correct.
* It is difficult to imagine that this description of an anomalous entity that Job encountered was anything but a "ghost":
"Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake. Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying, Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?" (Job 4:14-17) If not a ghost, what was Job describing?
* It is presumed, that by stating the facts presented on ghosts are "negated", all reports by persons claiming to have had a near-death experience, NDE, are, therefore, false.
* "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." (Psalms 90:10), does not mean what it says.
* The encounter Saul had with the dead spirit, AKA, a ghost, of Samuel did not happen, as the Bible described and, therefore was not a sin that the scholar claimed resulted in Saul's death. By implying ghosts do not exist, he is contradicting his own rebuttal.

The scholar states:
"The issue that I had the most difficulty with was the discussion of hell. You tried to convince the reader that it was mostly a result of an overbearing Church trying to control its people with threats of eternal punishment. You are correct that the Catholic Church in particular used this technique in the Inquisition, and it was also used by various other denominations to put fear and trembling into their flock and therefore have control over them. This did happen and unfortunately still continues to happen today but it does not negate the concept of hell in Scripture. Jesus himself spoke more about the ravages of a fiery hell than He did about heaven. See Matthew 5:22 where Jesus talks of fiery hell also Matthew 5:29, 30, 10:28, 16:18 (Gates of Hades), 18:9, 23:33. Also Mark 9:43, 45, 47 Luke 16:19-31 tells of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom (heaven) and the rich man was in the fires of Hades. No matter that the church used threats of hell to control and even torture and kill its flock, it does not negate the reality of Hell. It only demonstrates to me that many of the persecutors will be there not the persecuted. God will not be mocked!"
My response:
To completely cover the doctrine of how "Hell" became a place of eternal and fiery torment in Christian doctrine, in a proper manner, would require an entire book. Many theological works have been presented over the ages, which contradict the concept of Hell as a place of eternal suffering, since this concept was formally introduced to the Christian world by Justinian, in 530AD. (William Barclay, J.W. Hanson, John A.T. Robinson, Lightfoot, Westcott, F.W. Farrar, Marvin Vincent, etc.) Claiming that Hell is a place of eternal suffering is a doctrine with a solid foundation, is to ignore theological reality, and, in fact, is to discount simple logic. Here are just a few points of logic that give strong evidence that the Hell of the Bible and the Hell of Christian doctrine are two completely different concepts:
* Is God a hypocrite by commanding his people to do something evil and, yet, condemning billions to the same fate, not in a temporary mortal sense, but eternally? "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." (Jeremiah 32:35)
* No doubt, Hell, as portrayed in Christian dogma, is the worst possible fate any human could possibly imagine. That being obvious, why did Moses not give warning about this horrible fate in the Mosaic Covenant, which contained over 600 laws, ordinances, and warnings, yet, only stated blessings and cursings in this lifetime.
* The concept of "any" human suffering eternal torture after death is completely contradicted by this New Testament verse:
“Since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22)
And this one:
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." ( Romans 5:18)
And this one:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (1 Timothy 4;10).
Unless the word "all" has been declared as synonymous with "some", this gives strong evidence that the Christian doctrine is "negated" by the very scriptures they claim as authority for all their doctrines.
* Why did Paul never mention “Hell” in any of his epistles, except to declare the triumph of Christ over it in 1 Corinthians 15:55? The word “grave” in the passage is the Greek word “hades.”, the same word translated into Hell in other verses. And, why is it not mentioned once in the book of Acts, or in any of the evangelistic sermons that were recorded by the early Apostles?
* Why is the concept of a place of eternal suffering not used by any contemporary of Christ, nor was it ever thus employed by any Christian until Justin and Clement first used it in 150AD?
* If most of the world's population will end up a place of eternal torture, doesn't that imply that Jesus, at least partially, failed in his mission, which is found in this verse?
"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47)
And, does that mean that the Father of Jesus, also, failed because of this verse?
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17)
Combined with the fact that a place of eternal torture was the doctrine of many false, "pagan", religions condemned in the Bible, long before it became a part of modern Christian dogma, there is good reason to question the orthodox view of Hell. For further study on this subject we recommend that the scholar consider the wealth of evidence presented in this research work online: The Bible Hell - J.W. Hanson 1888: http://hellbusters.8m.com/thebiblehell.htm
I do not have a response to the statement: "God will not be mocked!".

The scholar states:
"Finally, you mentioned that Jesus said that many of us will be able to do what He did and even greater things. That is true as witnessed by Peter and Paul being able to raise the dead, but those were His disciples who followed Him and were filled with His Holy Spirit. To infer that this applies to everyone no matter their relationship with Christ is disingenuous."
My response:
Implying that the text presented about this concept is disingenuous, or lacking in honesty, is pure presumption, as is the claim that this only applies to his disciples or apostles. By extension, that would also mean that anything said, or taught, to his disciples apply only to them and can, therefore, be ignored. And, in fact, that would also mean that no one need worry abuot having any faith, except the disciples, and thus "negates" all Christian doctrines about faith. All the teachings and statements of Jesus were meant for all the world, and specific ones cannot be arbitrarily singled out as exclusive to this person or that person, to prove one's point. Your claim, if true, would mean, therefore, that you are putting forth your own personal doctrine on this particular issue and should be stated as such.