Miracles That Are Closely Associated, But Come From Different Sources

We often find out that we have physical abilities we previously didn't know we had, like the ability to recover from an illness better than the average person or an ability to lift more weight than we thought we could. And our physical abilities often develop over time, such as the growth of muscles as a result of exercise. Similar things could occur with our souls. We have latent abilities we're unaware of, which are activated under certain circumstances. Or the more a spiritual ability is exercised, the stronger it gets. We often speak of discerning and developing our own or other people's spiritual gifts, for example. Similar concepts are found in paranormal research. People who have near-death experiences often report an increase in paranormal activity in their lives afterward. I've discussed examples of a similar nature that I've come across in my research on the Enfield Poltergeist. See the section on telepathy in the article here, for instance, and the discussion of scientific experiments with Janet Hodgson here.

One of the reasons I'm bringing this subject up is its relevance to how we interpret certain paranormal events. People often treat paranormal events as having come from one source when there's a significant chance that they came from different sources instead. Paranormal activity caused by source A could trigger some paranormal activity by source B, yet people will assume that all of the activity came from A.

Think of a Marian apparition, for example. As I've discussed many times, there are historical problems with the views of Mary that are held by the groups most associated with Marian apparitions. And the apparitions often behave in problematic ways, such as how visually unclear, noncommunicative, and noninteractive the Zeitoun apparition was. Sometimes apparitions, Marian and other types, behave in ways that are reminiscent of stone tape phenomena or seem more like what you'd expect from a projection of the human mind than what you'd expect from a source like Mary or a demon. But what do we make of something like a healing, precognition, or something else that's paranormal that accompanies the apparition?

One of the explanatory options we should consider is that the experience with the apparition activated other paranormal events that didn't come from the same source. An experience with an apparition could trigger an ability somebody has to heal, for example, to heal himself or heal other people.

Whether that's the best explanation in a given case has to be judged by the details involved. My point here is that it's one of the potential explanations we should keep in mind.

The Recent Exchange Between Mike Licona And Dale Allison On Jesus' Resurrection

They appeared on Sean McDowell's YouTube channel in a video released today. Both make a lot of good points, and there's some significance in what they agree about, but far more can and should be said about other relevant issues. And they both substantially underestimate the evidence for Christianity beyond Jesus' resurrection.

Dreams Of The Afterlife

Over the past several months, I've come across some resources I want to recommend on paranormal issues. These are subjects often discussed among nurses, hospice workers, and other people working in relevant fields, covered on television, and brought up in books, YouTube videos, conversations about family experiences, and elsewhere. But the large majority of Christians are very poorly prepared to address these topics.

3 criteria to distinguish an objective apparition from a hallucination

The Resurrection and grief hallucinations

1. NT scholar Dale Allison has popularized the idea that the Resurrection appearances of Christ might have their basis in so-called grief hallucinations. I should mention that it's been some years since I read his original argument, and I believe he's continued to debate it, so his current position may be more refined than his original formulation. At this point I might be fuzzy on the details. But with those caveats in mind: 

2. An initial problem is terminology. If we classify the phenomenon as a "hallucination", then, by definition, it's a psychological illusion. So the label is prejudicial. A hallucination is a psychological impression of something outside the observer, but in reality the impression originates in the mind. There is nothing objective to the observer that corresponds to what he perceives.

This is not to deny that some people hallucinate under well-known conditions. But whether all or most reported postmortem apparitions are hallucinatory begs the question. I doubt there's an abstract presumption one way or the other. It helps to have some background info about the reporter.

So I prefer to use the term grief apparition, with the caveat that some, but not all, of these may be hallucinatory. For the record, I think there are genuine postmortem apparitions. 

3. To my knowledge, this explanation isn't offered as an interpretation of the Resurrection accounts as they stand. Indeed, it's inconsistent with the Resurrection accounts as written. Rather, it attempts to go behind the narratives to reconstruct what really happened. The Resurrection accounts have their origin in grief apparitions, but Luke and John have transformed them to read more like physical restoration to life. 

A problem with that explanation is a theory that has to explain away inconvenient evidence which stands at odds with the theory. A theory that's consistent with some of the evidence, but discounts other evidence from the same source that runs counter to the theory. That smacks of special pleading. 

4. In fairness, there are situations where you can justifiably offer an explanation in the teeth of the documentary evidence. For instance, Joseph Smith has a well-earned reputation that impugns his credibility as a witness. Therefore, you are justified or even obliged to present an alternative explanation that disregards the record if there's good reason to believe the record is fraudulent.

But unless we're dealing with dubious sources like that, theories that are several steps removed from the documentary evidence are not to be preferred over theories consistent with the documentary evidence.

5. One problem with appealing to grief apparitions is that I doubt that was the primary emotion which the disciples experienced. To the contrary, the primary emotion was fear. Their leader had just been executed, and they were terrified that they were next on the hit list. They were hiding in fear that the authorities would round them up. That's not conducive to grief. Between the crucifixion and resurrection, I don't think there's an opportunity for them to grieve. Their dominant state of mind would be fear of arrest by the authorities, not bereavement. 

6. As I recall, women (esp. widows) are far more likely to experience grief apparitions than men. But we don't find that gender disparity in the Resurrection accounts. Perhaps the explanation would be that the accounts aren't meant to be accurate in that regard. While grief apparitions are the template, Luke and John creatively manipulate their sources or traditions. If so, that's an explanation that must disregard counterevidence in the record. 

7. A further problem is that post-resurrection appearances cluster around a particular time and place. But if these are grief apparitions, why would they be so close in time and place to Easter and succeeding weeks? Wouldn't we expect them to be more spaced out rather than coordinated? Do grief apparitions normally bunch up that way, where friends and family experience them around the same time and place? 

8. Then there's the problem of mass hallucination. Two observers can report seeing these same tree because there's an external object in their field of vision causing them to perceive the same thing. But if the Resurrection appearances are hallucinatory, then there is no external stimulus to generate the same psychological impression. There is no common cause. 

So even if you deny that the observers saw Jesus in the flesh, these would still be genuine postmortem apparitions rather than hallucinations. They saw the ghost of Jesus. So this interpretation still affirms the afterlife, but falls short of resurrection. As an alternative explanation it creates a dilemma because it's less than then NT requires but more than debunkers want to allow for. 

9. Then there's the question of why observers would confuse a ghost with a physical, embodied agent. Many ancient people, including ancient Jews, believed in ghosts. But they didn't confound that with physical restoration to life. So, once again, the claim would be that Luke and John touched up their sources to make it seem like a bona fide resurrection.  

10. Grief apparitions fail to explain the empty tomb. So a proponent of that alternative explanation must come up with an additional, separate explanation for the empty tomb accounts. 

11. Allison cites a few atypical cases of postmortem apparitions that simulate physicality in this or that particular. But in the case of the Resurretion appearances, that requires postulating a patchwork of different cases, to combined all the necessary features. That's highly artificial and far more anomalous than the already exceptional examples. 

Are the dead aware of the living?

1. The dead

What, if anything, do the dead know about the living? Catholicism has an elaborate mythology, as do various pagan faiths.

There's a danger when Christians leave a vacuum that others are only too eager to fill. Are there any reasonable, responsible suggestions we can give?

The Bible has little to say on the subject, although it sets necessary boundaries for pious conjecture. Some Christians think we shouldn't seek answers outside of Scripture. That's often prudent, but the Bible is not an encyclopedia. We rely on reason and evidence for much of what we believe. So it's partly a question of intellectual modesty. Recognizing the limits of speculation. In addition, some lines of speculation are more reasonable, better grounded, than others. Some lines of evidence have some evidence. While we shouldn't build a theological edifice on speculation and stake our immortal soul on theological conjectures, it's permissible to consider orthodox possibilities and sift the evidence we have. It's a mistake to vacate the field to let Catholics or pagans offer the answers. 

2. Angels

Before discussing the dead, we might say something about the angels. How much do angels know about us? Certainly angels have some knowledge of human history. Angelic history intersects with human history at multiple points.

It's possible that angels have detailed, up-to-date knowledge of what's going on here below. One issue might be how much heavenly angels know about the goings on of fallen angels. Since fallen angels are deeply involved in human affairs, if heavenly angels to some degree counteract the inference of fallen angels in human affairs, then heavenly angels must be pretty aware of what's happening on earth. 

It may also be on a need-to-know basis. A heavenly angel whom God has dispatched on a mission to earth will be briefed for his mission. 

3. The damned

One possible explanation for poltergeists and haunted houses is that during the intermediate state, one way God punishes some of the damned is to condemn them to be wandering or restless spirits. They go back to their old neighborhoods, but they can no longer participate in the life they had. They are frustrated bystanders, on the outside, yearning to get back in. 

It's a temporary punishment, a prelude to hell. I don't mean damnation is temporary, but the intermediate state is temporary, and there's a type of punishment suitable to the intermediate state of the damned. 

4. The saints

i) I mean "saints" in a Protestant sense, not a Catholic sense. I mean Christians who go straight to heaven at the moment of death.

ii) One possibility is that they have no knowledge of what's happening on earth. They put all that behind them. They remember their own life and times, but they have no new information. No updates. The only change is when one of their Christian loved ones dies and rejoins them in heaven. 

Of course, newcomers can brief the saints on the latest news, assuming that interests them. 

iii) On the face of it, the saints have no sensory awareness of what's happening on earth. They are disembodied souls.

iv) Up to a point, saints might still be interested in earthly affairs. Suppose a pious Christian mother dies. She's survived by some children and grandchildren, perhaps a sister. So she's naturally interested in their pilgrimage, their spiritual welfare. Intensely interested. 

v) Perhaps she has some telepathic awareness of when a living loved one is going through a terrible ordeal. That might be analogous to relatives to who have premonitory dreams about the death of a loved one, or a loved one in mortal danger. That mechanism might explain grief apparitions and crisis apparitions. 

vi) Or perhaps it's not telepathic. Perhaps God reveals to her when one of her loved ones is going through a terrible ordeal. And perhaps God gives her permission to appear to them in a dream or apparition to encourage them.

vii) However, there comes a point when all her loved ones have died. Some of them rejoin her in heaven and some go to hell. She may have no direct awareness of those who go to hell. But with the passage of time, it becomes evident that they must have died by now, yet they didn't go to heaven.

At that juncture it might be natural for her to lose interest in what's happening on earth. Her younger relatives were born after she died. She was never a part of their lives; they were never a part of her life. So there's no one left on earth that she personally knows and cares about. The younger generation are perfect strangers to her. For better or worse, all her loved ones are now on her side of the grave–in heaven or hell. 

viii) Due to mortality, human experience is segmented over generations. While there's some overlap between generations, most humans are separated from each other in time and space. Human experience is highly compartmentalized in that regard. Heaven is, among other things, an opportunity to play catchup. What was scattered in time and space is regathered in one time and place. The saints, who lived and died at different times, are now moving forward together. In that regard, heaven as the world's finest history department. 

Apparitions At Enfield

The Enfield case arguably began with an apparition, and apparitions were still being reported around thirty years later. Margaret Hodgson referred to an apparition she saw while using a Ouija board in 1974, and she reported seeing the same apparition when the poltergeist was at the height of its activities a few years later (Guy Playfair, This House Is Haunted [United States: White Crow Books, 2011], 238-39). When the Bennetts moved into the house after Peggy Hodgson's death in 2003, one of them reported that, "The night before we moved out, I woke up and saw a man come into the room."

What I want to focus on in this post is the evidence we have for apparitions between those two points in the case. I'll largely be drawing from Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes. I'll use "MG" to cite Grosse's tapes and "GP" to cite Playfair's. MG99B refers to Grosse's tape 99B, GP14A refers to Playfair's tape 14A, and so forth. It's helpful in some contexts to be able to picture the layout of the Hodgsons' house, so go here to see a floor plan.

Moreland–is there life after death?

In this post I'll use "dualism" as shorthand for substance dualism. I subscribe to Cartesian interactionist dualism. I don't subscribe to Thomistic dualism (hylomorphism). 

A. This is a fairly useful exchange as far as it goes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmfsZ_-Z_OY

But it tries to cover far too much ground in far too little time. Also, Moreland and the interviewer are talking at cross-purposes for a while, which squanders precious time. 

B. Moreland probably has far more to say about religious pluralism, but due to time constraints, deflected that issue.

C. Up to a point, dualism and physicalism are empirically equivalent explanations. Both are consistent with the data that the interviewer cited, viz. memory loss, inability to form new memories, and loss of cognitive function.

According to dualism, the brain is an interface between the mind and the physical world. It mediates action or information in both directions. If damaged, the brain blocks input or output at both ends. 

If the brain is damaged, that may block new sensory input. That prevents the mind from receiving new information from and about the sensible world.

If, conversely, the brain is damaged, that may block the ability of the mind to communicate with the outside world. Memories are stored in the mind, not the brain. If the brain is damaged, that impedes retrieval. The memories can't get through a washed out bridge. So long as the mind is embodied, that imposes limits on mental activity. 

All things being equal, the scales tip slightly in favor of physicalism as the simpler explanation. All things considered, additional evidence weighs heavily on the dualist side of the scales. 

D. Moreland greatly understates the evidence for the afterlife. I'll begin by proposing a more complex taxonomy:

1. Indirect philosophical evidence for the afterlife

2. Indirect empirical evidence for the afterlife

3. Direct theological evidence for the afterlife

4. Direct empirical evidence for the afterlife

Let's run back through these:

(1)-(2) constitute evidence for dualism. If there's evidence that the mind is ontologically independent of the brain, then that's indirect evidence for the afterlife. That's what makes disembodied consciousness possible. 

1.  Indirect philosophical evidence for the afterlife

i) The hard problem of consciousness. 

Philosophical arguments that the characteristics of consciousness are categorically different from physical structures and events. 

ii) Roderick Chisholm's argument:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/09/body-and-soul.html

2. Indirect empirical evidence for the afterlife

i) Veridical near-death experiences and veridical out-of-body experiences.  

ii) ESP, psychokinesis. If all mental activity takes place inside the brain, then the mind can't know about the physical world or act on the physical world apart from sensory input or the body interacting with its environment. If, conversely, there's empirical evidence that mental activity is not confined to the brain, then that's evidence for the metaphysical possibility of disembodied postmortem survival. 

3. Direct theological evidence for the afterlife

i) The biblical witness to the intermediate state. If there's good evidence that the Bible is a trustworthy source of information, then that's indirect evidence for whatever it teaches. 

ii) The resurrection of Christ

That's evidence, not for the immortality of the soul, but a reembodied state. 

That's what "Christian physicalists" pin their hopes on. However, the immortality of the soul is a bridge to the resurrection of the body. A philosophical objection to "Christian physicalism" is that if consciousness ceases at death, then what God resurrects isn't the same person who died but a copy of the person who died. And that raises questions of personal identity. If your existence is discontinuous, if there's a break or gap in your existence, then what does God restore? Is a copy of you you? 

4. Direct empirical evidence for the afterlife 

i) A subset of near-death experiences report meeting a decedent who wasn't known to be dead at the time. In a variation, the decedent imparts information that could not naturally be known. If the report is true, that's direct empirical evidence for postmortem survival. 

ii) Veridical postmortem apparitions, viz. poltergeists, grief apparitions, crisis apparitions, Christophanies. 

Bell, Book, and Candle updated

Patrick Chan and I have updated the bibliography for this post:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/02/bell-book-candle.html

In addition, he fixed the dead links on the old post.

Ghost-layers

Exorcists are associated with expelling demons from the possessed. A related, but neglected category, is ghost-layers. Unlike an exorcist, a ghost-layer is associated expelling ghosts or poltergeists from a haunted house. Traditionally, exorcists are associated with Roman Catholic priests while ghost-layers are associated with Anglican country parsons. My immediate point is not to comment on the merits of ghost-laying, but draw attention to a neglected designation and curiosity of church history. 

Communion of the saints

i) Is there any empirical evidence for life after death? Much has been written about near-death experiences. By comparison, postmortem apparitions are neglected in contemporary Christian apologetics–although that was of great interest in Victorian England. For instance, Cambridge Ghost Society (founded in 1851) included the Cambridge Triumvirate (Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot), as well as future Archbishop of Canterbury Edward Benson.

ii) Unlike near-death experiences, postmortem apparitions can't be explained away by a dying brain hypothesis (not that that's a good explanation for near-death experiences). It's not about the alleged experience of the patient when he was clinically dead, but living observers who say they witnessed a ghost. Some of these reports include corroborative evidence. Some of these reports are premonitions rather than postmortem apparitions. 

iii) A fringe benefit is that this provides empirical disconfirmation of annihilationism. 

iv) There are different kinds of purported apparitions, viz. angelic apparitions, Marian apparitions, and dominical apparitions. As an evangelical, I rule out Marian apparitions. I've discussed that elsewhere. 

In reference to postmortem apparitions, the primary categories are grief apparitions and crisis apparitions. Reports may be further subdivided into visual, auditory, tactile, and olfactory apparitions. Even if you don't believe in ghosts, it's useful to have the terminology for purposes of assessment and analytical clarity. 

The professional literature uses the word "hallucination," but that's prejudicial. 

v) One theological concern might be whether apparitions of the dead imply universalism or postmortem salvation. If there's a reported apparition to someone who's not a Christian, or an apparition of someone who wasn't a Christian at the time of death, does that undermine the spiritual finality of death? 

When we review case-studies of apparitions, there may be no information on the Christian status of the decedent or the observer. I don't think Christian theology rules out apparitions of the damned. What it precludes is a change in one's postmortem destiny. If damned angels can appear to the living, why can't the souls of damned humans? 

vi) In Scripture, God sometimes sends revelatory dreams to pagans. And that's just a sample. What happens to be recorded in Scripture. If dreams, why not apparitions? Indeed, some apparitions take the form of dreams. 

vii) Assuming Christianity is true, I don't think it's surprising that dead Christian friends or relatives might appear to some Christians. If the saints are aware of what's happening to their living loved ones, or sometimes aware that a living loved one is undergoing an ordeal, I don't think there's any antecedent objection to the possibility that they might appear to them to give them some encouragement or warn them of danger–unless God prevents contact between the living and the dead. 

I'm not saying for a fact that the saints keep tabs on what's happening to their living loved ones. Maybe they're out of the loop. I don't think that can be settled a priori. That's an evidential question. 

Scripture forbids the living from initiating contact with the dead, but that's not the same thing as the dead initiating contact with the living. Whether or not that ever happens is an evidential question. 

viii) Sola Scriptura doesn't mean Scripture has all the answers. The Bible is not an encyclopedia. We depend on extrabiblical sources of information for much of what we know or believe. Scripture rules out certain possibilities, but where Scripture is silent, it's permissible and often necessary to have recourse to extrabiblical sources of information.  

ix) There are hazards in both directions. On the one hand, some people are led astray by the New Age. On the other hand, if Christians have never seriously considered the status of ghosts, if they're theologically unprepared for that eventuality, then that can leave then vulnerable to the New Age in case they have an experience which they can't interpret in terms of their Christian paradigm. If they've be told that's inconsistent with the Christian theology, that leaves them ill-equipped if it does happen. 

x) An alternative explanation for postmortem apparitions is that these are telepathic projections by living agents rather than the dead. But if ostensible apparitions of the dead are really projections by living agents, why do they take the form of the dead or dying rather than the living agents who (allegedly) project them? Moreover, many of the details select for postmortem apparitions rather than telepathy by living agents. 

xi) Here are some criteria for veridical postmortem apparitions:

Either (1) two or more observers might independently witness the apparition; or (2) the apparition might convey information, afterwards confirmed to be true, of something which the observer had never known ; or (3) the apparition might be someone whom the observer himself had never seen, and of whose appearance he was ignorant, and yet his description of it might be sufficiently definite for identification. But though one or more of these conditions would have to be fully satisfied before we could be convinced that any particular apparition of the dead had some cause external to the observer's own mind, there is one more general characteristic of the class which is sufficiently suggestive of such a cause to be worth considering. I mean the disproportionate number of cases which occur shortly after the death of the person represented. Such a time-relation, if frequently enough encountered, might enable us to argue for the objective origin of the apparition. For, according to the law of probabilities, an apparition representing a known person would not by chance present a definite timeframe to a special cognate event-viz., the death of that person—in more than a certain percentage of cases. Cf. Gurney, Edmund & Myers, Frederic. ON APPARITIONS OCCURRING SOON AFTER DEATH, Proceedings 5, 1888-9, 404.

The hallucinations which have prima facie claim to be regarded as veridical may be divided into three classes. The first is the class in which the hallucination coincides in time with an external event in such a way as to suggest a causal connection between them–as when the apparition of a dying person is seen at the time of his death. The second is the class in which some information previously unknown to the percipient is conveyed to him through the hallucination. These two classes often overlap, as when a hallucination coinciding in time with a death distinctly conveys the information that the death has occurred  or when an apparition represents some actual characteristics of the dress or appearance of the dying person which was unknown to the percipient  The third class consists of "collective" hallucinations; that is, hallucinations occurring simultaneously to two or more persons, which cannot be traced to sensory suggestion from the same external cause, and cannot be explained as transferred from one percipient to the other through suggestion by word or gesture. Cf. Sidgwick, Henry et al. REPORT ON THE CENSUS OF HALLUCINATIONS, Proceedings 10, 1894, 207-9.

xii) In assessing reported apparitions, it's useful to have a large sample. That provides a margin for error. It only takes a few veridical cases to falsify naturalism. Likewise, if we have multiple, independent, firsthand accounts of the same kind of phenomena, that's provides cumulative evidence that the phenomena are real. 

xiii) Here's some general statistics:

Kalish and Reynolds (1981) found that 44% of a random sample said they had experienced or felt the presence of someone who had died. The dead appeared and spoke in 73.6% of the experiences, the dead were psychologically felt in 20.3%, and in 6%, there was a sense of touch. Rees (1975) found that 46.7% of the Welsh widows he interviewed had occasional hallucinations for several years. Most common was the sense of the presence (39.2%), followed by visual (14%), auditory (13.3%),and tactile senses (2.7%). Glick, Weiss, and Parkes (1974) found among widows a persistent continuing relationship with the inner representation of the dead husband. They reportIn contrast to most other aspects of the reaction to bereavement, the sense of the persisting presence of the husband did not diminish with time. It seemed to take a few weeks to become established, but thereafter seemed as likely to be reported late in the bereavement as early (p147). "Hallucinations of Widowhood," J Am Geriatr Soc. 1985 Aug;33(8):543-7. Cf. Kalish. R. A. & Reynolds, D. K. (1981). Death and ethnicity: A psychocultural study. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Company. Rees, W. D. (1975). The bereaved and their hallucinations. In Bernard Schoenberg et al. (Eds.), Bereavement: Its Psychosocial Aspects. New York: Columbia University Press, 66-71.

xiv) A question is where we can find reputable collections of case-studies. In this post I'll quote from several different sources. #1 is from a medical journal. #2 is from a neurosurgeon in a medical journal. #3 is from a philosophy prof. at San Francisco State U. It's a firsthand account. In addition, he researched the background of the phenomenon. #'s 4-14 are from Alas, Poor Ghost! (USU Press 1999), based on Gillian Bennett's a doctoral dissertation for the University of Sheffield. Most of the respondents were English Methodist churchgoers. #'s 15-28 are from the Society of Psychical Research. Although SPR investigators accept the paranormal, they have an aversion to orthodox Christian explanations, so that's actually hostile testimony. They record these incidents despite their secular bias. 

I've excluded reports based on seances, mediums, automatic writing, and other occult elements. I've included reports that have veridical elements or reports that strike me as theological fitting. This is just a sample. I left out many additional reports because it becomes repetitious. 

Abraham, Lazarus, and Dives

27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead’” (Lk 15:29-31).

In my experience, this is sometimes quoted to rule out the possibility of ghosts and apparitions of the dead. 

i) Since I'm not Roman Catholic, I don't believe that men and women canonized by the church of Rome appear to the living. That's not how I define a "saint".

ii) Jesus is telling a fictional story to make a point (or several points). Although Abraham is a real person who continues to exist in the afterlife, he functions as a fictional character in the story–just like the rich man. So this is a fictional dialogue rather than a heavenly oracle. 

iii) I doubt readers are meant to think Abraham has the authority to send people from heaven to earth, but simply refuses to exercise that authority. Abraham is just one of many saints. 

iv) In the first instance, this is referring to the epistemic situation of Jews. People who have the OT. It doesn't address the epistemic situation of pagans. 

v) V31 is an ironic jibe that foreshadows the Jewish rejection of Jesus. If they disregard the argument from (messianic) prophecy, then they'll disregard the Resurrection. And in fact, that's what often happened.

But even then it's not an absolute or universal claim, but just a generalization. After all, the disciples had to witness the resurrection of Christ to be convinced. Even for the disciples, Moses and the Prophets were not enough to convince them.  

vi) In the parable, the barrier isn't between heaven and earth but heaven and hell (v26). 

Seeing freaky things in mirrors

I'll begin by assessing some comments by Hume, then apply that to a specific case:

Does a man of sense run after every silly tale of witches, or hobgoblins, or fairies, and canvas particularly the evidence? 

Suppose supernatural or occult entities really exist. Suppose hobgoblins and fairies are part of the cultural folklore. That means that if somebody were to experience a supernatural or occult entity, he might automatically classify his experience as a personal encounter with a hobgoblin or fairy because those are the available labels and categories. The fact that hobgoblins and fairies are imaginary doesn't mean that a reported experience using those designations is necessarily or even probably bogus. The folklore may have a elaborate and fanciful backstory about about the origin, nature, and social life of hobgoblins and fairies that's sheer mythology. But if that's the cultural frame of reference for naming types of paranormal, supernatural, or occult experience, then that's the default classification scheme. You need to differentiate the conventional narrative from the underlying experience. 

Cult of Mary

In my debates with Ehrman, when he has raised the topic of Marian apparitions, I have responded that I do not doubt that the percipients saw something. What they saw is what I question. Elliot Miller and Kenneth Samples coauthored the book The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). In this book, they discuss the three major accounts of Marian apparitions: Lourdes, France; Fatima, Portugal; and Medjugorje, Croatia. I know Samples personally. He has interviewed several of the seers to whom Mary has appeared in Medjugorje. Although Samples is a Christian whose Protestant theology does not incline him to believe that Mary has appeared to others, he is convinced that these seers have seen a spirit being. In fact, I had an opportunity to inquire further of Samples on the matter. He told me that several of the seers in Medjugorje continued to have visions of Mary. In fact, he was with one of the seers while he was experiencing such a vision, although no one else in the room saw her. Samples told me he asked the seer if Mary had ever spoken to him. The seer said she had, recommending a specific book which the seer was to read. When Samples looked up the title of the book, it was occultic. This led him to believe that a demonic spirit is what is appearing to the seers.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/appearances-of-mary-and-jesus-resurrection-appearances

Marian apparitions

In Catholicism, there are different kinds of visions and apparitions, including Christophanies and angelic apparitions. Jesus is said to appear to famous Catholic mystics. 

Reputed Marian apparitions occupy a central place in Catholic piety. But that raises question: What niche do Marian apparitions fill that isn't already covered by Christophanies and angelic apparitions? If, according to Catholicism, Jesus can and sometimes does appear to people, aren't Marian apparitions inferior and superfluous? What distinctive purpose do Marian apparitions serve if some people have visions of Jesus?

It might be countered that God often works through intermediaries. But isn't that a function of angels? If it's a question of supernatural emissaries, angels already play that role.

Catholics say Mary points people to Jesus. But even if that were the case, why are most reputed apparitions visions of Mary rather than, say, visions of St. John the Evangelist? Isn't St. John the Baptist well-positioned to point people to Jesus? Why aren't there more Catholic reports of St. John appearing to people? "I'm the Beloved Disciple. I was the closest confidant of Jesus. I was an eyewitness to more of his ministry than anyone else". 

Moreover, angelic apparitions or apostolic apparitions wouldn't draw attention to themselves in the way Marian apparitions do. People know that angels are merely creatures, and apostles are merely emissaries. 

By contrast, reputed Marian apparitions draw attention to herself. She (allegedly) tells San Juan Diego to build a shrine to her–not to her Son.

She (allegedly) introduces herself to Bernadette as the Lady of the Immaculate Conception, and to Lúcia, Francisco, and Jacinta as the Lady of the Rosary. That draws attention away from Jesus. 

It's striking that the catalyst for Christian revival in the Muslim world is dreams and visions of Jesus rather than Mary. And that makes sense. Between visions of Jesus and visions of angels, there's no niche for visions of Mary. 

Flaming ministers

“He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire” (Heb 1:7).

1. Angels are common agents in Scripture, but is there any empirical evidence for angels? To my knowledge, this is a neglected topic. Is there anything more reliable than New Age or RadTrad Catholic sites? 

One potential source of information is a book by Emma Heathcote-James, Seeing Angels: True Contemporary Accounts of Hundreds of Angelic Experiences (London: John Blake, 2001). That's based on her doctoral dissertation at the University of Birmingham, which drew on 800 firsthand accounts. Given the academic background, it's a more reputable source than a lot of stuff on the subject. She's not obviously flakey. 

2. The book quotes and summarizes scores of reported angelic apparitions and related phenomena. I assess it the same way I assess reported miracles generally. I make allowance for flimflam, coincidence, wishful thinking. There is, though, a degree of cumulative credibility based on multiple independent reports of similar phenomena. One has to be a knee-jerk skeptic to dismiss all of it out of hand. What may be implausible in isolation becomes plausible if repeated by different observers at different times and place. 

If it's a question of establishing whether something exists or ever happens, the bar is quite low. How much does it take to disprove a universal negative? Not much.  

i) Atheists trap themselves in circular reasoning. They discount reported angelic apparitions (and other supernatural phenomena) because there's no evidence that angels exist. And what's the evidence that angels don't exist? It can't very well be absence of reported angelic apparitions. 

Only if we know in advance that angels don't exist are we entitled to automatically disregard eyewitness accounts of their existence. We have to know what the world is like, a world where angels don't exist. But how do we know what the world is like? That's something we discover, and reported phenomena contribute to our knowledge of the world. It's viciously circular to discount reported angelic apparitions on the grounds that such reports can never count as evidence for the claim in question. 

It's not as if there's evidence against the existence of angels which must be overcome by sufficient counterevidence. At best one might attempt to claim that there's insufficient evidence. But one can't justifiably claim there's no evidence, then use that to dismiss ostensible evidence to the contrary. The claim that there's no evidence for something is highly vulnerable to disconfirmation. The threshold for disproof is extremely low. All you need is some positive evidence.  

One doesn't have to believe every anecdote in her book. If even a handful are true, that's enough. 

There's a funny story about Laplace, the famous mathematician and scientist of the French Enlightenment. He didn't believe in meteorites. Farmers told him they saw rocks fall from the sky, but he waved that aside as backward superstition. He closed his mind to the evidence.  

ii) You also have cessationists who are impervious to testimonial evidence. But that's a dangerous place to be in. If extraordinary and miraculous things only happen in Scripture, while nothing like that happens outside the pages of Scripture, that creates a troublesome hiatus between what Scripture says is real and reality as you and others experience it. I'm not suggesting that every Christian, or even most Christians, need to experience something extraordinary or miraculous. But it's a problem to drive a wedge between the world of Scripture and the world outside of Scripture.

3. One superficial problem with the book is the classification system. She puts all reports in one angelic basket. That's in part because her informants have limited categories, so they describe an experience in angelic terms even if it's not specifically angelic. The book records a number of phenomena which are not necessarily or even probably angelic, although they are (if true) supernatural:

i) Audible voice

That could be God speaking directly to someone.

ii) Christophany

A few cases appear to be Christophanies rather than angelophanies. 

iii) Shekinah

Many of her informants describe supernatural light. Although angels can be luminous, many of these reports don't envision or depict an angelic figure, but just supernatural light. So that could be a luminous theophany, like the Shekinah. 

iv) Many cases aren't angelic apparitions, but apparitions of the dead. Grief apparitions and crisis apparitions. At least one case suggests bilocation. 

v) Some cases involve near-death or out-of-body experiences. 

vi) Generic miraculous intervention. Could be direct divine action. 

4. Some of the reputed angels look human. Their angelic identity is implied, not by their appearance, but by their supernatural abilities. 

Other reputed apparitions correspond to traditional Christian iconography. That could mean the apparition is imaginary–unless angels accommodate expectations, based on Western religious art, to be recognizable. 

5. She doesn't always identify the religious affiliation, if any, of the informant, but in many cases her informants profess to be Christian. In a few cases they were unbelievers for whom the encounter is a spiritual catalyst. 

6. The nature of the angelic apparitions and other phenomena vary, although they revolve around common situations. 

i) Miraculous intervention to protect people in danger

ii) Guidance for people who are (physically) lost

iii) Encouragement during a time of crisis. A deathbed experience. Angelic visitations to the sick or dying. Or luminous theophanies rather than angelophanies.  

iv) Supernatural warnings and premonitory dreams.

7. One intriguing case involved a visual apparition to someone congenitally blind. 

It's an interesting book. I wouldn't stake my life on it, but I find much of it credible. 

A Christian View Of The Afterlife And The Paranormal

I want to make several points that I hope will be helpful to people in thinking through issues pertaining to the afterlife and the paranormal. These subjects are important, and they often come up on television programs, in books, on the radio, on web sites, and in other contexts. It's important that we know how to address the issues.

This post isn't meant to be exhaustive. I'm just making several points among others that could be brought up.

- For most people, the afterlife has multiple phases. Think of Lazarus in Luke 16, for example. He was carried into Abraham's presence, in a sort of transitional phase between earth and heaven (Luke 16:22). Then he resided in Abraham's presence (Luke 16:23). Later, he'll be resurrected. So, Lazarus will have gone through at least a few different phases within the afterlife. The same can be said of unbelievers. For example, unbelievers haven't yet experienced resurrection, but will go through that phase of the afterlife in the future (John 5:28-29). The Bible also refers to different places in the afterlife that will exist in different contexts, like the new earth and the new Jerusalem. Genesis 35:18 refers to Rachel giving Benjamin a name as her soul departed. That's reminiscent of near-death experiences in which people report a somewhat lengthy process of leaving their bodies, sometimes going back and forth, in and out of the body. Sometimes the soul is even described as being attached to the body in some way, such as with a cord (The Handbook Of Near-Death Experiences [Santa Barbara, California: Praeger Publishers, 2009], 18). They didn't just instantaneously appear in heaven or hell. If there is such a process involved in the soul's departure from the body, with some people or with everybody, then that's another phase to take into account. The multiphased nature of the afterlife is important to keep in mind. People often take a simplistic approach toward the afterlife, or a Christian view of the subject in particular, as if those who have died are either in heaven or hell, and there's nothing more to it. Actually, there is more to it. We'll be able to better explain both the Biblical evidence and paranormal phenomena if we keep these distinctions in mind. For example, objecting that a person in hell wouldn't be able to come back to earth to make an appearance doesn't address whether the person could make an appearance during a phase when his soul is departing from his body, during a transitional phase between earth and hell, in a phase of hell that involves being a wandering spirit on earth, in a vision, etc.

Are there ghosts?

Question: "What does the Bible say about ghosts / hauntings?"

Answer: Is there such a thing as ghosts? The answer to this question depends on what precisely is meant by the term “ghosts.” If the term means “spirit beings,” the answer is a qualified “yes.” If the term means “spirits of people who have died,” the answer is “no.” The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and “haunt” the living.

Hebrews 9:27 declares, “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” That is what happens to a person’s soul-spirit after death—judgment. The result of this judgment is heaven for the believer (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23) and hell for the unbeliever (Matthew 25:46; Luke 16:22-24). There is no in-between. There is no possibility of remaining on earth in spirit form as a “ghost.” If there are such things as ghosts, according to the Bible, they absolutely cannot be the disembodied spirits of deceased human beings.

The Bible teaches very clearly that there are indeed spirit beings who can connect with and appear in our physical world. The Bible identifies these beings as angels and demons. Angels are spirit beings who are faithful in serving God. Angels are righteous, good, and holy. Demons are fallen angels, angels who rebelled against God. Demons are evil, deceptive, and destructive. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, demons masquerade as “angels of light” and as “servants of righteousness.” Appearing as a “ghost” and impersonating a deceased human being definitely seem to be within the power and abilities that demons possess.

https://www.gotquestions.org/ghosts-hauntings.html

1. It's true that we need to take demonic activity into account. The question is whether that's an ad hoc explanation for all prima facie apparitions of the dead. 

2. The respondent's major prooftext is Heb 9:27. However, he doesn't exegete that text or explain how disproves the existence of ghosts. Let's examine the text:

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Heb 9:27, ESV).

i) Considered in isolation, this might be a universal statement: every human will die. Moreover, every human will die just one time. 

ii) In addition, both claims might be universal. Those who face judgment are coextensive with those who die. If death is universal, then judgment is universal. 

3. Let's consider the first clause. Is it universally true that everybody dies just once? For that matter, is it universally true that everyone dies? You can't die more than once unless you die at least one time. You can't die more than once unless you die a first time. But in Scripture, there are exceptions:

i) Elijah (1 Kgs 17) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4) raise the dead. But presumably, the children they restored to life were not immortal. So they died a second time. There's also the somewhat enigmatic statement about the revived corpse in 2 Kgs 13. But that might be another case of someone who's temporally revived, only to die a second time. 

In addition, Jesus raised the dead, viz. Lazarus (Jn 11), the daughter of Jairus (Lk 8), and the widow's son (Lk 7). Likewise, Peter raised the dead (Acts 9). More ambiguous is the case of Eutychus (Acts 20). 

Presumably, although these people were revived, they were still mortal. So they died a second time. 

ii) In addition, Paul indicates that Christians who are alive at the time of the Parousia will become instantly immortal (1 Cor 15:51; 1 Thes 4:17). So they won't die at all. 

iii) Likewise, there's the translation of Enoch (Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2), who escape death by that intervention. 

In addition, what happened to the saints in Mt 27:50-53?

iv) Assuming the inerrancy of Scripture, Heb 9:27a is a general claim rather than a universal claim. Not a statement about what happens to everyone, but what happens to humans in general. 

And that's confined to examples from Bible history. But the Bible is not an encyclopedia. It doesn't detail everything that exists or everything that happens. 

v) Put another way, Heb 9:27 is not an absolute claim, but a statement about what happens to humans, all other things being equal. Yet it makes allowance for exceptions, all things considered. Like many unqualified statements in Scripture, it has an implicit ceteris paribus clause. If other conditions hold constant, if other factors remain unchanged, then that's what will happen. But in some cases, a different outcome is possible if there's a countervailing factor. 

4. In addition, this 1C statement doesn't address situations in which someone who's clinically dead is resuscitated by medical technology. Take someone who falls through ice, drowning in a fridge pond. He dies, but the chilling effect temporarily prevents necrosis, so in some cases he can be revived. But he'd be dead by 1C criteria. 

5. Let's consider the second clause. Is that a universal claim? Does it mean every human will undergo divine judgment? That depends on what the author means by "judgment" in this context:

a) Sometimes "judgment" has is a synonym for condemnation, damnation, eschatological punishment (e.g. Heb 10:27-30). But the author doesn't mean everyone will face judgment in a punitive sense. To the contrary, he sets "judgment" in v27 in contrast to "salvation" in v28. Some experience judgment while others experience deliverance from judgment. So the claim isn't universal in that sense.

b) Sometimes "judgment" denotes a verdict of acquittal or conviction (e.g. Heb 4:13; 12:23; 13:4). So it might be universal in that discriminating sense. 

6. In addition, Scripture presents a two-stage afterlife: (i) the intermediate state, followed by (ii) the final state. In that sense, most humans will be "judged" twice:

i) There's what happens to you after you die. The period in-between death and the Day of Judgment. Postmortem judgment is repeatable and individual. It happens at different times throughout human history, because people die at different times. 

ii) Then there's eschatological judgment. The Final Judgment. That's a corporate, one-time event at the end of the church age (or thereabouts). 

7. According to Scripture, every human will experience one of two divergent eternal destinies. The concise statement in Heb 9:27 doesn't unpack all these subdivisions. 

8. Does Heb 9:27 preclude apparitions of the dead? In principle, there are three or four possible options:

i) There's no possible contact between the living and the dead

ii) It's possible for the saints to contact the living

iii) It's possible for the damned to contact the living

iv) Both (ii) & (iii)

9. Some Christians think "judgment" in Heb 9:27 means that damned are quarantined, so that contact between the damned and the living is impossible. Even if that's true, it doesn't address the very different case of sainted believers. 

We have apparitions of the dead (Moses) at the Transfiguration (Mt 17). 1 Sam 28 is a prima facie apparition of the dead, in the context of necromancy. (Some readers dispute that interpretation.) 

In addition, Jesus appears to Paul (Acts 9) and John (Rev 1). 

The "dead" is ambiguous terminology. Jesus is alive, yet he usually resides in the realm of the "dead" (e.g. with the saints in heaven).

So even if Scripture ruled out apparitions of the damned, it doesn't rule out apparitions of the saints. (I'm using "saints," not in the Roman Catholic sense, but in reference to dead Christians.)

And, once again, it's important to keep in mind that the Bible is not an encyclopedia. We need to draw a distinction:

i) Scripture doesn't say if X happens

ii) Scripture says X doesn't happen

But (i) is not equivalent to (ii). The silence of Scripture is not a denial. 

10. Are the damned quarantined? Maybe so, maybe not. That depends on the nature of postmortem punishment and the intermediate state of the damned. Suppose, until the "great separation" at the Day of Judgment, some of the damned are "wandering spirits" or "restless spirits". That in itself is a punitive condition.

11. Consider the alternative explanation: demons impersonating the dead. But if demons aren't quarantined, why insist that the souls of damned humans are quarantined? After all, doesn't Scripture depict fallen angels as imprisoned spirits (e.g. 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6; Rev 9:1-3)? But if that picturesque language makes allowance for demonic activity on earth, why not ghosts? 

12. Yes, believers go to heaven when they die. Does that mean they're confined to heaven? Was Moses confined to heaven? Or Elijah? Or Jesus. Or celestial angels? 

13. What about the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Lk 16)? 

i) That's tricky because it's a fictional illustration, so the question is how much it is meant to illustrate. For instance, if you press the details, this would mean the damned can contact the saints. But do Christians who deny the existence of ghosts think that's generally the case? Can the denizens of hell initiate contact with the denizens of heaven whenever they feel like it? Is that realistic? Or is this an imaginary conversation between someone in "heaven" (Abraham) and someone in "hell" (the rich man) to illustrate whatever lesson(s) the parable is meant to teach?

ii) In addition, the barrier in that scene isn't between heaven and earth, but heaven and hell. There's no traffic between heaven and hell (v26), but that doesn't rule out the possibility of traffic between heaven and earth. When the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn the rich man's living relatives, Abraham doesn't say there's another barrier which prevents that. Rather, he says it would be futile since they wouldn't listen. 

Moreover, v31 is an allusion to the Resurrection, not the intermediate state. That verse doesn't speak directly to the status of ghosts. Rather, it foreshadows the incredulous reaction of the Jewish establishment to the resurrection of Christ.

14. BTW, I don't subscribe to universalism, annihilationism, postmortem salvation, or Purgatory. My analysis takes for granted a traditional evangelical view of the afterlife–which I've defended on other occasions.