How do you know someone is in heaven? How do you know that a person is in heaven?
I just read the very thoughtful answers/comments to a question about praying to someone outside the trinity and have a follow up question.  Most of the comments assume that you are asking a person who is in heaven to intercede for you. In spite of any evidences we see while people are living, only God knows the heart of man when it comes to someones motivations, beliefs, faith-in-action.

How do you know someone is in heaven?
The short answer is that it is impossible to know!
Generally speaking, we can not tell one way or another, unless God reveals this information to us in some form or another as He deems fit.
As a Catholic, we have a process of canonization to help determine is someone is in Heaven. The ultimate proof is that the Church requires a miracle, to be done through the intercession of one believed to be in Heaven.
St. Thomas Aquinas has a few words on true and false miracles.

Whether the wicked can work miracles?
Some miracles are not true but imaginary deeds, because they delude man by the appearance of that which is not; while others are true deeds, yet they have not the character of a true miracle, because they are done by the power of some natural cause. Both of these can be done by the demons, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2).
True miracles cannot be wrought save by the power of God, because God works them for man's benefit, and this in two ways: in one way for the confirmation of truth declared, in another way in proof of a person's holiness, which God desires to propose as an example of virtue. On the first way miracles can be wrought by any one who preaches the true faith and calls upon Christ's name, as even the wicked do sometimes. On this way even the wicked can work miracles. Hence Jerome commenting on Matthew 7:22, "Have not we prophesied in Thy name?" says: "Sometimes prophesying, the working of miracles, and the casting out of demons are accorded not to the merit of those who do these things, but to the invoking of Christ's name, that men may honor God, by invoking Whom such great miracles are wrought."
In the second way miracles are not wrought except by the saints, since it is in proof of their holiness that miracles are wrought during their lifetime or after death, either by themselves or by others. For we read (Acts 19:11-12) that "God wrought by the hand of Paul . . . miracles" and "even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs . . . and the diseases departed from them." On this way indeed there is nothing to prevent a sinner from working miracles by invoking a saint; but the miracle is ascribed not to him, but to the one in proof of whose holiness such things are done.

Some go out of their way to ask such people they believe to live very holy lives these types of questions. See: here.
The Curé d'Ars (Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney) had the following written down in his biography about a man who had committed suicide:

"...a woman...told....Vianney that she was devastated because her husband had committed suicide. She wanted to approach the great priest but his line often lasted for hours and she could not reach him. She was ready to give up and in a moment of mystical insight that only a great saint can receive,...Vianney exclaimed through the crowd, “He is saved!” The woman was incredulous so the saint repeated, stressing each word, “I tell you he is saved. He is in Purgatory, and you must pray for him. Between the parapet of the bridge and the water he had time to make an act of contrition.”

As for the opposite, the Catholic Church has not named a single person as having been known to be in hell. Guess it is best not to know.
Here is a little lighthearted story on this.

Biagio Martinelli(Cesena 1463 – Rome 1544), better known as Biagio da Cesena (meaning "from Cesena", his native city), was a 16th-century Italian official who served as Papal Master of Ceremonies. He is widely known for his negative reaction to the nude figures presented in Michelangelo's painting of The Last Judgment.
In 1518 da Cesena became Papal Master of Ceremonies to Pope Leo X. He would also act in this role to Popes Adrian VI, Clement VII, and Paul III.
After the completion of The Last Judgment da Cesena said of the fresco, "it was mostly disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully". Da Cesena went on to say the painting was more suitable "for the public baths and taverns" than a Papal chapel. In response, Michelangelo worked Cesena's face into the scene as Minos, judge of the underworld with donkey ears, while his nudity is covered by a coiled snake. It was widely said that when Cesena complained to Pope Paul III, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell and the portrait would have to remain.

How do we know someone is in Heaven?

The Word of God tells us who is in Heaven.

In context to Ecclesiastes 12:7, we can presume the Spirit (הָר֣וּחַ) returns to Heaven: "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God, Who gave it."

In context of Genesis 5:24, we can presume Enoch (cHenok, חֲנ֖וֹךְ) is in Heaven : "Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away."

In context to Matthew 8:11 , we can presume Avraham ( אַבְרָהָ֛ם), Yitschaq (יִצְחָ֖ק), and Yaqov (יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב) are in Heaven : " I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."

In context of Matthew 19:14 we can presume children are in Heaven : "Jesus said, “Let the little children (παιδία) come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven (οὐρανῶν) belongs to such as these.”

In context of Luke 4:18-21 We can presume Mourners (אֲבֵלִֽים) are Redeemed into Heaven, since Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth affirms that He came to fulfill [Isaiah 61:1-2].

In context to Isaiah 61:1, The Spirit of the Lord YHVH (Ruach Adonai Yehovah, ר֛וּחַ אֲדֹנָ֥י יֱהֹוִ֖ה) redeems His mourners (אֲבֵלִֽים) in Heaven. These "mourners" or Avelim (אֲבֵלִֽים) belong to YHVH because His Spirit is in them, and become "Redeemed by YHVH" (גְּאוּלֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה) in context to Isaiah 62:12.
Isaiah 62:12 [MT]
"And they shall call them the holy people, those redeemed by YHVH, and you shall be called, "sought, a city not forsaken." (וְקָרְא֥וּ לָהֶ֛ם עַם־הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ גְּאוּלֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה וְלָךְ֙ יִקָּרֵ֣א דְרוּשָׁ֔ה עִ֖יר לֹ֥א נֶעֱזָֽבָה)

If we believe the affirmations of Yeshua (Jesus) our Messiah In Luke 4:18-21, then we must also believe the prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah) speaks truth about God's mourners who will be called "the elms of righteousness" later to be Redeemed in Heaven (where there will be no mourning).

Revelation 21:4 [KJV]
"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

In context to Luke 23:43, we can presume the other (ἕτερος) criminal on the Cross is in Heaven : "Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

In context to Acts 1:11, we can presume Yeshua (Jesus) our Messiah is in Heaven : "This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven (οὐρανόν).”


What is the Biblical basis for preachers to be paid from members' tithing? What is the Biblical basis for preachers to be paid from members' tithing?

That's an easy question to answer. The key is to know what the title pastor was referred to in both the Old Testament & also the New Testament. They didn't use the term pastor, like we do today. In the OT the term pastor was called a Priest. In the NT the same title pastor is known as an Elder. (Some of the synonyms for those titles, can be found at the bottom of this message.)

If you use a Bible search engine like these & look for "priest" plus "tithe", you can find the answers which you're looking for. (Or you can scroll down & keep reading.)

Bible Gateway
Lumina
Bible Hub
Bible.com

Here is the OT answer from Numbers 18:28 (NIV):

  In this way you also will present an offering to the Lord from all the
  tithes you receive from the Israelites. From these tithes you must
  give the Lord’s portion to Aaron the priest.

Aaron was the high priest. So the best part of the tithes was to go to him. We call that "the best of the best". It's the top 1%. (Formula: 100% / 10 = 10% / 10 = 1% = Best of the Best = the Lord's portion!)

Here are some NT answers:

Hebrews 7:5 (NIV):

  Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham.

This is the verse which you're looking for:

1 Corinthians 9:12-13 (NIV):

  Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Here is why you're probably confused:

Paul didn't want to be a burden on anyone, so he chose tent making as his trade. Just remember that his calling was to be a traveling missionary to the Gentile world & not necessarily a stationary synagogue elder to the Jews in Jerusalem.

Part of Acts 18:2-3 (NET):

  ... Paul approached them, 3 and because he worked at the same trade, he stayed with them and worked with them (for they were tentmakers by trade).

Paul didn't want to take anything from the tithe as he wanted a reward. Paul just has a hard time explaining it though in 1st Corinthians 9:15-18. In v. 19, we see what his heart really wanted:

1 Corinthians 9:19 (ESV):

  For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

There are some indirect verses too. Since I'm not going to do all of your Bible study homework for you, you can continue studying by checking out these verses too:

See: Galatians 6:6
See: 1 Corintians 9:11
See: Genesis 14:18-20
See: Luke 10 where Jesus sends out 72 local missionaries. Read verse 7.

If you're thinking about becoming a pastor, you'll need to read 1st Corinthians 9 plus the entire Bible, MANY MANY times & pray a lot to ask God if it's His will that you should become one! For the sake of your own eternal future, DO NOT choose the profession lightly! But seek His guidance through prayer & Bible study. Then patiently wait upon The Lord to answer you! If He says yes, then by all means pursue becoming a pastor! If He says no, then don't force it. See James 3:1 for the reason. Someday, I hope to see you in Heaven!

Here is a note about the title of the ordained office, for clarification purposes: One of the synonyms of the title for a priest/pastor/elder would be a Presbyter. Bible translations tend to refer to priests in the OT & elders in the NT. It's someone who reads the Words of God - AKA scrolls - and then teaches the congregation. The printing press wasn't invented until around 1440 A.D. Anyone who was called by God & then ordained by God & set apart where God gave them their primary job, which was to read His Word and/or copy His Word or translate His Word like Martin Luther did & preach + teach His Word to others, would be considered a priest, rabbi, elder, overseers, presbyter, bishop, reverend, pastor, etc... (The Internet wasn't invented until the 1960's with the WWW in 1990. Now we can easily get digital copies of the Bible for free!) Someone who didn't preach 2,000 years ago, but just copied scrolls, was a scribe. Someone who served under a priest, but isn't a full-time called & ordained pastor, but was allowed to serve in the church - like on weekends & is a full-time worker somewhere else... like in an office or a factory - is a deacon.


How did Elijah know he was going to be taken up to heaven? How did Elijah know that he was about to be taken by God?
How did Elisha know this was going to happen?
I could not find anything prior to 2 Kings 2:1 when Scripture states that Elijah was going to be taken up, and 2:9 when Elijah asks what he can do for Elisha before he is taken.

Scripture does not say. The closest thing we get is this:

  and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. —1 Kings 19:16 NASB

God tells Elijah to anoint Elisha in his place, implying that it would not be long before Elijah was finished with his time as God's prophet. I found this commentary that mentions Elijah knew beforehand, but I could not find a Scriptural reference.

This is a prophetic event, a type and a foreshadowing.

Elijah is Christ and Elisha the disciples.
Do the disciples see Christ caught up to heaven? Yes.
They also get the double portion of the first born just like Elisha gets the mantle and the double portion from his master.

Does Elijah know that is going to be taken up to heaven? Yes.
Christ knows he was going to be taken to heaven and so does Elijah.


How is it that someone who lived thousands of years ago can "represent" me? The assertion that all of humanity "sinned" when Adam sinned, or "through Adam" is often made as a foundation to other Christian doctrines. What specific doctrine points to Adam being a representative of all of humanity? According to those who hold this doctrine, by what mechanism can Adam be considered my representative? I never voted for him nor was offered a choice to participate in his blood line. How is it logical that the choices he made should be held against me and the rest of humanity?

Furthermore, are my other blood ancestors such as my father and grandfather also my representatives in the same sense? If not how is their role different?

The tag original-sin has some interesting related questions, but nothing dealing just with the mechanism by which Adam is considered a "representative", a common phrase used by Christians.

I didn't get to vote or have any say in my forebears leaving their homelands and emigrating to the United States (or, The New World, as it was then known in Europe); nor did I have any say in whether or not to participate in their bloodline. Yet they represented me when they did it.

If we take the Bible to be God's word, and we believe that God cannot lie, then we also have to believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and that they had the choice to not sin - but of their own free will chose to disobey God.

It is not "Christianity" which says we are sinners because of Adam's sin, it is the Bible that says such:

  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

& here:

  For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

& here:

  all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Adam got his spirit from God, so his spirit was perfect. When Adam sinned, he made his spirit faulty, and thus passed on his imperfect spirit to all of his offspring. That is why everybody has a tendency to sin....because Adam passed on his imperfect spirit to all.
Jesus however had a perfect spirit, since His spirit did not come from Adam, only his body.


What is the biblical basis to either consider tattoos acceptable or not? I do not remember exactly where but I think the OT says somewhere that doing things like tattoos to your body is not good and, to God, is morally objectionable. Is this true? I do know that some denominations strictly forbid it, however, I have never heard much reasoning other than tattoos are commonly associated with criminals and the like. I have often heard the old phrase 'The body is the temple of the Lord' but I am not sure if that is even in the Bible and do not know its context.

If this argument cannot be made Biblically then why the objection among some Christians?

The prohibition against tattoos comes from Leviticus 19:28 (ESV):

  You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo
  yourselves: I am the Lord.

I can speak to this as I have a mother who is very opposed to tattoos but I view my tattoos as an act of worship as they all have Christian themes. Christians really do not have any Biblical backing for tattoos other that Leviticus 19:28, which is right after a verse that says men should not cut their beards. Also this verse is specifically in reference to the Babylonian practice of cutting one's skin and rubbing in the ashes of a dead ancestor as an act of worship to them, which takes glory from God. The term 'tattoo' here is NOT what we think of as a tattoo today.

This verse is taken out of context to attempt to prove a societal stigma that tattoos are evil. Since the days of the pirates (when James Cook discovered Polynesia) tattoos and those who have them have been a social pariah. Now though they have a completely different view as an art form of self-expression and some Christians believe that having a tattoo is worldly and therefore a sin. I would argue that with that logic, dying one's hair is also a sin (which obviously it is not).

The point is that in everything we do we should glorify God. If a tattoo is glorifying to God, it is not a sin, and in fact a perfectly legitimate act of worship. However, I will agree that there are many tattoos out there that take glory away from God...however the same could be said for elicit T-shirts. Does that mean we shouldn't wear T-shirts because they are 'worldly'?

Hope this helps :)


What is the difference between "called" and "chosen"? Matthew 22:14:

  For many are called, but few are chosen. [ESV]

What is the difference between “called” and “chosen” here?  Though I believe in predestination, I struggle to see how this verse deals here with irresistible grace.

The general consensus from the commentaries I've seen on this, as well as the teachings of my Church, taking all of Matthew 22 in context is that the invitation for salvation is open to all, yet few actually choose to come to salvation.

How this fits in with irresistible grace, or pre-destination is not clear to me. Our denomination does not believe in irresistible grace. (We hold some Calvinist views, but not all).  It's possible that the reason I'm only finding commentaries that support the idea of resistible grace is because my sources are biased, but the commentaries I've found seem to be united on this verse, with the possible exception of the Barnes' Notes on the Bible. (Second commentary quoted below).

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (Emphasis mine)

  Many are called, etc. - This verse is wanting in one of Colbert's
  MSS., marked 33 in Griesbach. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Many are
  called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of
  the Church of Christ; but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with
  God in glory, because they do not come to the master of the feast for
  a marriage garment - for that holiness without which none can see the
  Lord. This is an allusion to the Roman custom of raising their
  militia; all were mustered, but only those were chosen to serve, who
  were found proper. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Reader! examine thy
  soul, and make sure work for eternity!

  Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  Many are called, but few are chosen - Our Saviour often uses this
  expression. It was probably proverbial. The Jews had been called, but
  few of them had been chosen to life. The great mass of the nation was
  wicked, and they showed by their lives that they were not chosen to
  salvation. The Gentiles also were invited to be saved, Isaiah 45:22.
  Nation after nation has been called; but few, few have yet showed that
  they were real Christians, the elect of God. It is also true that many
  who are in the church may prove to be without the wedding garment, and
  show at last that they were not the chosen of God. This remark in the
  14th verse is the inference from the "whole parable," and not of the
  part about the man without the wedding garment. It does not mean,
  therefore, that the great mass in the church are simply called and not
  chosen, or are hypocrites; but the great mass in "the human family,"
  in the time of Christ, who had been "called," had rejected the mercy
  of God.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  22:1-14 The provision made for perishing souls in the gospel, is
  represented by a royal feast made by a king, with eastern liberality,
  on the marriage of his son. Our merciful God has not only provided
  food, but a royal feast, for the perishing souls of his rebellious
  creatures. There is enough and to spare, of every thing that can add
  to our present comfort and everlasting happiness, in the salvation of
  his Son Jesus Christ. The guests first invited were the Jews. When the
  prophets of the Old Testament prevailed not, nor John the Baptist, nor
  Christ himself, who told them the kingdom of God was at hand, the
  apostles and ministers of the gospel were sent, after Christ's
  resurrection, to tell them it was come, and to persuade them to accept
  the offer. The reason why sinners come not to Christ and salvation by
  him, is, not because they cannot, but because they will not.

  [snip]

  The FourFold Gospel

  For many are called, but few chosen. Many guests are invited, but few
  are accepted; because some neglect and despise the invitation,
  andothers cast dishonor upon the one who invites, by the self-willed
  andirreverent way in which they accept his invitation. In this parable
  thefirst parties invited represent the Jews; the city of murderers
  isJerusalem; the persons called from the highways are the Gentiles;
  theentrance of the king is the coming of the Lord to final judgment;
  andthe man without the wedding-garment is anyone who will be found in
  thechurch without a suitable character. The character of Christ is
  ourwedding-garment, and all the regenerated must wear it ( John 3:5
  Ephesians 4:24 ; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 3:10 ; Revelation 19:8
  Revelation 19:9 ).

Paul was chosen, his conversion was not his own free will. to this day, these types of conversions still happen.

Romans 8:30 explains those who are called.

the concept of predestination doesn't have much to do with your question.


How do Trinitarians interpret Jesus's statement that "I live because of the Father"? Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
the one who feeds on me will live because of me (John 6:57)

This statement by Jesus seems to insinuate that Jesus derives his life from the Father. How is this interpreted in the context of the Trinity that Jesus is co-equal with the Father?

Orthodox Trinitarians believe that the Son and the Spirit are eternally dependant on the Father, just as the heat and light of the fire are distinct from one another, contemporaneous with, yet dependant on, the fire. Just as the light can say "I live because of the fire" the Son can say "I live because of the Father." Yet there is no fire without the heat or light — no Father without the Son, nor vice versa.
If this weren't true, whence would the Son derive His life? If He derived it elsewhere, He would be another God from the Father, having life apart from the Father. Which cannot be and which contradicts His express teaching.

How do Christians interpret this statement by Jesus?
He means what he says - except for the Father, Jesus would still be dead.
There are several ways in which Jesus received life from the Father. Each is relevant to the enquiry.

Even though he never sinned and was legally set apart from the death penalty of sinners, he could not and did not raise himself from death after his crucifixion.

Rom 6:4 Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
Father (also Gal 1:1)

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own
accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up
again

This authority he received from his Father.

Jesus prayed to the Father to save him from death - not death on the cross, but the life he would forfeit at his resurrection - if he sinned once while in the flesh.

Heb 5:7 During the days of Jesus’ earthly life, He offered up prayers
and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could save Him
from death

Jesus was mortal in the flesh - he became immortal when raised (probably when he died, legally speaking). The Father raised him to new spirit life.

For Christ... having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in
the spirit 1 Pet 3:19
Rom 6:9 Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die
again; death no longer is master over Him

When he was born of Mary, it was because of the Father through His spirit Luke 1:35

He has life in himself - just as the Father does and always did. This speaks of his immortal life that he was raised into.

John 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has
granted the Son to have life in Himself.

Finally, John 6:57. Jesus explains how he now lives because of the Father, and we live in him!
Only the Father has true life - He gave it to Jesus and through him, we have it too.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17:3


Was Peter poor and uneducated before he met Jesus? Peter is sometimes depicted as a poor uneducated fisherman before he met Jesus (I am referring to quite a few homilies I have heard in different churches). Do we know what languages he spoke? Did he know the scriptures well? What his social status was likely to be?

Was Peter poor and uneducated before he met Jesus?
Historical facts seem to be lacking in order to make a reasonable conclusion whether St. Peter was in fact poor or not and how well educated he was.
Nevertheless there are a few glimmers of historical and biblical statements that may shed some light on this subject.
What do we know about St. Peter? His original name was Simon and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth. He was married and most likely had children.

St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town.
Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ's public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Church History III.31) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3). - St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

It is traditionally believed that Peter wrote two epistles contained in the New Testament, however authenticity in modern times contests the actual authorship.

Authenticity
The authenticity, universally admitted by the primitive Church, has been denied within the past century by Protestant or Rationalist critics (Baur and the Tübingen School, Von Soden, Harnack, Jülicher, Hilgenfeld, and others), but it cannot seriously be questioned. It is well established by extrinsic and instrinsic arguments.
(1) Extrinsic arguments
(a) in writings of the first and second centuries, e.g., Justin's letter to the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, the "Didache", the "Pastor" of Hermas, and others. The Second Epistle of St. Peter, admitted to be very ancient even by those who question its authenticity, alludes to an earlier Epistle written by the Apostle (iii, 1). The letter therefore existed very early and was considered very authoritative. (b) Tradition is also unanimous for St. Peter's authorship. In the second and third centuries we have much explicit testimony to this effect. Clement and Origen at Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian in Africa, the Peshitto in Syria, Irenaeus in Gaul, the ancient Itala and Hippolytus at Rome all agree in attributing it to Peter, as do also the heretics, Basilides and Theodore of Byzantium. (c) All the collections or lists of the New Testament mention it as St. Peter's; the Muratorian Canon, which alone is at variance with this common tradition, is obscure and bears evident marks of textual corruption, and the subsequent restoration suggested by Zahn, which seems much more probable, is clearly favourable to the authenticity. Moreover Eusebius of Caesarea does not hesitate to place it among the undisputed Scriptures.
(2) Intrinsic arguments
Examination of the Epistle in itself is wholly favourable to its authenticity; the author calls himself Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1); Mark, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles, had such close relations with Peter, is called by the author "my son" (v, 13); the author is represented as the immediate disciple of Jesus Christ (i, 1; v, 9, 11-14); he exercises from Rome a universal jurisdiction over the whole Church (v, 1). The numerous places in which he would appear to be the immediate witness of the life of Christ (i, 8; ii, 21-24; v, 1), as well as the similarity between his ideas and the teaching of the Gospels, are eloquently in favour of the Apostolic author (cf. Jacquier, 251). Finally, some authors consider that the Epistle and the sermons of St. Peter related in the Acts show an analogy in basis and form which proves a common origin. However, it is probable if not certain that the Apostle made use of an interpreter, especially of Sylvanus; St. Jerome says: "the two Epistles attributed to St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction of the words, which proves that according to the exigencies of the moment St. Peter made use of different interpreters" (Ep. cxx ad Hedib.). Peter himself seems to insinuate this: Dia Silouanou houmin . . . egrapha (v, 12), and the final verses (12-14) seem to have been added by the Apostle himself. Without denying that Peter was able to use and speak Greek, some authors consider that he could not write it in the almost classic manner of this Epistle. Nevertheless it is impossible to determine exactly the share of Sylvanus; it is not improbable that he wrote it according to the directions of the Apostle, inserting the ideas and exhortations suggested by him.

So what can glean from this.

St. Peter was was a good fisherman with enough personal resources on hand that he was able to follow the Lord Jesus and not worry about providing for his own family at the same time.
How educated he was is really unknown. He may or may not have been that well educated. But that in no way makes him not unintelligent. We see in  Scripture, how majestically he spoke out to the crowd on the day of Pentecost.
St. Peter was a fisherman by trade. Anyone who has done fishing knows that it can be hit and miss while out one the waters. He owned his own boat and had good days and bad days. In any case, he was good enough to maintain his household!

Notwithstanding this we still see people calling St. Peter poor. Such is the title of a church in the village of Noss Mayo, in Devon, England, was built in 1226: Church of St Peter the Poor Fisherman!
Possibly one can employ the term poor in reference to St. Peter having denied Our Lord during his Passion rather than his ability to fish for a living or the state of his finances, which are reasonably unknown to us in exact detail.
Let me explain this. The French have a have a phrase for a poor man ”homme pauvre", but they equally reverse the word  order to ”pauvre homme". Thus it is not impossible that St. Peter the fisherman was a poor fisherman or was not wealthy, but he was simply the discipline that denied Our Lord three times! Thus is simply a suggestion on this take. Oh! Poor, poor Peter!

Church of St Peter the Poor Fisherman, Revelstoke, England
One thing is certain, that St. Peter was like all of us a poor sinner ("pauvre pécheur" in French). Whether or not he was a poor fisherman  ("pauvre pêcheur" in French), I will let other decide. In any case these two French expression are both pronounced in the same way, en Français!

Most of what is said I would agree with. The religious leaders looked down on the ordinary people much like snobs anywhere today - making distinctions based on birth, skin colour, education, accent, etc. Peter had a rural accent from Galilee. Peter's boat was his work, he being a fisherman. That's a smell it's hard to rid yourself of entirely.
Most Israelites could read. Jesus, a carpenter, certainly could. Peter in Acts 2:16-21, Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 basically verbatim from the LXX, although with one change under inspiration to refer to the (then) current fulfillment. It indicates he could and did read. James also quoted verses from Amos 9:11,12. Few today could quote from the minor prophets so freely!
Writing was a skill few had and was a career of it's own.


Did the Community of Christ denounce the Book of Mormon? Most Mormons seem to be under the impression that the Community of Christ agreed to denounce the Book of Mormon as scripture in order to be accepted into the World Council of Churches. It's obvious that this isn't true, because the CofChrist names the Book of Mormon as accepted scripture in their Basic Beliefs.

Did the Community of Christ denounce the Book of Mormon? If not, then why are the LDS under the impression that they did?

The Community of Christ has not denounced the Book of Mormon. According to Wikipedia the Community of Christ views the Book of Mormon as an additional witness of Jesus Christ and publishes two versions of the book through its official publishing arm, Herald House, all of which is inconsistent with a view that the Community might have denounced the book in order to win favour with the World Council of Churches.

However, the Community of Christ is uncertain about the proper use of the Book of Mormon and even its historicity. In 2001, President W. Grant McMurray reflected on increasing questions about the Book of Mormon, while stating that in speaking on behalf of the community he did not speak for each person within our community:

  "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity."

At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, President Stephen M. Veazey ruled as out of order a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record". In so doing he stated:

  "While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use."

So, the Book of Mormon remains part of Community of Christ scripture, although it is said to be a longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church. Belief by some members of the mainstream Mormon Church (Latter Day Saints) that the Community of Christ has officially denounced the Book of Mormon probably results from a misunderstanding, not only of the comments by McMurray and Veazey, but because many members of the CoC are said to believe the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith himself, and not translated from the writings of ancient Americans.

The LDS church fabricated that the RLDS church , because of financial strain, withdrew the Book of Mormon as their doctrinal book to receive finances for their acknowledgement that 'main stream Christianity, is good and their denouncing the Book of Mormon.

I am recently an exmormon and see that the leaders fear people 'falling'away and for what I believe financial means. The mormon church tells people this to keep them from praying to know which church is true.  When I was baptized I was told "If the Book of Mormon is true then the LDS church is true"

8 years later I was asked by God to pray about it and search it out, which of the flds rlds and lds churches was true. Undoubtedly I know know.  Ask for yourself.


Why did G.K. Chesterton convert to Catholicism? G.K. Chesterton is one of my favorite authors. On a lot of subjects, his way of looking at things really astonishes me. He can still show things in a fresh perspective, though his books are about a hundred years old.

In his later writings, he quite strongly scoffs at Protestants at times. This is disturbing, as I haven't quite figured why. I probably would find information about his conversion in some of his books, but frankly there's a lot to read. And with none of his books available where I live, it's also troublesome to get them -- call me old-fashioned, but I only read books on paper.

I'd like to get an overview of the reasons G.K. left the Anglican church for the Catholic, possibly along with some further reading recommendations.

This question was partly inspired by Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism? I've wondered about G.K.'s conversion for some time. I haven't dared ask about it here before, as I've been afraid it would be off-topic.

Chesterton probably wrote more than anyone ever so I'm sure he can tell you in his own words why he converted from Atheism to Anglicanism and from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

See: Catholic Church and Conversion and Why I am A Catholic and The God With the Golden Key

As an avid reader of Chesterton, I'm often perplexed at how much love he gives to Catholics even before he became one himself.  He converted to Catholicism in 1922 and only spent 14 years on earth as a Catholic. But starting in 1908 with The Man who was Thursday the heroes of his books and stories have been predominantly Catholics (Father Brown, Gabriel Syme, Ian Maclan).

When reading Orthodoxy, he makes an incredible defense of Catholicism; he defends priests and Catholic doctrine.

  the view that priests darken and embitter the world. I look at the world and simply discover that they don't. Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground.

If he wasn't talking about the same Catholic Church which he would convert to eighteen years later at the time, I sure as heck couldn't pick up on it.

Books to read with religion in it:

Everlasting Man

About Jesus, I read it a while ago, don't remember much
Orthodoxy

Chesterton's account of discovering that the religion he set out to found was in fact orthodoxy
The Ball and the Cross

A novel with an atheist and a catholic looking for a place to kill each other.

I read somewhere that Chesterton said he became Catholic “To have my sins forgiven.” Referring to the sacrament of Confession.


Does Jeremiah 8:8 imply that the scriptures were corrupted? Most Christians think the Bible has been accurately preserved over the ages, and that the textual differences that exist are largely insignificant.

But I came across this verse which makes me question whether the Old Testament really was accurately preserved:

  ‘How can you say, “We are wise,
      for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes
      has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8, NIV)

Note how it says lying pen not lying tongue.

It's no wonder that many people think some like this one couldn't be divinely inspired:

  There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were
  like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. (Ezekiel 23:20, NIV)

Is God saying in Jeremiah 8:8 that the scribes corrupted the scriptures? If so, are the Old Testament scriptures we have today still corrupted?

You are starting from three incorrect postulates:

Scribes are just copyists, not interpreters of the law.
The doctrine of preservation of scripture is the same as inerrancy.
Variants have semantic importance

All three of those need to be true for your statement to make sense. Unfortunately, none of them are.

1. Scribes aren't just secretaries.  They are teachers, who in this case, were corrupt

In context, Jeremiah 8 is clearly inveighing against "false" teachers of the law.  This a common theme throughout the Old Testament generally, and the prophets specifically. (It is also picked up in the New Testament for that matter - Jesus seems to be more annoyed with "religious" teachers than with sinners.)

The text says:

  “‘How can you say, “We are wise,
      for we have the law of the Lord,”
  when actually the lying pen of the scribes
      has handled it falsely?
  9 The wise will be put to shame;
      they will be dismayed and trapped.
  Since they have rejected the word of the Lord,
      what kind of wisdom do they have?

Note the antecedent of "they" is those who are saying "We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord."  Notice these same people are being said to have rejected the word of the Lord.

This is very common throughout the OT - those who are claiming to speak for God but are not. Malachi calls them out, Amos calls them out, and Jeremiah calls them out.  It was a recurring theme.

Note that scribes are not just writers of the law - they are teachers too. Especially at this time, there was a hefty oral tradition of interpretation that had added much to the Torah.

In the New Testament, Jesus makes the same charge (Matthew 23):

  13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]

  15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

  16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

  23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Note: Some translations will even say "scribes and Pharisees" rather than "teachers of the Law and Pharisees."  The King James, for example, says:

  13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

  14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

A scribe was also a teacher of the law.  More modern translations clarify that aspect of the culture we no longer have.

It isn't the pen, it is the oral additions.

2. Preservation of Scripture != Inerrancy

There is a wide spectrum of belief about how literally one takes the Bible.

The Ezekiel verse you quote is pretty clearly metaphor, for example, clearly written as such. The Divine moment preserved, however, is the vision of a God who is restoring Israel. Ezekiel is dealing with a people who have "forgotten" the law, in that they have chased other gods. The idea of adultery to which the metaphor alludes captures very well both the problem and the divine response.

Preservation of Scripture says only that God communicates his Law to all men.  It doesn't depend on the mechanism.  Even if you could find somebody who tried to misprint the Bible, the doctrine of Preservation says that the transmission isn't the point anyway.

3. We know the "variants" in Scripture, and trust me, they are a lot less "variant" than you think.

It is true that there are over 5000 manuscript fragments from which we arrive at what we believe the "Scriptures" to be.  You can see these variations yourself by consulting a biblical apparatus.  It is true that prior to the invention of the printing press in 1453, documents were copied by hand.  It is also true that minor variations existed as a result.

It also should be understood that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were rediscovered in 1947, we found out how very, very small the differences were. Great care was taken to preserve the manuscripts.

In seminary, it was stated that no major doctrine hinges on a variant.  Many Christians would argue there are no significant differences when it comes to doctrine.

Finally, Mark Twain probably said it best:

  It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.

Read the whole thing and you'll see there is no "conspiracy," there is no "power grab."  There is a reason people have been following this book for thousands of years.  It does a pretty good job of conveying who these people think God is.  Food for thought.

There seem to be two questions asked here:

Is God saying in Jeremiah 8:8 that the scribes corrupted the scriptures? If so, are the Old Testament scriptures we have today still corrupted?

In Jeremiah 8:8, the prophet is seen to be saying that the scriptures have been altered:

  How can you say, "We are wise, we have the law of the LORD"? Why, that
  has been changed into falsehood by the lying pen of the scribes!

If that was true, then the scriptures have not been passed down to modern times in their original form. Jeremiah may well have been right. For example, the consensus of scholars is that the Book of Isaiah consisted of only 39 chapters at the time of Jeremiah, and Raymond E. Brown says in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 587, that prophets in the school of Isaiah continued writing 200 years after the prophet's death and had their compositions included in the Book of Isaiah.

That Jeremiah was right about the scriptures evolving, with additions and alterations over the centuries, does not mean they were corrupt in the sense of being false, just that they were not as originally written. Jeremiah does not substantiate his invective on this score.

It's no wonder that many people think some like this one couldn't be divinely inspired:

  There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of
  donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. (Ezekiel 23:20)

Ezekiel is slightly later than Jeremiah, so Jeremiah was not actually referring to this book, although the concern is the same. The Book of Ezekiel, in the form we have today,  omits anthropomorphisms evident in parallel passages in Leviticus 26.  Leviticus 26:12 applies to Yahweh the verb hithallakti, "I will walk," but the parallel passage  in Ezekiel 37:26-27 omits the verb.  Similarly, Leviticus 26:30 presents Yahweh's proclamation that "my soul will abhor you."  Again the parallel passage in Ezekiel 6:5 omits the clause. Walther Eichrodt (Ezekiel: A Commentary, page 12) points to numerous glosses and additions in the book.

Sharon Moughtin-Mumby says (Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, pages 161-162) that many are adamant that Ezekiel chapters 16 and 23 should be exposed as pornography.  She finds the undercurrent of warranted sexual violence and the depiction of the female as a necessary polluting force to be most chilling, and suggests Ezekiel 16’s assumption that sexual violence can be a means towards healing a broken relationship to be particularly disturbing. That couldn't be divinely inspired.


Is money the root of 'all' evil or 'some' evil? I remember reading a Hebrew version of the Bible with English translation *right to left) many years ago and I am sure the English directly translated to 'some evil' rather than 'all evil'. Can anyone confirm this?

The quote is from 1 Tim 6:10 (which would have been written in Greek, not Hebrew). The Greek reads:

ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία

Here are some translations:

KJV: For the love of money is the root of all evil
ASV, NRSV, TNIV: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
NET: For the love of money is the root of all evils.

The NET gives two translator's notes:

This could be taken to mean “a root,” but the phrase “of all evils” clearly makes it definite. This seems to be not entirely true to life (some evils are unrelated to love of money), but it should be read as a case of hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point more strongly).
Many translations render this “of all kinds of evil,” especially to allow for the translation “a root” along with it. But there is no parallel for taking a construction like this to mean “all kinds of” or “every kind of.” The normal sense is “all evils.”

I think that 'the root of all evil is money' bacause there is information about Satan making money (trading) before his fall.
"By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. " Ezekiel 28:16


Is it permissible for a Catholic to believe in Miaphysitism? The Chalcedonean Definition is the official Christology of the Catholic Church. It states that Christ is a single person with two natures: human and divine. These two natures are neither divided nor mixed.
The Oriental Orthodox Christological position is Miaphysitism. This states that Christ has a single nature, but that nature is both fully human and fully divine, with the human and divine elements being neither mixed with nor divided from each other.
Historically the Catholics have misunderstood miaphysitism as a form of monophysitism (Christ has a single nature which is either human or divine but not both) and the Oriental Orthodox have misunderstood Chalcedonean definition as being a form of Nestorianism (Christ was two persons).
In my analysis, both sides are going to great pains to ensure that Christ is fully human and fully divine. They both go about it in different ways, but both succeed in the goal, and so both are acceptable formulations
Recently the two sides have cooled off and the accusations of heresy against each other are not so strong. There have been moves by some to say that the dispute is just one of terminology, not substance. This includes joint statements signed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, but despite this, the Catholic and Oriental orthodox Churches have not officially declared themselves in communion with each other, so I am not sure if Miaphysitism is considered an acceptable Christological position by the Catholic church.
Personally I find Miaphysitism to be more coherent and intuitive than the Chalcedonean 2 natures definition. As a Catholic, am I permitted to believe Miaphysitism so long as I don't simultaneously deny Chalcedon? And if it is permitted, then why aren't the Oriental Orthodox churches in full communion with the Catholic Churches as the Eastern Orthodox churches are?
Related question: is this what the Eastern Catholic churches that have an Oriental Orthodox background do? Ie. Accept that the Chalcedonean definition is Orthodox, but go ahead and teach Miaphysitism anyway? (I'm thinking of the Ethiopian, Eritrean and Coptic Catholic churches for example)
edit:
I note that the wikipedia article for Miaphysitism says the following:

Historically, Chalcedonian Christians have considered Miaphysitism in
general to be amenable to an orthodox interpretation, but they have
nevertheless perceived the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox to be
a form of Monophysitism (single nature doctrine).

This seems to indicate that Chalcedonians are able to accept Miaphysitism, given an appropriate interpretation.

The short answer is that, correctly understood, Miaphysitism can be compatible with the Catholic Faith.
In order to see how this is so, it is important to understand carefully what Catholics understand by “Miaphysistism.”
This position refers to a formula attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria, intended to defend the so-called “communion of properties” in Christ:

μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη
one nature (physis) of the Word of God made flesh (sesarkomene)

(Briefly, the doctrine of the communion of properties, or communicatio idiomatum, means that the properties or actions of Jesus that proceed from his Divine Nature may rightly be ascribed to him as man, and vice versa. For example, we may rightly say both that God died on the Cross, and that Jesus the man created the universe. This communion arises because of the hypostatic union, since all actions are ultimately ascribed to the hypostasis, not the nature. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 466.)
It should be noted that St. Cyril (c. 376–444) made this formula before the Council of Chalcedon (451), and before the terminology carefully distinguishing “nature” (physis) and “Person” (hypostasis) had stabilized.*
Hence, if the term physis here corresponds roughly to the Chalcedonian concept of hypostasis, then this formula can certainly be interpreted in an orthodox manner.
The Magisterium, in fact, has solemnly affirmed that Cyril’s formula may still be used. In the Second Council of Constantinople, the following canon is found:

If someone confesses that a union of natures, divine and human, has taken place, or speaks of one incarnate human nature of the Word of God (μίαν πύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην), but does not understand these formulations as in the teachings of the Holy Fathers, … let him be anathema” (Denzinger-Hünermann no. 429, my translation).

In referring to the “Holy Fathers,” the Council clearly means St. Cyril of Alexandria, who did not at all espouse a Eutychian or Apollinarian Monophysitism (both of which effectively deny the full humanity of Jesus).
If Miaphysitism is understood according to this precise formulation, then it is perfectly orthodox and sanctioned by the Magisterium (so long as we understand that the Council of Chalcedon used physis in a different manner).
Hence, one could say that the key difference between Miaphysitism (correctly understood) and Monophysitism is that, whereas the latter denies some aspect of Christ’s humanity, the former respects his full and perfect humanity.

* The terms physis and hypostasis come ultimately from Aristotle—although the Alexandrian fathers were highly influenced by Platonism—and, in philosophical terms, have roughly the same meaning. Therefore, exactly how these terms are employed in theology is conventional. Cyril was writing before physis came to signify that which answers the question “What is it?” and hypostasis came to signify the personal subject that answers the question “Who is it?”

The OED defines "miaphysite" as:

  Of or relating to the doctrine that in the person of Jesus there is either a single divine nature, or one inseparable nature, partly divine, and partly (subordinately) human

Both of these senses are heretical because Jesus doesn't have one nature (as also monophysites believe), nor does He have "one inseparable nature" that is "partly divine, and partly (subordinately) human." He has two natures that are each fully (not partly) human and divine.

The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) condemned monophysitism and miaphysitism (μονο and μία both mean "one"):

  Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all teach that with one accord we confess
  one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in human
  nature, true God and true man, the same with a rational soul and a body, consubstantial with the Father
  according to divine nature, consubstantial with us according to the human nature, like unto us in all things
  except sin…


What is the Bible and Christian view on Astrology? Being on this site has given me an opportunity to reflect and investigate more my beliefs and gain a greater understanding of the beliefs of other Christians. I was raised being taught that astrology was a pagan practice that went against Christian beliefs. Is that a view that is widely held by other Christians?

I've heard counter views that astrology is another way in which God speaks to man, while others say there is no validity to it at all, and it is just a harmless form of amusement.

Is there a Biblical point of view on astrology?

Yes, the Bible speaks strongly against the pagan practice of Astrology, which was recognized as divination and associated with magic and sorcery.  Divination is defined as "the practice of attempting to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means", which would certainly include Astrology.

A number of scriptures associate astrology with pagan magic arts:

Isaiah 47:13: Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month
Daniel 2:2: So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed.
Daniel 2:10: The astrologers answered the king, “There is no one on earth who can do what the king asks! No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer.

Leviticus 19:26 forbids divination:

  Do not practice divination or seek omens.

as does and Deuteronomy 18:14

  The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so

and numerous other scriptures:

Genesis 44:5: Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination? This is a wicked thing you have done.
Deuteronomy 18:10: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
Joshua 13:22: In addition to those slain in battle, the Israelites had put to the sword Balaam son of Beor, who practiced divination.
1 Samuel 15:23: For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”
2 Kings 17:17: They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sought omens and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
2 Kings 21:6: He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
2 Chronicles 33:6: He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
Isaiah 2:6: They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and embrace pagan customs.
Jeremiah 14:14: Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.
Ezekiel 12:24: For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel.
Ezekiel 13:6: Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though the LORD has not sent them, they say, “The LORD declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words.

So if you accept that Astrology is a subset of divination, it seems clearly abhorrent to God.  Given the ensnaring nature of the occult, I would be engaging the "flee from all appearance" tactic with Astrology.

What about Joseph? He did not read the stars, but dreams with great insight and he predicted the future.

It seems to me a tool can be used for good or bad. If you are trying to predict the future with astrology, Joseph did that with dreams, which is a form of divination. If you are attempting to hurt another or predict the time of death, maybe then it is witchcraft, or pagan. Perhaps this is why laws followed in Lev and Deut. It's always the pagan that ruins it for everyone!

Astrology can simply be a tool that allows for insight into what you are made of. As far as predicting the future, astrology provides nothing more than the equivalent of a weather forecast. There is nothing wicked in knowing if it might rain.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on why God sanctioned eating meat after the fall if veganism was already the pre-fall standard? Genesis tells us that Adam, Eve and all animals had originally plant-based diets, as God provided them with every plant and tree for food:

29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. [Genesis 1:29-31, ESV]

However, later passages of the Bible reveal that, after the fall, God approved of animal-based diets:

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [Genesis 9:1-3, ESV]

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. [Acts 10:9-16, ESV]

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. [Luke 15:22-24, ESV]

Question: Why did God eventually sanction animal-based diets after the fall if originally the norm across the board was veganism? Was it for nutritional reasons or something else?
I don't know if there is a unique answer to this question, so I'm posing it as a request for an overview of Christian viewpoints. Obviously, my intention is not to overwhelm you with a question that is impractically broad, so it would be just fine for me if an answer is posted simply enumerating some of the most compelling views according to e.g. a reputable Christian authority on the matter, etc.

Update based on the comments:
Answers can include viewpoints that reject the premise (that veganism was the norm right after Creation and before the Fall), I have no issues with that, as long as quotes or summaries of the argumentations given to reject the premise are included.

Update 2:
To those who reject the premise: you guys have inspired to ask a related question on Hermeneutics.SE: Does Genesis 1:29-31 leave any room for the existence of animal-based diets in the period between the Creation and the Fall?. Feel free to explain your reasons on that question.

Background information regarding the state of humanity prior to the flood: The depravity and ungodly lifestyles of the entire world at that time were enough to cause the Lord to “regret that He had made man” (Genesis 6:1-6).

Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth (Genesis 6:11-12).

Noah, on the other hand, is described as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5), suggesting he had spent years warning his friends and neighbours what the Holy God was about to do.  No one listened.  After the flood waters had receded God told Noah that it was permissible to eat animal flesh (but not to consume the blood).
You ask: Why did God eventually sanction animal-based diets after the fall? Was it for nutritional reasons or something else?
The Bible does not say.  A Christian scholar (of the Reformed Protestant persuasion) by the name of Matthew Henry presents “the Magna Charta—the great charter of this new kingdom of nature which was now to be erected, and incorporated, the former charter having been forfeited and seized.”  Here is a relevant paragraph from his commentary:

A grant of maintenance and subsistence: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, v. 3. Hitherto, most think, man had been confined to feed only upon the products of the earth, fruits, herbs, and roots, and all sorts of corn and milk; so was the first grant, ch. 1:29. But the flood having perhaps washed away much of the virtue of the earth, and so rendered its fruits less pleasing and less nourishing, God now enlarged the grant, and allowed man to eat flesh, which perhaps man himself never thought of, till now that God directed him to it, nor had any more desire to than a sheep has to suck blood like a wolf. But now man is allowed to feed upon flesh, as freely and safely as upon the green herb. Now here see, (1.) That God is a good master, and provides, not only that we may live, but that we may live comfortably, in his service; not for necessity only, but for delight. (2.) That every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, 1 Tim. 4:4. Afterwards some meats that were proper enough for food were prohibited by the ceremonial law; but from the beginning, it seems, it was not so, and therefore is not so under the gospel.  Source: https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mh&b=1&c=9

I have no idea what other Christian denominations think about this, and time does not permit me to investigate further.  Suffice to say that sometimes, when the Bible is silent on a matter, we simply do not need to know.  Curiosity and speculation are normal, but ultimately unsatisfying.
Further on in the commentary, Henry notes that although God had granted man dominion over animals, yet they were subjects to the Creator, and under the restraints of his law.  Henry’s commentary goes on to discuss the Noahic covenant in Genesis chapter 6.  He concludes:

Noah lived to see two worlds, but, being an heir of the righteousness which is by faith, when he died he went to see a better than either.

Additional information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry
https://www.gotquestions.org/eating-meat-with-blood.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-over-animals.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Noahic-covenant.html

I have wondered if God allowed meat after the flood because there was not a better option at this point in history. Man had become so corrupt that the destruction of almost every living thing was necessary, though not ideal. It had to happen for mankind to continue. Likewise, allowing meat was a necessary allowance predicated on mankind's inability to do better at this point. This exhibits Gods incredible grace and patience to allow mankind to exist until Christ would come and restore creation.
Also, it could be, based on the Genesis account of all animals living on plants, and the image in scripture of the lion laying down with the lamb in a redeemed creation, that God's ideal is nonviolence, which would logically exclude the eating of meat.
One last bit of conjecture; when God used animal skins to cloth Adam and Eve, rather than God killing an animal to do it, it could be that an animal died because death entered into the world when sin entered. It could have been an accident, a violent attack by another animal or a disease. No violence on God's part would have been necessary.


How long was Jesus in the tomb? Christians commonly celebrate Good Friday as the day that Jesus was crucified, and Easter Sunday as the day that Jesus rose from the tomb. Most relevant verses in scripture say that Jesus would be in the tomb for three days. (See Matthew 26:61; Mark 8:31; John 2:19.) However, one verse states that Jesus would also be in the tomb for three nights:

  For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the
  belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three
  nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)

How can this be? Friday to Sunday could be considered three days, but it is only two nights.

I've heard it explained before that the Jewish people would define the end of one day and the start of the next as sundown, or about the 12th hour. This is why the Sabbath would always start on Friday at sundown. Jesus was buried just before sundown, or just before the Sabbath began (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42). This can explain the three days, but as the other commenter pointed out, it still does not explain the three nights.

From this discussion, if "three days and three nights" is taken idiomatically, it means 3 days as the Jewish people of the day would have understood it.

  Now lets take a look at Jesus time in the sepulchre:

  Part of Friday = one dayspan.

  All of Saturday = one dayspan.

  Part of Sunday = one dayspan.

  Literally three days and three nights? No. Idiomatically three days
  and three nights (i.e., three dayspans), as uncleanness-periods were
  measured? Yes.

In Matt. 12:38-40, Jesus was asked for a sign, a sort of test or a proof.  What was the one and only sign He said He would give them.  I would think the resurrection from the dead, but that was not the sign He said He would give them.  The only sing He said He would give then was “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”.  Jesus would not have said “three days and three nights” unless He meant “three days and three nights”.   Didn’t God create day and night, Genesis 1:5?
Numerous times it is said in the scriptures that Jesus was raised on the third day - (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, Acts 10:39-41, and I Corinthians 15:3-4).  Say, Jesus was entombed on Friday, then Saturday would be the first day after entombment and Sunday would be day two, not the third day.

Friday was the First Day of Unleavened Bread, a Sabbath day (Leviticus 23:6-7), then of course Saturday was the regular weekly Sabbath, making it two Sabbaths in a row.

Here are a couple of references, one on the Crucifixion Week and one on the term "between the evenings" the timing of the Passover Sacrifice and Lord Jesus:

https://hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Spring_Holidays/Shabbat_HaGadol/shabbat_hagadol.html

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Between-the-Evenings

John 12:1, says 6 days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany.  Passover is parts of 2 days, the afternoon of Nissan 14 when the Passover Lamb is slain and after sunset (Nissan 15) when the death angel passed over the houses with the blood of the Passover Lamb on the lintel and door posts.  I believe the Apostle John is saying 6 days before Nissan 15 Jesus came to Bethany.  That would be Nissan 9, then the next day Nissan 10 Jesus entered Jerusalem (John 12:12).

What would be the perfect crucifixion week by the scriptures?  Using the Jewish Religious Calendar, the Jewish day that begins at sunset and ends at the following sunset and Old Testament Jewish Festivals, consider the following:

    Nissan

Sun.  10    Passover lamb is selected – Exodus 12:3 --
                Jesus enters Jerusalem to many hosannas – John 12:12-13 , see      John 12:1  & 12:12
                The scripture doesn’t say but let’s say it was the first day of     the week (Palm Sunday)

Passover Lamb inspected for any blemish for 4 days Nissan 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th – Exodus 12:5-6 --
Jesus taught and was questioned 10th, 11th, 12th & 13th they could find no fault in Him – Luke Ch. 19-22, Matthew Ch. 21-25 and Mark Ch. 11-13

Thu.  14    Passover lamb is slain – Exodus 12:6 --
        Jesus crucified – John 19:14  (preparation for Passover)
        Bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath  John 19:31

Fri.  15    First Day of Unleavened Bread - high Sabbath  Leviticus 23:6-7

Sat.  16    Weekly Sabbath

Sun.  17    Firstfruit Wave Offering – Leviticus 23:10-11 --
        Jesus is the first fruit of the resurrection – 1 Cor. 15:20

Note: parts of 3 days & 3 nights in tomb, if arose before dawn also He arose on 3rd day after entombment as per scripture.  10th -16th is 7 days, the number for complete.  17th is 8th day, the number for new beginnings.


Did the early church accept lifelong, faithful concubinage? In Bryan Litfin's book, Getting to Know the Church Fathers, I was surprised to read the following about concubinage in the early church, in the context of Augustine's life before conversion:

  In Roman society, the practice of concubinage was widely accepted.  Even the Christian church was prepared to accommodate it as a kind of common law marriage so long as there was lifelong fidelity. (220)

In Augustine's case, he had no intention of lifelong fidelity, so the point is rather moot.  But in many places around the world, both historically and currently, government restrictions make it difficult or impossible for some men and women to be officially "married."

My personal response might be to disregard the government's restrictions and consider a man and woman publicly committed to faithful monogamy as married, and not fornicating, particularly if they have a "church wedding."  But in the Dominican Republic, at least, where I periodically do some ministry, the church I work with insists that those living together while not officially (legally) married are committing adultery, despite the legal barriers preventing some from marrying.1

All that to say, this isn't idle curiosity.  Did the early church "accommodate" faithful concubinage, as Litfin says?  In what sense – was it in the musings of a single church father, or set down at an ecumenical council?  And if so, under what circumstances would it be allowed?

1. For more on these barriers, see this documentary or its trailer.

Pope Calixtus I, who died around 222, permitted the marriage of  high born women to men of a lower class, and even to slaves. This was contrary to Roman law, so the Pope was recognising as validly married people who by law were not married, and could not be married.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia comments:

  Here again Callistus was rightly insisting on the distinction between the ecclesiastical law of marriage and the civil law, which later ages have always taught.

Calixtus was unfortunate in that his principal biographer was his worst enemy, and rival, the antipope Hippolytus. In Book IX, chapter VII of his Refutation of All Heresies  he wrote

  For even also he permitted females, if they were unwedded,  and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage, that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free, and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs  for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth.  Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time!

It is clear that Hippolytus felt able to say that these "marriages" allowed by the Pope were adulterous, presumably as not legal, and also as a matter of consequence often  led to abortions. In deeming Calixtus a pope, and a saint, and Hippolytus an antipope, the later church may be said to have supported  Calixtus.

The seventeenth canon of the first Council of Toledo,(see Edward Landon) near Madrid, in the year 400, forbade any married man, whose wife was faithful, from also having a concubine, on pain of excommunication. However if a man was unmarried, then he could have a concubine. The thrust is restrictive, rather than permissive, it bans having a wife and a concubine, but this does not (of course) apply to single men.

Pope Leo the Great (pontificated from 440 to 460) wrote many letters, including one to the French bishop Rusticus, in which he answers a number of questions put to him, the sixth of which was:

  Concerning those who leave the women by whom they have children and take wives.

and the answer was:

  Seeing that the wife is different from the concubine, to turn a bondwoman from one's couch and take a wife whose free birth is assured, is not bigamy but an honourable proceeding.

It seem that, although lifelong commitment to a concubine was acceptable, it was not required. A single man could keep a concubine and, if he chose to turn her out and marry a wife, then this was an honourable thing for him to do. Still, one woman at a time was the limit. Nevertheless it is clear there was uncertainty and variety of practice during the first few centuries.

Marriage, concubinage, polygamy and having a mistress were originally all a little vague in their distinctions. Women, like dogs, camels, and sheep, etc., were a tradable commodity. The basic rule was “You shall not have more women, dogs, camels, and sheep, etc. than you can afford to keep.” This was enough to gain God's approval.

Although it is not mentioned in The NT, Josephus twice mentions concubinage as an institution and Justin The Martyr criticises Jewish teachers for the practice. It can be seen that, at the time of Christ, it was relatively common, regardless of adherence to a particular religion. This is not really surprising as OT characters often had many wives/concubines.

As Christianity progressed, the various NT statements that tend to support monogamy were increasingly read so as to prohibit polygamy (although none are beyond interpretations that permit polygamy.)

Tertullian wrote that monogamy was lawful, but that polygamy was not.  Eusabius felt he ought to comment on the polygamy of the Patriarchs and this was then taken as some sort of approval (probably by those who had several wives or had ambitions in that direction.)

Basil of Caesarea wrote in the 4th century of plural marriage that "such a state is no longer called marriage but polygamy or, indeed, a moderate fornication." He ordered that those who are engaged in it should be excommunicated for up to five years, and "only after they have shown some fruitful repentance" were they to be allowed back into the church. Moreover, he stated that the teachings against plural marriage are "accepted as our usual practice, not from the canons but in conformity with our predecessors."

Augustine wrote in the second half of the 4th century:  "That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself."

And so it was… well, at least for a time. The rule became strictly enforced after The Church held a synod in Hertford, England, in 673 that declared that marriage is allowed between one man and one woman, and separation (but not divorce) is only granted in the case of adultery, but even then remarriage is not allowed. (At this point I will mention that The Synod of Hertford was blissfully unaware of the Dominican Republic and seemed unaware of the messes that humans can get themselves into via their best intentions.)

Human reasonableness kept rearing its head and even Luther declared: "It is my earnest warning and counsel that Christians especially shall have no more than one wife, not only because it is a scandal, which a Christian should avoid most diligently, but also because there is no word of God here to show that God approves it in Christians.... I must oppose it, especially in Christians, unless there be need, as for instance if the wife be a leper, or be taken away from the husband in some other way."

Luther’s thoughts influence us all today, some more liberally than others, but forcing a doctrine upon people, or making judgements upon uncertain ground is never a good thing to do.


Are Wednesday church services scriptural? Are Wednesday church services scriptural? I believe I have seen scriptures that relate to Wednesday services, but I can not remember where.

A church service is a gathering of believers who have an intent of glorifying God with the Word, prayer, worship, and breaking of bread, or a smaller version with just one or two of these aspects. That is allowable any day of the week. For the believer, every day is an opportunity to glorify God, with the gathering of the saints and without.

Is it scriptural? Romans 14:5 tells us, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind."

I thank God that our church here in Costa Mesa has Bible studies every day of the week, so we may go as often as we need the refreshing breezes from off His holy hill.

In six days God created the heavens and the earth....and on the seventh day he rested.

God sanctified and hallowed only one day...the seventh. The biblical creation story is very clear on this day and it is also reinforced very specifically in the ten commandments (ie an entire commandment is dedicated to it)

Jesus worshiped on the seventh day...as was his custom.

Christians are followers of jesus model...Jesus did not model any other day of sabbath worship. Jesus also regularly referred to the old testament writings for his teachings (he did not ignore them or rewrite them).


Is there any biblical basis to support demonic paranormal activity? Demonic possession of course is biblical, but what about demonic paranormal activity? With some effort it's not hard to come across testimonies from Christians, and even non-Christians, telling stories of paranormal experiences, such as hearing footsteps, scratches on walls, drawers moving in and out, closets opening and closing, things flying off the shelves or walls, beds shaking, chairs moving, objects falling down, light bulbs exploding, stuff levitating, the temperature in the room suddenly dropping, horrible demonic "smell", hearing audible evil growls, etc. I'm pretty sure many of you have heard of similar experiences. Is there any biblical basis to this? Does the Bible record examples of demonic paranormal activity? Do the Scriptures support the ability of demons to manipulate objects and intervene in the physical world?

Is there any biblical basis to support demonic paranormal activity?
Does the Bible record examples of demonic paranormal activity? Do the Scriptures support the ability of demons to manipulate objects and intervene in the physical world?
The short answer is maybe at best. And then only perhaps indirectly!
There is no direct biblical support to suggest that demons are capable of making footstep noises, scratching on walls, moving drawers in and out, opening closets and then closing them,  making things things fly off the shelves or walls, beds shaking, chairs moving, objects falling down, light bulbs exploding, stuff levitating, the temperature in the room suddenly dropping, making horrible demonic "smell", creating audible evil growls or other paranormal activity.
The Devil and his minions are in a way comparable to a virus (Covid-19, if you wish) or electricity. All three are seemingly invisible, yet could be potentially dangerous to mankind, if circumstances are right.
There is an invisible realm in our world. Let us always recall the words of St. Paul:

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. - Ephesians 6:12

St. Paul admits that the forces of evil rule the air in which we live live, thus the possibility of evil manipulating the physical sphere in which we live does not at all seem an outright impossibility.
Again St. Paul teaches thus (Admittedly, both interpretation and translation of the Sacred Texts plays a big part here):

2 And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins,
2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief. - Ephesians 2:1-2

We can see the work of Satan and his hatred for the holiness of true saints in the person of Job. Satan created a storm that killed Job’s family, yet Job did not sin by blaming God.

9 Satan replied, “Would Job worship you if he got nothing out of it? 10 You have always protected him and his family and everything he owns. You bless everything he does, and you have given him enough cattle to fill the whole country. 11 But now suppose you take away everything he has—he will curse you to your face!”
12 “All right,” the Lord said to Satan, “everything he has is in your power, but you must not hurt Job himself.” So Satan left.
13 One day when Job's children were having a feast at the home of their oldest brother, 14 a messenger came running to Job. “We were plowing the fields with the oxen,” he said, “and the donkeys were in a nearby pasture. 15 Suddenly the Sabeans attacked and stole them all. They killed every one of your servants except me. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
16 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Lightning struck the sheep and the shepherds and killed them all. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
17 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Three bands of Chaldean raiders attacked us, took away the camels, and killed all your servants except me. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
18 Before he had finished speaking, another servant came and said, “Your children were having a feast at the home of your oldest son, 19 when a storm swept in from the desert. It blew the house down and killed them all. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
20 Then Job got up and tore his clothes in grief. He shaved his head and threw himself face downward on the ground. 21 He said, “I was born with nothing, and I will die with nothing. The Lord gave, and now he has taken away. May his name be praised!”
22 In spite of everything that had happened, Job did not sin by blaming God. - Job 1: 9-22

It is obvious, that the demons can to some degree manipulate the physical world we live in and they do not need the intermediary of a human person to communicate to us. There are countless references of the good Angels speaking to people in both the New and Old Testament.  The Annunciation is just one example:

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favour with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob's descendants forever; his kingdom will never end." - Luke 1:26–38

We thus see that the Angel Gabriel is trying to keep the Virgin Mary calm during the angelic visitation.
Now for Satan or anyone of the demons, they do not care about mankind one iota. They simply want us all to go to hell and join them forever.
The soul that is truly arduous in holiness and genuinely seeks the conversion of sinners is not going to get such a warm welcome from the Devil and his Legions. If you steal his prey, it makes logical sense he would try to scare the hell out of you. There is no real difficultly for me to imagine to Devil making all sorts of noises to make someone think they are going crazy and being drawn into despair.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. - 1 Corinthians 13:1

Satan will do all it takes and make as much noise to interfere in his plans to ruin mankind. The Devil loves not, thus he is the clanging cymbal par excellence.
What exactly were the manifestations of paranormal activities of the demons is not listed in Sacred Scriptures, but we must deduce that some truly existed. The story of the seven sons of one Sceva in Acts 19: 13-17 fits in well here:

13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. - Acts19:13-17

What all transpired during this exorcism, we just do not know. St. Luke only recounts a rough outline, in order to keep our imagination healthy. There is no need to dwell on the morbid. Obvious light bulbs did not explode as they were not invented yet. Were there other manifestation of paranormal activity? Certainly, but Scripture remains silent on this issue.
Another time Jesus Restores a Demon-Possessed Man who lived amongst the tombs and “night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.”

5 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[a] 2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!” 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!” - Mark 5:1-20

Once again, allow me to use Scripture to relate the possibility of the good Angels helping us to hold that the opposite may also be true in our lives.
Let us recall the story in St. John’s Gospel how the Angel of God stirred the water in the Pool of Bethesda! Now if the Angel of God could do good this way, what stops Evil from intervening in our lives to create havoc and fear.

For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. - John 5:4

If the Angel of God can stir the waters to heal, can not the Devil shake beds, etc. to scare the wits out of us...

Nightly Monsieur Vianney’s rectory was the site of a terrifying cacophony: scurrying and gnawing rats, the sound of pounding nails, and howling wind.  When the noises failed to trouble the holy Curé, the Devil turned over furniture, smeared excrement on the doorway, and set the priest’s bed on fire. To this last effort, Vianney responded, “The wretched fiend.  He has not been able to catch the bird, so he has burnt the cage.”  - The Devil’s Most Effective Foe

Saint John Vianney's Bed, burnt by the devil.

"Does the Bible record examples of Demonic paranormal activity? Is there any biblical basis for this- [light bulbs exploding, things levitating, the temperature in the room suddenly dropping"]

If you mean like these specific examples - then the answer is No.
" Does the Bible record examples of demonic paranormal activity - the ability of demons to intervene in the physical world?" then the answer is Yes! Assuming that you mean besides demon possession, demonic paranormal activity is demonic oppression, or demons acting to affect the physical world, including animals and people's health, and even do false miracles.

Demonic activity in scripture = categorically yes. Moving drawers in dressers,and lamps falling over, a horrible sulfer-like smell= No.
It is not uncommon for people in ministry to have witnessed demonic activity and it is also clearly supported in scripture.
A very good way to summarize this is that as Christians, is is not possible to be demon possessed, but they can be oppressed - under demonic attack.  Satan is still at work around the world, and the Bible says that he "walks about,like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour."

8 "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world." - I Peter 5:7-9

As the person stated in the opening question, there is plenty of evidence all through the Bible of people being possessed, and Christ and the disciples driving out demons, but is there any evidence of Christians being oppressed?
Yes, as a matter of fact, there is.
One example is Job. Scripture says Job was blameless and upright.

The fuller context in Job 1:1 is, “This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.” So, the description of Job being “blameless and upright” is linked to the fear of God and the avoidance of evil. The parallelism can be seen like this:
Blameless/upright. God-fearer/one who turns from evil. In short, Job was “blameless and upright” in that he was a man of integrity who trusted in God as his redeemer (see Job 19:25), sincerely worshiped the Lord, loved his family, and was consistent in his walk with God." - What does it mean that Job was blameless and upright?

God allowed Job to be tested, even physical harm, but God limited the effect - the level to which the attacks could be from Satan and in the end, all was restored to Job.
It the Old Testament, we see demonic paranormal activity through the witch of Endor, when she used demonic forces to summon the dead for Saul.
"In the Old Testament, (I Samuel 28:3-25) the witch of Endor is a woman Saul consulted to summon the spirit of prophet Samuel in the 28th chapter of the First Book of Samuel in order to receive advice against the Philistines in battle after his prior attempts to consult God through sacred lots and prophets had failed."
Then in all three of the synoptic Gospels, -Matthew, Mark and Luke- we also see demonic paranormal activity - demons entering into an entire herd of swine, and they all rushed over a cliff and died: When Jesus Christ was tempted by Satan, Satan asked him to do certain things which he denied. But in Matthew 8 the demons wanted Jesus to drive them into pigs and he did so. The herd then ran into the water and drowned. Why did Christ deny one request of the enemy but accept another?
Then, again, we see another example of demonic or satanic oppression against Paul. Satan relentlessly attacked Paul in an effort to hinder or stop Paul's ministry.

7 "And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 I asked the Lord three times that this thing might depart from me. 9 But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” - 2 Corinthians 12:7-9

We can't say with certainty what this was exactly, or all the extent of this demonic oppression, but many scholars say that it was most likely poor vision, and this is due to him being struck blind temporarily, in his famous conversion on the road to Damascus. Later in his life, he even says in his epistles, "see what large letters I write with my own hand..." to denote his personal love and care for the believers in the early churches.
This is also consistent with teaching in different protestant denominations - Church of God Holiness, Bible Methodist, some Baptist and some Nazarene churches as well as some Evangelical Free Churches of America.
Another example is the terrible persecution of Christians in China, Russia under communism and other communist countries, and the many stories of Christians who were persecuted, tortured and even Martyred in "Fox's Book of Martyrs".
A personal friend of the family and former missionary to Haiti witnessed the effects of witchcraft and saw people become sick and experience physical manifestations from voodoo dolls, and were then healed.
Another person I heard  recounted a story of sickness and multiple bizarre physical issues related to an occultic object in their home. A pastor explained that the object had occultic connections and they burned it, and prayed over the person and they recovered fully.
The point is that sometimes these are tests, allowed by God, and other times, we can unintentionally give Satan a foothold, or open up doors in our lives that give the enemy places to attack, such as through things like Tarot cards, and Eastern religions, Yogo, etc.  There are testimonies of people who experienced demonic paranormal activity or oppression as a result of accupuncture needles, which are sometimes prayed over by those who practice this.
Here is another source that explains the concept and differences between satanic attacks or oppression and demonic possession: CHRISTIANS AND DEMONIC ACTIVITY TODAY