Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[Simplelogic]

Exactly. It is refreshing to find a non-Christian so agreeable to obvious Christian doctrines. True or not their scriptural foundations are unquestionable.

Well. I am a Jew who was raised a Christian. I have had this inner pull from both sides my whole life and I believe both to have truths. I believe Christians would be better off if they put Yeshua's words first in their lives…not Paul's. I believe Jews would be better off if they listen to Yeshua's stance on Torah observance…not the Rabbi's who teach the "oral law". It has taken me many years of difficult questions to arrive at this conclusion.

 

[1robin]

Problem: The Christian position is that all humans inherit a sin nature from Adam that separates them from God. There is, supposedly, no other way but to accept Jesus to get the penalty for sin removed. Jesus maybe never made a "statement condemning a single child", but where does he say, or where does Paul say, or anybody, that children get a free pass? But it's your religion and your version of that religion, if you want to believe a few verses prove that all children, no matter what they do or believe, because children do have beliefs and do things that are wrong, are not held accountable then go ahead. But, it's only what you and your church believe, so it's not a Bible doctrine. It is your tradition. And, it still leaves the age of when they do become accountable up in the air.

1. I told you from the get go that the doctrine is a God issue and not one we have need of, so God had no reason to spell it out emphatically. There are however plenty of verses by which the obvious and intuitive issue of Children is easily deduced. How can Christ say that the kingdom belongs to children and they be condemned to Hell? It's absurd. How can anything not directly spelled out in detail be any more suggestive?
2. I have also said that God only requires us to be accountable for the revelation we have received. For most of us (95% of us have existed since Christ, and most of that 95% has heard of Christ). I have told you repeatedly I am not very knowledgeable on the doctrine of the unevangelised. Again why would the bible go into great detail about an issue that covers those who have not read it? However there are vast numbers of books written by scholars on the issue.
3. I have only given you 2 verses but I never said that is all there are. There are quite a few, far more than necessary to have faith in the concept (which has no necessity for us anyway).
4. I know of no church that has a creedal statement about this issue nor did I get a single doctrine I hold from a church tradition anyway. I intentionally resolved all my major doctrinal positions before I selected a church to attend. However saying well that is only what the church believes is absurd as saying well the quantum is only what physicists believe. It is the best that can be done and almost a universal conclusion has been held for over a thousand years.

Except that this doctrine isn't set in stone, so it isn't "true".

That is irrational and incoherent. The epistemological apprehension of a thing has nothing to do with that things ontological nature. Even if no one, or everyone agreed a on what X is, it would have no effect on X.

It's your guess as to what God does with children. You mentioned Calvin and Augustine in your other post. What did they have to say about the "age of accountability"? Because, I thought they didn't believe in it.

Why are you dismissing my very educated conclusion and then asking for other opinions? There are double standards and inconstant criteria all over your posts. I will give Calvin but Augustine's doctrinal statements are so intertwined with infant baptism and dedication of children they are hard to separate.

It is sometimes charged that Calvin taught the actual damnation of some of those who die in infancy. A careful examination of his writings, however, does not bear out that charge. He explicitly taught that some of the elect die in infancy and that they are saved as infants. He also taught that there were reprobate infants; for he held that reprobation as well as election was eternal, and that the non-elect come into this life reprobate. But nowhere did he teach that the reprobate die and are lost as infants. He of course rejected the Pelagian view which denied original sin and grounded the salvation of those who die in infancy on their supposed innocence.
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Calvin on the Death of Non-Elect Infants and the Age of Accountability

Here's another Jewish site that talks about when the resurrection of the dead came into Judaism.

How is Jewish history (which is just another opinion, double standards again) relevant to a Christian doctrine? Hebrew history is primarily one of getting doctrine wrong and God having to either punish them or correct them and they killed many of those sent to correct. I love the Jewish culture but doctrinal accuracy is not among their attributes. Nor is it binding in anyway on anything.

Two passages? And of "late date"? As in after David was dead and gone? Try again. David, what ever he believed about an afterlife, thought that he would be reunited with his dead son. It doesn't sound as if it was the Christian concept of resurrection, though. On top of that, probably every "good" person thought they were going to some good place. Not just children, everybody. So what else you got?

1. David's life span has no bearing on anything. Not even the date is all that meaningful, nor your mistaken claims about them.
2. Since another poster (presumably a follower of Judaism) has already given at least 12 verses I have no need to tack on any more.
3. Of course Jews did not have the full understanding of Christian resurrection. The resurrector was not born for hundreds of years.
4. I have explained over and over why OT doctrines are usually pale reflections of NT expansions of them.

There is a famous saying "To give truth to one who loves it not, only increases the opportunity for contention". You do not seem to even retain ideas after I have explained them several times. You have a bizarre ideological commitment that forces the automatic denial of anything inconvenient.

 

[1robin]

Well. I am a Jew who was raised a Christian. I have had this inner pull from both sides my whole life and I believe both to have truths. I believe Christians would be better off if they put Yeshua's words first in their lives…not Paul's. I believe Jews would be better off if they listen to Yeshua's stance on Torah observance…not the Rabbi's who teach the "oral law". It has taken me many years of difficult questions to arrive at this conclusion.

1. I was raised in inert Christian churches but with the death of my mother had concluded no God existed, if he did I hated him, and even resented the concept of faith. I eventually had to abandon atheism and one night I accepted Christ and was born again.
2. I do not agree with you about Paul, his writings are very early and his source material earlier than anything we have. He was commissioned by God and therefore I have no grounds to dismiss him. He prevailed in every disagreement with the apostles and all the apostles accepted his commission and many of his most important claims have almost universal agreement among historians and theologians.
3. I do agree that church dogma is one of the most destructive aspects of faith in our two religions.
4. Any Christian would agree that both faiths have truths. We believe the NT is actually just the continuation of the OT events under a new covenant. Neither Judaism or Christianity alone is even remotely complete without the other, The OT demands the NT and the NT required the OT as the foundation for it's self.

 

[Simplelogic]

1. I was raised in inert Christian churches but with the death of my mother had concluded no God existed, if he did I hated him, and even resented the concept of faith. I eventually had to abandon atheism and one night I accepted Christ and was born again.
2. I do not agree with you about Paul, his writings are very early and his source material earlier than anything we have. He was commissioned by God and therefore I have no grounds to dismiss him. He prevailed in every disagreement with the apostles and all the apostles accepted his commission and many of his most important claims have almost universal agreement among historians and theologians.
3. I do agree that church dogma is one of the most destructive aspects of faith in our two religions.
4. Any Christian would agree that both faiths have truths. We believe the NT is actually just the continuation of the OT events under a new covenant. Neither Judaism or Christianity alone is even remotely complete without the other, The OT demands the NT and the NT required the OT as the foundation for it's self.

No problem. I didn't expect to agree on everything.

 

[CG Didymus]

...How can Christ say that the kingdom belongs to children and they be condemned to Hell? It's absurd. How can anything not directly spelled out in detail be any more suggestive?

So I read that the early church fathers wrote about infant baptism. Why would they think there is a need to baptize a baby if they believed that the baby was not accountable? Some Protestants continued with infant baptism. Some thought it heretical. They seem to be the ones that believe in the age of accountability like you believe. Several Christian sites say that there isn't any Scriptural backing for this doctrine. But, one of them, a Lutheran site, instead used Scripture to "prove" the validity of infant baptism. So you and your friend have nothing real, only a deduced theory... or a tradition... of who? of men.

Your silly thing about Jesus and the children means that the wicked, that are born sinners, go to heaven... that is up to that magic age when suddenly they are no longer, I guess pardoned for their sins, but are then cast into hell if they should happen to die. All your words are empty. You have nothing, but a man-made interpretation of what the Bible means. No, I take that back. Maybe you're right. I just don't think so.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not believe there is a specific age that warrants accountability in the scriptures. That is between YHVH and the human being. But I do believe in the concept in general.

What I think the Christian doctrine is saying is that all infants, no matter if their parents are Jews, Muslims, or nothing at all, will go to heaven. But most Christians don't believe we are born innocent. We have inherited something from Adam that has separated us from God. Thus, we need to accept Jesus to be "saved" in order to go to the Christian version of heaven. So you, as a Jew, aren't going there. But, your under age kids will, if they die before reaching the age of accountability. If they die after that age, and have not accepted Jesus, they, according to most Christians, are going to hell. Do you really believe this?

 

[1robin]

So I read that the early church fathers wrote about infant baptism. Why would they think there is a need to baptize a baby if they believed that the baby was not accountable? Some Protestants continued with infant baptism. Some thought it heretical. They seem to be the ones that believe in the age of accountability like you believe. Several Christian sites say that there isn't any Scriptural backing for this doctrine. But, one of them, a Lutheran site, instead used Scripture to "prove" the validity of infant baptism. So you and your friend have nothing real, only a deduced theory... or a tradition... of who? of men.

I keep giving you stuff you ignore, only to jump to a new topic. Not one sentence above was even relevant to what you responded to. I give you an argument and you give me a new subject.

1. I do not agree with infant Baptism so I will not defend it. I will however give my opinion about why it exists.
2. It has no biblical basis whatever. Unlike the doctrine that children go to heaven it is completely invented apart from the bible. It actually contradicts very well established doctrines. So why does it exist/
3. It is not really all that common. I have seen maybe two in 20 years of church services. It also confused with dedication ceremonies which are for another purpose.
4. I think most of those who support infant baptism believe in the child's being unaccountable but feel they are just hedging their bets. While their arguments are unsound their motives are easy to see and understand.
5. Why not baptize a child? On what grounds would a preacher refuse to do it? It costs nothing and harms no one and so it occurs even though most parents don't really believe their child would go to hell unbaptized.
6. Baptisms actual roll and purpose is to be an outward symbol of an inward transition. It is to be a public ceremony (mine was actually in a lake) that indicates an internal event. Salvation. Baptism does not save anyway nor ever has and Jesus was not baptized as a child but the ceremony is harmless and if parents get piece of mind who cares?
7. However this is a whole other subject and not a major doctrine of Christianity.

Your silly thing about Jesus and the children means that the wicked, that are born sinners, go to heaven... that is up to that magic age when suddenly they are no longer, I guess pardoned for their sins, but are then cast into hell if they should happen to die. All your words are empty. You have nothing, but a man-made interpretation of what the Bible means. No, I take that back. Maybe you're right. I just don't think so.

1. There is not the slightest bit of silliness to what I said, and without even a hint at why you say it was silly, not even a bad argument from you.
2. There is nothing magic about the age of accountability nor do I nor anyone have need of the age, It is God's business alone and as I have shown based on sound deductions.
3. If follows necessarily from scripture. You can't allow the scriptures and not come to the conclusion I have by any sound exegesis. You must denounce the scriptures WITH GOOD REASON to get rid of the doctrine. If the scriptures are left in fact the conclusions are inevitable.
4. The verses in question have no need of interpretation. They are point blank statements which do not allow for the rejection of the doctrine.
5. All doctrines are man made (that is not an indictment of anything) understandings of God's mostly crystal clear revelations. Every bible is a human production, church traditions are man made, some vague and some like this unavoidably concluded from simple verses. Only revelation is free of man's mind but so is almost all of academics of any kind. To claim it is only man made is to say nothing.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not agree with infant Baptism so I will not defend it.
... If follows necessarily from scripture. You can't allow the scriptures and not come to the conclusion I have by any sound exegesis. You must denounce the scriptures WITH GOOD REASON to get rid of the doctrine. If the scriptures are left in fact the conclusions are inevitable.

Infant baptism and the state of "limbo" do seem to be related to your doctrine of the age of accountability. Here's some interesting things I found at a Catholic site. The guy quotes from his book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

Here is a portion from my book, , which quickly covers some of the key dogmatic texts on this matter.

The Catholic Church teaches that aborted children and infants who die without baptism descend immediately into Hell, but that they do not suffer the fires of Hell. They go to a place in Hell called the limbo of the children. The most specific definition of the Church proving that there is no possible way for an infant to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is the following one from Pope Eugene IV.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Eugene IV here defined from the Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism. This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 – Condemning the articles of John Wyclif – Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” – Condemned

This is a fascinating proposition from TheCouncil of Constance. Unfortunately, this proposition is not found in Denzinger, which only contains some of the Council’s decrees, but it is found in a full collection of the Council of Constance. The arch-heretic John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that infants who die without water (i.e., sacramental) baptism cannot possibly be saved. He was anathematized for this assertion, among many others. And here is what the Council of Constance had to say about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such as #6 above.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by the doctors and masters of Oxford University… This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.”

So those who criticize Catholics for affirming the dogma that no infant can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism are actually proposing the anathematized heresy of John Wyclif.

So early Christians weren't so sure what to do about children. And, here in the 15th century, they're still questioning it and thinking that kids need to be baptized and that kids go to a place of limbo. So no, it isn't clear what the Bible teaches. Anyway, I'll be gone this weekend. So I'll catch up to you Monday.

 

[1robin]

Infant baptism and the state of "limbo" do seem to be related to your doctrine of the age of accountability. Here's some interesting things I found at a Catholic site. The guy quotes from his book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

Being that the bible does not contain the word Catholic this lunatic is hard to take seriously. Catholics, like the Jews, are noted for holding vastly different positions and allowing tradition to circumvent scripture. One Pope excommunicates another, then a third brings him back. Everything a member out of favor says is anathema and what is said by a member in favor is treated more important the scriptures. Neither Jewish nor Catholic dogma is in any way binding on a protestant Christian. Most Catholics and Jewish people share a doctrine very similar to mine, I have no idea what effect on that you think a few odd balls here and there claiming otherwise has.

So early Christians weren't so sure what to do about children. And, here in the 15th century, they're still questioning it and thinking that kids need to be baptized and that kids go to a place of limbo. So no, it isn't clear what the Bible teaches. Anyway, I'll be gone this weekend. So I'll catch up to you Monday.

Time is irrelevant to whether a thing is true, but even if it were, my doctrine is well represented as far back as I need go. The absurd notion that anything which has any level of disagreement is invalid is not practiced by any serious scholar in any subject. I am certainly glad science does not think that way or we would still be in the stone age.

 

[CG Didymus]

Being that the bible does not contain the word Catholic this lunatic is hard to take seriously...

Time is irrelevant to whether a thing is true, but even if it were, my doctrine is well represented as far back as I need go. The absurd notion that anything which has any level of disagreement is invalid is not practiced by any serious scholar in any subject. I am certainly glad science does not think that way or we would still be in the stone age.

The Bible doesn't contain several words, but what I posted was him quoting statements about infant baptism. It showed that the dominant Christian church of the time didn't have this "age of accountability" doctrine. So who invented it? That is, in the form that you believe? The way you write, it makes it sound like you did. That you studied the Scripture and "deduced" by "sound" exegesis that this is exactly what the Bible teaches. But I doubt that. So who taught you this doctrine? Your Pastor? You learned it at Bible College? When did it first appear? Do you know? By you saying it doesn't matter how long, makes me think you don't know when it started. So come on, what great theologian put this doctrine all together that all children are not held accountable? You say it is well represented, by whom?

Oh, and to go back to when the Jews first started to believe in the resurrection of the dead, in his book Essential Judaism, on page 192, George Robinson says that it dates from the time of the Pharisees and he also says that it might have been an outgrowth from Greek and Persian influences. He mentions a Jewish historian, Louis Jacobs as saying that it became popular during the time of the Maccabees. So I don't think the belief about the resurrection was part of Judaism during David time. So you using David and his dead son doesn't work as a proof text.

Now what I think is probably happening is that your side believes all people have inherited something that separates them from God, no matter what you call it, original sin or what ever, your beliefs make it necessary for someone to accept Jesus to be "saved". Since infants and children that die aren't able to know enough to make that decision, your side needed a loophole. Catholics came up with infant baptism and limbo and who knows what else, you came up with the "age of accountability". So what's the difference? Something in the Bible isn't clear, so people make up stuff. You don't like what they make up, so you went back to the "source", the Bible... and then, made your own stuff up. Oh, I know, why don't you just state what the doctrine of the "age of accountability" is and all the verses you use to deduce it? You don't even have to show me why you think those verses prove it, after all, it should be self-evident.

 

[Simplelogic]

What I think the Christian doctrine is saying is that all infants, no matter if their parents are Jews, Muslims, or nothing at all, will go to heaven. But most Christians don't believe we are born innocent. We have inherited something from Adam that has separated us from God. Thus, we need to accept Jesus to be "saved" in order to go to the Christian version of heaven. So you, as a Jew, aren't going there. But, your under age kids will, if they die before reaching the age of accountability. If they die after that age, and have not accepted Jesus, they, according to most Christians, are going to hell. Do you really believe this?

No. But more importanly, I believe this concept is not Biblical.

 

[Simplelogic]

Most of the debate going on in this thread is predicated off of a un-Biblical view of God's sovereignty. God has long been touted by Jews and Christians as an being who is outside of time and micromanaging free will here on earth. The Hebrew Scriptures actually teach the exact opposite. This logic has given way to exclusive salvation doctrines which have been adopted by all Christians (whether Protestants or Catholics). Salvation is not dependent on a mans choice to TURN FROM EVIL AND DO GOOD (Which Yeshua and the Prophets taught). Instead it is based on a formula based creed which mandates the "correct" understanding of God in order to be justified. I would strongly urge anyone to reconsider the words of the OT as well as the words of Yeshua to see if this logic really adds up. If there is any Christians (Protestant or Catholic) who want to challenge themselves on this issue I recommend the following read:

What's at stake

 

[sincerly]

Most of the debate going on in this thread is predicated off of a un-Biblical view of God's sovereignty. God has long been touted by Jews and Christians as an being who is outside of time and micromanaging free will here on earth. The Hebrew Scriptures actually teach the exact opposite. This logic has given way to exclusive salvation doctrines which have been adopted by all Christians (whether Protestants or Catholics). Salvation is not dependent on a mans choice to TURN FROM EVIL AND DO GOOD (Which Yeshua and the Prophets taught). Instead it is based on a formula based creed which mandates the "correct" understanding of God in order to be justified. I would strongly urge anyone to reconsider the words of the OT as well as the words of Yeshua to see if this logic really adds up. If there is any Christians (Protestant or Catholic) who want to challenge themselves on this issue I recommend the following read:

What's at stake

Simplelogic, I did not read your site, because GOD'S message for the salvation of mankind is found in HIS words---not those of man's comments/opinions.
(Red) GOD is in charge and HIS Will will over-ride any of man's faulty understanding. That is seen in the OT. There is no exclusion of persons who acknowledge GOD as GOD and Repent of their evil ways. Ezek.18

(Blue) see above. That turning from evil ways was followed by bringing a sin offering---one with blood along with one's confession and submission to the will of GOD.(Lev.17:11)

(Purple) that "formula" was set in place in the OT and was carried into the NT by the ONE who shed HIS Life/Blood for the remission of the sins of all who believe in the word of GOD and submit to HIS Will. That is the Message of the OT and the NT.

"What is at stake", according to the Scriptures, is what the ultimate end will be for what one "chooses" to believe.

 

[CG Didymus]

Simplelogic, I did not read your site, because GOD'S message for the salvation of mankind is found in HIS words---not those of man's comments/opinions.

..."What is at stake", according to the Scriptures, is what the ultimate end will be for what one "chooses" to believe.

And in your opinion, what is God's Word? It's not the Koran, or anything from Hinduism or Buddhism, or the Book of Mormon, or anything from the Baha'i Faith. Only the "Old Testament" from Judaism is considered God's Word for you, not anything else. The other Jewish writings are just comments and opinions of men, or are unauthorized books that didn't get accepted into the canon of God's Word. But who wrote "God's Word"? Who decided which books were God's Word? Men. Who explains those words to us, so we can understand them? Men. Who started all the different sects and denominations? Men. Is it God's Word? Yes, in your opinion. Do other people have a different opinion? Yes. Why? Because God's Word can be interpreted many ways. Why not read what this guy has to say and give us your opinion of what he is saying?

 

[JM2C]

God's word is in the Bible, OT and NT.

 

[1robin]

The Bible doesn't contain several words, but what I posted was him quoting statements about infant baptism. It showed that the dominant Christian church of the time didn't have this "age of accountability" doctrine. So who invented it? That is, in the form that you believe? The way you write, it makes it sound like you did. That you studied the Scripture and "deduced" by "sound" exegesis that this is exactly what the Bible teaches. But I doubt that. So who taught you this doctrine? Your Pastor? You learned it at Bible College? When did it first appear? Do you know? By you saying it doesn't matter how long, makes me think you don't know when it started. So come on, what great theologian put this doctrine all together that all children are not held accountable? You say it is well represented, by whom?

1. You made some point about his being a Catholic makes his words carry more weight. I said that was silly since the bible does not accord the word "Catholic" with any weight. The church spoken about in the bible is the body of believers not any denomination in particular. You might as well have quoted the Gideon's, the Mennonite's, or the Merovingian's. It just adds nothing to say Neo said it, Bruce Lee said it, or even Maimonides. It matters if what they say is constant with scripture, and that is the one place you have no interest in.
2. I have already explained how the innocence of children is an almost universal belief but that with the best intentions some have 2 conflicting ideas and believed in both. There is no harm to having a child baptized and few preachers would refuse. I think it a silly idea personally but when a kid's eternal destiny is on the line I can see why parents would hedge their bets in any way possible. So again infant baptism is practiced by those who also believe children are innocent, plus your probably confusing the dedication of a baby with a sinners baptism in most cases.
3. The children Christ said possessed the kingdom of God were certainly not baptized nor Christians. It was about a 99% chance that they were all Jews and had never heard of baptism.
4. I have never concerned myself with children's status. We can't change or fix it if it is one way and have no need if it is the other. That doctrine was something I found existing in almost all denominations long before I existed and found it consistent with the overall narrative and character of God. I have never heard a sermon on it, never was taught it in Sunday school, never heard it in a debate.
5. I have no need to even have a doctrinal position on this issue. I can't do anything about it. It is God's business from A - Z. I do reject infant baptism but see no harm in it.
6. I don't know, how could I. I only know that it's reverse mangles scripture and makes God into a being totally unlike the descriptions given for him in either testament. My saying it does not matter how long came from the FACT it does not matter. If it did matter I would get very serious about dating it. I can't figure out why it would matter, (actually let me see if you can), what exact date in the past does a doctrine if held then make it a fact?
7. Every reference I find is Gospel based or goes back to David. They don't dwell on what church father introduced the concept. It seems it has been a part of the Christian land scape from the beginning. I can throw out statements of faith like: CCC 1261, Unitatis redintegratio (#11), Dei Verbum 8, actually this site probably covers the history of the doctrine beter than most. The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised. However I argue to my own satisfaction and that requires scriptural justification not a history of the idea.

Oh, and to go back to when the Jews first started to believe in the resurrection of the dead, in his book Essential Judaism, on page 192, George Robinson says that it dates from the time of the Pharisees and he also says that it might have been an outgrowth from Greek and Persian influences. He mentions a Jewish historian, Louis Jacobs as saying that it became popular during the time of the Maccabees. So I don't think the belief about the resurrection was part of Judaism during David time. So you using David and his dead son doesn't work as a proof text.

Jacobs is one terrible historian. The after life goes back to at least Enoch. Abraham specifically separated being buried with being gathered to his fathers. They are two separate events. The same is true of Ismael, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Moses, David, Josiah. Two separate events one a physical burial and two being gathered with their ancestors which has nothing whatever to do with burial anyway. Also the very controversial Necromancer of En-dor. General warnings against those who talk with the death. A psalm by David that says "God will gather from the grave". A prophecy by Daniel that says "those who sleep will be wakened", this is a prophecy the end times. The song of trust in Isaiah. Etc..... times hundreds. You have to leaf through the OT with blinders on to miss this.

1. It was most certainly not a Greek introduction, the Persians were from the same people who were original given the oral traditions so I expect to find common themes in both. However the OT is older than Zoroaster's writings.
2. The Pharisees did not introduce the idea but held a firm position against the Sadducees which made it a public issue.
3. The Maccabees were not orthodox Jews and never invented any OT doctrine. Their "take" is not considered mainstream Jewish and so is not part of this discussion.

Now what I think is probably happening is that your side believes all people have inherited something that separates them from God, no matter what you call it, original sin or what ever, your beliefs make it necessary for someone to accept Jesus to be "saved". Since infants and children that die aren't able to know enough to make that decision, your side needed a loophole. Catholics came up with infant baptism and limbo and who knows what else, you came up with the "age of accountability". So what's the difference? Something in the Bible isn't clear, so people make up stuff. You don't like what they make up, so you went back to the "source", the Bible... and then, made your own stuff up. Oh, I know, why don't you just state what the doctrine of the "age of accountability" is and all the verses you use to deduce it? You don't even have to show me why you think those verses prove it, after all, it should be self-evident.

If I was trying to force something on scripture why am I the only one posting scripture? I have no need of this doctrine. I simply find it an unavoidable deduction from simple scripture and consistent with the over all narrative and God's revealed character. The age of accountability is several doctrines and all go back to pre Christ. The Bat Mitzvah is based on at least one aspect of it for crying out loud. By your logic then you must find the idea of Kids going to heaven so distasteful that you deny clear scripture and instead think dates (of all things) can determine the factuality of the matter without having the slightest idea when this magical date occurred.

1. I do not trust Jewish interpretations about any doctrine. The bible says they are spiritually blind and the OT is a constant record of their failure.
2. I do not trust Catholicism because even they don't trust themselves, and constantly revise what they believe. One Pope claims to be speaking for God while condemning a former Pope who claimed the same.
3. I do not even trust Protestantism entirely because it has the same fatal flaw, us. Only after I find my interpretations agree with another group and my Holy Spirit driven conscience do I consider them valid.
4. But here it is easy because I can find agreement in all three and more importantly more than enough justification in scripture and no counter scriptures to adopt a doctrine I really have no need of.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
Simplelogic, I did not read your site, because GOD'S message for the salvation of mankind is found in HIS words---not those of man's comments/opinions.

..."What is at stake", according to the Scriptures, is what the ultimate end will be for what one "chooses" to believe.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And in your opinion, what is God's Word? It's not the Koran, or anything from Hinduism or Buddhism, or the Book of Mormon, or anything from the Baha'i Faith. Only the "Old Testament" from Judaism is considered God's Word for you, not anything else. The other Jewish writings are just comments and opinions of men, or are unauthorized books that didn't get accepted into the canon of God's Word.

CG-D, "In your opinion", Is there a Creator GOD as the Bible acknowledges? If you can not accept that fact, then any of mankind's explanations is valid for themselves.

Amos 3:7, says, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."
Those prophets were chosen by GOD to reveal HIS inspired messages. Those messages were not to be randomly/arbitrarily given validity by each individual's own opinion---as you suggest. Only the meaning expressed to the prophet and given by the said prophet is truth. Yes, there are many who assume that they have the right to eisegesis as they please.
The OT is the foundational principles upon which the whole of the NT is fulfilled. The goal of the scriptures is consummated.---the salvation of sinful mankind.

But who wrote "God's Word"? Who decided which books were God's Word? Men. Who explains those words to us, so we can understand them? Men.

"Who?" Inspired men of GOD who were killed for the bringing of corrective messages to the erring people.
The same Holy Spirit which Gave the messages, also, guided inspired men to preserve the Written messages.
For the most part, the Scriptures themselves do the explaining to the honest seeker for the truths found in the messages of the Scriptures.

Who started all the different sects and denominations? Men. Is it God's Word? Yes, in your opinion. Do other people have a different opinion? Yes. Why? Because God's Word can be interpreted many ways. Why not read what this guy has to say and give us your opinion of what he is saying?

"Who?" "sects and denominations" were started by men who were lead by the same Being who influenced Eve to doubt/go counter to the Creator GOD'S instructions---and for the same reasons---Lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life".
The Scriptures are truth as is posted in those Scriptures. Mankind has the choice to believe are deny.(depending on that choice above)

I did give my opinion as stated above---
"because GOD'S message for the salvation of mankind is found in HIS words---not those of man's comments/opinions".
Therefore, since GOD expressed HIS Truths in the Scriptures, what was written in that site should agree with the Scriptures. When, In no agreement or in a contradictory form, there is no value in reading or wasting one's time just to express an "opinion".

 

[Simplelogic]

sincerly said: ↑
Simplelogic, I did not read your site, because GOD'S message for the salvation of mankind is found in HIS words---not those of man's comments/opinions.

..."What is at stake", according to the Scriptures, is what the ultimate end will be for what one "chooses" to believe.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



CG-D, "In your opinion", Is there a Creator GOD as the Bible acknowledges? If you can not accept that fact, then any of mankind's explanations is valid for themselves.

Amos 3:7, says, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."
Those prophets were chosen by GOD to reveal HIS inspired messages. Those messages were not to be randomly/arbitrarily given validity by each individual's own opinion---as you suggest. Only the meaning expressed to the prophet and given by the said prophet is truth. Yes, there are many who assume that they have the right to eisegesis as they please.
The OT is the foundational principles upon which the whole of the NT is fulfilled. The goal of the scriptures is consummated.---the salvation of sinful mankind.



"Who?" Inspired men of GOD who were killed for the bringing of corrective messages to the erring people.
The same Holy Spirit which Gave the messages, also, guided inspired men to preserve the Written messages.
For the most part, the Scriptures themselves do the explaining to the honest seeker for the truths found in the messages of the Scriptures.



"Who?" "sects and denominations" were started by men who were lead by the same Being who influenced Eve to doubt/go counter to the Creator GOD'S instructions---and for the same reasons---Lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life".
The Scriptures are truth as is posted in those Scriptures. Mankind has the choice to believe are deny.(depending on that choice above)

I did give my opinion as stated above---
"because GOD'S message for the salvation of mankind is found in HIS words---not those of man's comments/opinions".
Therefore, since GOD expressed HIS Truths in the Scriptures, what was written in that site should agree with the Scriptures. When, In no agreement or in a contradictory form, there is no value in reading or wasting one's time just to express an "opinion".

So
There is much missing in our current dialogue concerning Scripture. There is a general principal for the way scriptures were added over time. It is logical and easy to understand. The Jewish people had a systematic way of adding new Prophets writings which were considered God inspired.

1st premise- The Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) were a divine revelation from God himself to Moses. If you are willing to believe in this premise then this will unlock the validity for all the rest of the writings that were later added. The Torah itself gives the criteria for "testing" prophets.

2nd premise- For any man to be considered a "prophet" from God, and worthy of inclusion into "the scriptures" there must be two requirements.

First requirement- The Bible commands us in Deuteronomy 4:2 to not “diminish” any of the words of prior Prophets. Thus, this prohibits adding prophets who contradict earlier prophets.
The Bible commands us in Deuteronomy 4:2 to not “diminish” any of the words of prior Prophets. Thus, this prohibits adding prophets who contradict earlier prophets.

Second requirement- This same prophet must predict a future event which comes to pass. This is what validated the words of that prophet and became the "rubber stamp" if you will of divine authenticity.

This is the test which God laid down for man to use in order to "guard" His words. This does not mean that man is perfect at it. I will demonstrate later that the Bible itself proves that valid "scripture" can be lost from "the canon". This means that man is still currently responsible to test the books of the Bible (by the Torah's criteria) to determine which books are valid and which ones aren't. It most certainly does NOT mean that the NT books which were chosen by Athenasius are automatically valid.

 

[CG Didymus]

God's word is in the Bible, OT and NT.

But still, people wrote it. People decided which books go into it. And, different "churches" interpret it different. Oh, by the way, I'm glad you dropped by and posted to this thread again. So while you're here, could you add a comment as to what your church believes about what happens to children when they die? It's pertinent to this thread because the whole thing started when several grade school kids were shot to death. Do you think they all automatically go to heaven... no matter what religion and beliefs their parents had?

 

[CG Didymus]

CG-D, "In your opinion", Is there a Creator GOD as the Bible acknowledges? If you can not accept that fact, then any of mankind's explanations is valid for themselves.

Amos 3:7, says, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."
Those prophets were chosen by GOD to reveal HIS inspired messages. Those messages were not to be randomly/arbitrarily given validity by each individual's own opinion---as you suggest. Only the meaning expressed to the prophet and given by the said prophet is truth. Yes, there are many who assume that they have the right to eisegesis as they please.
The OT is the foundational principles upon which the whole of the NT is fulfilled. The goal of the scriptures is consummated.---the salvation of sinful mankind.

That's the problem. Who is the God of the Bible? That's why this thread is still going. Does he order the killing of children? Yes, he did. Is Satan all that the NT says he is? I don't know? He is a minor figure in the "OT". Yet, somebody, searched the Scriptures and found ways to include him all other the "OT". Christians can make him the serpent. They can make him the bright and morning star and call him Lucifer. They can say when the "OT" talks about the King and Prince of Tyre that it's really the devil that the Bible is talking about. People can up with a lot of things that Christians believe and take for granted as being "Biblically" true.

So who is The God of the Bible? He's called by different names. He might be one, indivisible spirit. He might be a three in one Godhead. God told his people to keep his commands and to sacrifice animals to him. He, I guess, spoke to Abraham and told him to put his son on an altar and stab him through the heart. If some mysterious voice spoke to you and told you to kill your son, would you really think it was God? With some of his commands, he said to stone those that broke them. Was that really God that said that? What if it was only people, like a priest, that said that God said that. Because somewhere along the line, somebody had to trust a priest or some kind of religious leader that what they were saying about God, and what God supposedly said, was the truth. Like when Joshua told his men to go into Jericho and kill all the people, including the women and children. Wouldn't you question him? And then when he said that God told him, wouldn't you question if that were true? I would. I'd ask, who is this God you say is real?