Something that Markk wrote on here, over 2 years ago...

[Bonnie]

Where do you get that? Did she love before she was forgiven? Yes. How then can the reason she loved much be BECAUSE she loved much? That conclusion is impossible draw from the text. You are drawing it from another source and it isn't the Bible.

She never repented. There is not one word from the woman asking for forgiveness. Quite making up portions to add to the story so it fits your incorrect conclusions. None of what you just said exists in the text.

No. She did all those acts because of her faith. She wasn't even sure that she would or could be forgiven. But the hope in her drove her action. That is what faith is. It is action driven by the hope based on our understanding of things we cannot see or that remain uncertain.

I got it from the Bible verses in Luke 7. Why would she love Jesus if she had not believed in Him?

So, how do you know she did NOT repent? Where does it say she did NOT?

What do you think her whole attitude was? She WEPT over Him, washing His feet with her tears, then anointed them with perfume. Her entire being was one of repentance! She was repenting in her heart and Jesus knows the hearts of all people. Maybe YOUR Jesus is limited in this respect, and does not, and cannot, but the True Jesus Christ of the Bible is NOT.

I thought that in your church there is no forgiveness unless one repents first...well Jesus said that her sins--which were many--were FORGIVEN HER. Ergo, she REPENTED OF THEM.

Why are you SO reluctant to give me a straight-forward reply to my very simple question? It isn't an essay question: What did Jesus ACTUALLY SAY SAVED THE WOMAN? And that is NOT taken out of context.

 

[Magdalena]

Where do you get that? Did she love before she was forgiven? Yes. How then can the reason she loved much be BECAUSE she loved much? That conclusion is impossible draw from the text. You are drawing it from another source and it isn't the Bible.

She never repented. There is not one word from the woman asking for forgiveness. Quite making up portions to add to the story so it fits your incorrect conclusions. None of what you just said exists in the text.

No. She did all those acts because of her faith. She wasn't even sure that she would or could be forgiven. But the hope in her drove her action. That is what faith is. It is action driven by the hope based on our understanding of things we cannot see or that remain uncertain.

You’re saying she did it in hope of a reward... forgiveness or salvation or something?

 

[Bonnie]

You’re saying she did it in hope of a reward... forgiveness or salvation or something?

I see desperation in trying to reconcile what the Bible actually says with what the LDS church teaches. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

 

[Bonnie]

I got it from the Bible verses in Luke 7. Why would she love Jesus if she had not believed in Him?

So, how do you know she did NOT repent? Where does it say she did NOT?

What do you think her whole attitude was? She WEPT over Him, washing His feet with her tears, then anointed them with perfume. Her entire being was one of repentance! She was repenting in her heart and Jesus knows the hearts of all people. Maybe YOUR Jesus is limited in this respect, and does not, and cannot, but the True Jesus Christ of the Bible is NOT.

I thought that in your church there is no forgiveness unless one repents first...well Jesus said that her sins--which were many--were FORGIVEN HER. Ergo, she REPENTED OF THEM.

Why are you SO reluctant to give me a straight-forward reply to my very simple question? It isn't an essay question: What did Jesus ACTUALLY SAY SAVED THE WOMAN? And that is NOT taken out of context.

What did Jesus ACTUALLY TELL the woman saved her? What were His exact words? I am waiting.

 

[dberrie2020]

I got it from the Bible verses in Luke 7. Why would she love Jesus if she had not believed in Him?

So, how do you know she did NOT repent? Where does it say she did NOT?

I have a question about that line of reasoning---where does it state the love she had for Jesus--was not founded upon this principle?

John 14:15---King James Version
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Where does it state her faith didn't include her works?

James 2:18-26---King James Version
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

[Bonnie]

I have a question about that line of reasoning---where does it state the love she had for Jesus--was not founded upon this principle?

John 14:15---King James Version
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Where does it state her faith didn't include her works?

James 2:18-26---King James Version
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

What did Jesus actually tell the woman saved her?

"Your FAITH has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)

What did Jesus tell the woman, actually TELL HER, saved her?

 

[Redeemed]

Because you usually do so, changing the subject of the OP entirely, in attempt to keep from having to deal with what the OP shows about Mormonism, its founding prophet, its history, or something similar. But I DO thank you for demonstrating one of the tactics Mormons use, ,that I listed in the OP. Thank you for demonstrating that so thoroughly! "...and why they must deflect, obfuscate, ignore, and then repeat the same talking points."

I am not falling for this tactic, dberrie. If you wish to discuss what Markk wrote, then I will be happy to do so. If not, then goodbye.

Wow that is so awesome I'm glad You saved that. Man oh man that's going to help so much.

 

[Bonnie]

Glad you liked it. Mormonism "apologetics" is sometimes facetiously referred to by non-Mormons as "apolo-JOKE-tics." Because they are so shallow--nothing more really than a set of talking points. Shallow as a kiddie pool.

 

[Redeemed]

True. One point--some of us would be happy to discuss the other poster's comments and bible verses on the Theology or Apologetics board, but not here. I mean, this board is for discussing all things Mormon/LDS.

I agree it's one of the things I picked up on here and by reading the rules. If I have something I think is questionable I posted over in apologetics I think it's a good thing to try and be as obedient as possible In all that I do.. In other words if I know something is wrong I don't do it. The Holy Spirit is excellent in helping me in that area, He's the best Helper ever.

 

[Aaron32]

Glad you liked it. Mormonism "apologetics" is sometimes facetiously referred to by non-Mormons as "apolo-JOKE-tics." Because they are so shallow--nothing more really than a set of talking points. Shallow as a kiddie pool.

"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us" - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Bonnie]

"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us" - Thomas Jefferson

Huh? Who is "resort"?

 

[Bonnie]

More from Markk....

Think about this...have you ever, and I mean ever seen -- or -- or any other members here present a LDS position, lay out a premise, and follow it through? No, and you never will, their prophets and apostles couldn't do it either simply because their theology is nothing more than repeated talking points.

This is why theology is not important inside the church walls. It is why members sleep in class, in church, or google an shop in sacrament. ( a common discussion on LDS forums.)

As Christians we can not prove there is a God, yet we can present evidence based on our faith and interpretation of scripture. Technically so can a Mormons. The difference is theirs is built on evidences of the imagination of JS. There is no natural proof that the BoM was real...every piece of it is up for debate in regards of it generating from real people in real places.

In other words, one can deny the existence of God, but they can not deny the existence of Jews and Christians in a ancient world that believed what they did. You can not deny Jerusalem, or the Nile, or Egypt, or Camels and Chariots complementing the narrative.

Mormonism has none of that...there are a road block and dead end at every doctrine or narrative that strays from the Bible.

And yes I suppose it is wide, great analogy...but again very shallow...putting together a defense for LDS theology demands tearing down the question asker and starting endless rabbit trails, which in the end fail.

This is the rest of what Markk had in that post here over two years ago. I decided to add it here. I had told him that Mormon theology and knowledge of it are wide, but shallow. And he agreed with me.

 

[Redeemed]

More from Markk....



This is the rest of what Markk had in that post here over two years ago. I decided to add it here. I had told him that Mormon theology and knowledge of it are wide, but shallow. And he agreed with me.

Copy and paste time. Wow that is seriously heavy what Mark posted. I'm really blessed to have you share that stuff with me.
This first line:

Think about this...have you ever, and I mean ever seen -- or -- or any other members here present a LDS position, lay out a premise, and follow it through? No, and you never will, their prophets and apostles couldn't do it either simply because their theology is nothing more than repeated talking points.

I have definitely noticed and experienced this one. You know it really helps when you have an understanding of what someone's up to when they pull There the stuff. When you don't I've noticed from my own experience I get and lost and confused. It's so good to gather and learn all this information because I definitely have a plan. I'm going to hang around here and do my little part and keep learning and practicing. And I'm hoping at some later date when some new practitioners of Mormonism show up I'll be able to discuss What we believe with them The correct way.

My peers can handled the ones that are here now. I'll stand in the back like a Chihuahua just barking. I'll let the big dogs do the heavy lifting.

 

[Redeemed]

on why it is so hard to get Mormons on here to engage with us Christians about their beliefs and history, and why they must deflect, obfuscate, ignore, and then repeat the same talking points, over and over again. He wrote this over 2 years ago on here, about 2 boards ago, lol!



------------------

I'll get this one into my notes also.

 

[dberrie2020]

What I find is a deflection whenever I attempt to discuss Biblical salvational theology.

So--let's engage that--and see who deflects, as far as Biblical salvational theology goes.

Let's engage at the point of Christ's testimony:

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Let's start there--

Bonnie--how do you fit that into your theology?

The LDS adopt those very testimonies as their theology.

Bump for Bonnie--or anyone

 

[Theo1689]

Bump for Bonnie--or anyone

This forum is not for discussing “our” theology.

It’s for discussing MORMONISM.

Why do you keep RUNNING AWAY from discussing Mormonism?

 

[Bonnie]

This forum is not for discussing “our” theology.

It’s for discussing MORMONISM.

Why do you keep RUNNING AWAY from discussing Mormonism?

Read what Markk wrote, that I posted!

 

[dberrie2020]

Read what Markk wrote, that I posted!

Markk got burned when he insisted Heiser really didn't believe the gods of Psalm 82 were real, heavenly gods. He wrote Heiser--and then, to Markk's credit--posted the entire reply--in the very thread you refer to.

Heiser stated he did indeed believe Psalm 82 was a reference to real, heavenly gods--and the reason Heiser gave is--because he couldn't deny what the Biblical text testified to as the truth!

 

[Theo1689]

Markk got burned when he insisted Heiser really didn't believe the gods of Psalm 82 were real, heavenly gods. He wrote Heiser--and then, to Markk's credit--posted the entire reply--in the very thread you refer to.

Heiser stated he did indeed believe Psalm 82 was a reference to real, heavenly gods--and the reason Heiser gave is--because he couldn't deny what the Biblical text testified to as the truth!

First of all, Heiser's OPINION is irrelevant. Mormons neither know the first thing about the man, nor what he believes, they simply exploit him as a "useful idiot" because they think his writings support their false theology.

Heiser is not found in the Bible.
He depends on the "Ugaritic texts", which are not in the Bible (if they were, you would not need to appeal to the "Ugaritic texts" in the first place!).


This is a quote from Heiser's paper, "You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82"

"B. Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with which many Latter-day Saints would probably disagree and with which many evangelicals would likely agree:
1. The plural <ĕlōhîm of Psalm 82 are ontologically inferior to Yahweh. That is, Yahweh, the God of Israel, was considered ontologically unique in Israelite thought. Yahweh is an <ĕlōhîm, but no other <ĕlōhîm are Yahweh.
2. The terms henotheism, polytheism, and monolatry are inadequate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members of his council.
3. Yahweh is neither a son of El (Elyon) nor a god distinct from El (Elyon) in Israelite religion.
4. The notion of a godhead does not derive from Hellenistic philosophy. Its antecedents are Israelite and Jewish.
5. Yahweh was therefore not “birthed” into existence by the “olden gods” described in Ugaritic texts. Yahweh had no parent and no beginning.
6. Corporeal appearances of deity are not evidence that God the Father has a corporeal nature.
7. The concept of the image of God does not advance the idea that there is a genus equation of God and humankind or that God was once a man.
8. Jesus’s quotation of Psalm 82 in John 10 is not to be interpreted as though Jesus thought the <ĕlōhîm> of Psalm 82 were humans, and so it provides no basis for a genus equation of God and humankind."

 

[Bonnie]

Markk got burned when he insisted Heiser really didn't believe the gods of Psalm 82 were real, heavenly gods. He wrote Heiser--and then, to Markk's credit--posted the entire reply--in the very thread you refer to.

Heiser stated he did indeed believe Psalm 82 was a reference to real, heavenly gods--and the reason Heiser gave is--because he couldn't deny what the Biblical text testified to as the truth!

But you aren't telling us ALL that Markk posted that Heiser told him--are you? Heiser made it clear that these "gods" are NOT deity like the one true God of the Bible, that they are or were separate CREATED spirit beings, NOT on par with the true and uncreated and unique God of the Bible...I remember that well, dberrie...and Heiser has made it clear that Mormons misuse his conclusions and research about the "gods" in Ps. 82--doesn't he, dberrie?

Mormonism and the council of "gods" in Ps. 82, by Matt Slick | Page 6 | CARM Forums

So, no, this "got burned" is ONLY in your own mind, isn't it, dberrie?