"Why is 'You shall have no other gods before me' in the Ten Commandments?"

"There is no deviousness in God." So Jesus did mean what he said, that the heavenly Father is the ONLY true God. That would mean that neither he, Jesus, nor anyone or anything else is God.

No, as the second person of the trinity---The Word (made flesh), He would have been quite obviously aware that there was only one God.

Apparently, the primary locus of any deviousness is in those who try to catch God with His own words.

To what purposes, I wonder---I can guess, but I won't list any.

"He would have been quite obviously aware that there was only one God." I can understand that coming from someone who thinks they don't need to read the Bible because it's their authoritative body that will read the Bible and tell them what they need to know. For the rest what the Bible actually says is important. In that verse Jesus is talking to the Father and saying that the Father is "the ONLY true God".

If you don't know what the Bible actually says and think it's not your job to know but that of your authoritative body then one wonders whether you can add anything to discussions about what the Bible says. 

My first elective in theology was a 3 credit course on the Pentateuch.  Generally speaking, I am not convinced that you know anything about the passages you reference; but it may be unwise to assume I don't read the bible---but if it pleases you think of me as biblically illiterate, feel free to use me thusly.

And of course, I know it is frustrating when someone talks about what exists in reality when he refuses to fight for God on the limited territory you think to be coextensive with His.

One God, three persons.  If God didn't want us to be open to the possibility that He is triune in nature, certainly He could have had Jesus specifically state that He himself was not divine. And God could have told John not to use the phrase "only begotten son" when referring to Jesus.

And I doubt it it would not have worked for God to have said "Hey, all, by the way, we are three persons in one nature. You'll meet the Holy Spirit in about six weeks."  

1- Come with a simple common sense argument and I have no option but to subscribe to it and thank you for it.

2- Start with disparaging statements like "I am not convinced that you know anything about the passages you reference" and that sounds alarm bells that what follows is extremely weak. Hence the put-me-down. Sure enough it's proved right again.

a] "If God didn't want us to be open to the possibility that He is triune in nature, certainly He could have had Jesus specifically state that He himself was not divine." - Well He effectively did. Jesus stated that the heavenly Father is "the ONLY true God" Nobody needs a 3 credit course on the Pentateuch as their first elective in theology to know that that declaration by Jesus rules him as well as all other beings from being God.

b] "And God could have told John not to use the phrase "only begotten son" when referring to Jesus." And He didn't. That's the conclusion many versions of the Bible came to when they threw out the word begotten from their Bibles.

c] "And I doubt it it would not have worked for God to have said "Hey, all, by the way, we are three persons in one nature. You'll meet the Holy Spirit in about six weeks."" – Why “in about six weeks” when multiple passages of the Bible speak of the presence of the Holy Spirit during and even before the time of Jesus (see Genesis 1:2 “the Spirit of God hovered above the dark waters”, in Exodus 31 we read God telling Moses that he has filled a particular craftsman with his Spirit, then in Numbers 24:2 the Holy Spirit comes upon a “prophet for hire” named Balaam. In Luke 1:15, John the Baptist was said to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" BEFORE birth while Jesus had to wait till his baptism in the Jordan River for the Holy Spirit to descended on him, and the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary in Luke 1:35 for her to conceive. In Luke 3:16 John the Baptist stated that Jesus baptised not with water but with the Holy Spirit.

1)  A man without options to my responses is a man who is a danger to both himself and others.

2)  You have just demonstrated that Your syllogistic reasoning is indeed weak---how would you like me convey that reality without actually sounding disparaging.

     a)  1) And you think it necessary to state that there are no quotes by Jesus in the Pentateuch?---Thanks for reminding all of us that Jesus was not mentioned by name in the Old Testament.  (But I'm not sure anyone had actually forgotten.)  2) "Effectively," huh?---apparently not so much.  Probably because that was not what He was actually saying---just what you think He meant. So the last sentence in your "2,a" is hardly dispositive of the issue.

      b)  Was the decision to eliminate the word "begotten" made by a popular vote or by some sort of "electoral college?"

      c)  I guess you didn't catch that I was making a reference to Pentecost when His presence became immediate in a special way to the Apostles.

You think I don't read the bible---whatever.  I guess you have no familiarity with the Liturgical Year cycles in the Catholic church---or the mass itself for that matter.   Over a three year period we read Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and John 1-14 is the last gospel of the mass.

And of course, we Catholics are encouraged by the Church to read the bible.

And you are just about the only one who wonders whether I can "add anything to discussions about what the bible says.)  

That's OK---I deal with those with hardened hearts on a regular basis.

I find atheists, on balance, much more reasonable and thoughtful in their approach.

"I find atheists, on balance, much more reasonable and thoughtful in their approach." ---- so I'll leave you to convince them. knowing that they do not accept the Bible as evidence.

If you want to convince me of something from your faith, it's simple, just show me where God or Jesus taught it without ambiguity. For me what God or Jesus says in the Bible is sufficient if it does not conflict with what either said elsewhere, with common sense and with what we know as facts so far.

See, there's your main problem.  I have no interest in convincing you of anything.  The truth stands on its own.  I share it on a take it or leave it basis.

You choose to leave it.  I find many atheists to be comfortable in their worlds.  Like them, you are comfortable in another type of small world.   It is obvious to me that the world God created is greater than the ones that either you are they live in.  

I prefer to live in a larger one---the one that I find more wondrous every day.  A basis principle is that good tends to communicate itself---be sure your receiver is turned on when it's trying to contact you.

“I have no interest in convincing you of anything.” is your statement of what your nature is, and things like, “See, there's your main problem.” and “Like them [atheists], you are comfortable in another type of small world.” are examples of your presumptions.

“The truth stands on its own.” indeed and that you “share it [your concept of truth] on a take it or leave it basis” is not unique to you. I have outlined the criteria I use to take or leave what I come across. On the essentials of the Jesus story I admit only what is consistent with the reported sayings of God and Jesus himself in the Bible, what is consistent with common sense and with verified facts at our disposal. That you admit into your criteria or make them subject to what the Holy Spirit is telling you is your choice.

“the world God created is greater than the ones that either you are they [atheists] live in” if that presumption has resulted from the dimensions opened to you by the Holy Spirit then unless it satisfies my criteria for acceptance you’re welcome to that “privilege” However, don’t think that your claim to “live in a larger one [world] ---the one that I find more wondrous every day” is unique to you. I’m sure many find the world “more wondrous every day” in their own way without any help from the Holy Spirit.

I haven't met any Catholics that read the Bible. They get a few verses read to them here and there mixed in with non-biblical stuff. Most, like yourself, don't even recognize a quote from a Catholic Bible as being from a Bible. Like when I gave you quotes from the NJB with with the Hebrew form of God's name in it and you said it was not a legitimate translation and that it was a Jehovah's Witness Bible. lol
http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm

In context, anything you say is said by a Jehovah Witness and who has no interest in truth, but rather only in trying to win arguments than work with the truth.  So I am going to assume that any quote from you is out of context and misleading at best.  

If you are not too scared, come back to me with a quote from the RSV that I have used as a Catholic since my theological studies in the 1960's. (Obviously, you do not understand which versions are approved for what---or why I am not personally familiar with the NJB verses.)

I will vett your quote---you surely don't think that I trust anything you personally affirm to be true---and will be quite eager to respond.

You are so funny. You're Church has suppressed the truth so long by imprisoning or murdering anyone that spoke truth for over a thousand years of foretold apostasy that you wouldn't recognize truth if it was right in front of you.
You are so conditioned by falsehood and tradition that you assume that you can't honestly investigate rather or not someone is speaking truth. 

Take your trinity for example. Compare these biblical truths to your forced beliefs:

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I

^{John 17:3}  And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

1 Cor 8:5-6 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— ⁶ yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

1 Cor 11:3  But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

At various points the author calls attention to the penalty incurred by those who refuse to accept any of the articles therein set down.

 

The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible

 

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

 

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal

 

Who, then, is the author? The results of recent inquiry make it highly probable that the Creed first saw the light in the fourth century, during the life of the great Eastern patriarch, or shortly after his death

 

The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths..

.From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration.  The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundamental truths with which it deals, is all we need to know. 

Interesting that you feel the need to defend your beliefs so aggressively---not a particularly good indication that you believe what you preach. 

Of course, why you believe what you believe is relatively unimportant---the only real issue is whether what you believe is true.

You want to convince me of your beliefs.  I have no such desire to convince you.  

My only obligation is speak the truth.  Whether you accept it or not is between you and your creator.

And it would be much more effective if you demonstrated any human qualities as a result of your beliefs that evidence qualities that those of who are forced to listen to your ramblings would actually want to possess for ourselves.

You remember that phrase---By their fruits you shall know them.

Come on---show us something that your beliefs have done for you.

Quote: "Interesting that you feel the need to defend your beliefs so aggressively---not a particularly good indication that you believe what you preach. "
LOL. Look at all your post under this question to an agnostic and a Muslim. Can you say hypocrite?

Quote: ["He would have been quite obviously aware that there was only one God." I can understand that coming from someone who thinks they don't need to read the Bible because it's their authoritative body that will read the Bible and tell them what they need to know. For the rest what the Bible actually says is important. In that verse Jesus is talking to the Father and saying that the Father is "the ONLY true God".]

Just like reading the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Who, then, is the author? The results of recent inquiry make it highly probable that the Creed first saw the light in the fourth century, during the life of the great Eastern patriarch, or shortly after his death

 

The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths..

.From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundamental truths with which it deals, is all we need to know. 

 

Just saw your comment "Why do you say this? There is no deviousness in God." but don't know what it refers to. If you quote then i might be able to explain.

I agree with your post until you get to the last sentence.

"I agree with your post" TY

".... until you get to the last sentence." but the last sentence is essentially Isaiah 43:11 which simply quotes the heavenly Father. Don't you agree with the heavenly Father?

This is the part that i disagree with :
That would mean that neither he, Jesus, nor anyone or anything else is God. 

"This is the part that i disagree with :
That would mean that neither he, Jesus, nor anyone or anything else is God" but that part comes from what Jesus declared. So if you disagree with that then you're disagreeing with Jesus.

Well, if He was the only God, then He would have been the God of the Gentiles as well---there wouldn't have been anyone else for them to talk to.

But I agree, the covenant in the Old Testament was specifically with His "Chosen People."

Not sure that equates to "not caring," however.

You're right ... it was WORSE than "not caring", since He actually told "his" people to kill others and take their land.
So I guess that means the Commandments against murder and theft didn't apply, as long as it was the Hebrews doing it to other ethnicities.

The operant word is "kill." not "murder."

Administration of the death penalty by the state is not murder.

(Nor is homicide "murder."---it all depends on the circumstances of the death.)