What is the Truth?

[Ben Masada]

How do we know it's not a Jewish hype????? We need a new prophet to tell it like it is. Why is Jesus keeping his silence? Why, why, why!

Probably because he was a Jewish man and according to his Faith which was Judaism, of all men who have died none will ever return. (Job 10:21; II Sam. 12:23)

[Ben Masada]

India's temples were never destroyed.................................................

The Truth has nothing to do with temples but with teaching according to the Law and the Prophets. (Isaiah 8:20)

[Frank Merton]

There is nothing "revenge motivated" in my replies to you, Labyrinthus, I simply want you to stop acting superior to everyone else posting here and treating those people as if they are ignoramus's. Many of your posts, including the ones I have mentioned, are loaded with faux-intellectual waffle designed purely to give the impression you know a lot (or more than others) but actually only reveal that you aren't that well-versed in what you presume to speak about.

Please stop carrying on as if every mistake you make is actually another's fault, and please stop trying to convey the impression you are some sort of authority when you so obviously aren't. It's tiresome and just leads to the sort of bickering I am forced to stoop to in an attempt to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue with you.

It leads to me just skipping over his posts unread. I feel I am being preached to by an incompetent Paulist Father.

[Ben Masada]

Most Christians will disagree Ben. I thtink we will soon get the answer from the One who knows for sure Til then - peace.

Tell me something new. I am well aware of Christian preconceived notions. If by "The one who knows for sure" you mean Jesus. He already gave his shot: That the Truth is the Word of God which according to the Psalmist was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth.(John 17:17; Psalm 147:19,20) Let them refute Jesus.

[Frank Merton]

Brilliant. You are exactly right in saying essentially, Truth 'is not of this world.' At best we glimpse aspects of Truth like we admire facets of a gemstone, approach and examine from another angle and we might appreciate it in a new way.

While Truth is completely whole, we are wholly unable to comprehend the 'true nature' of it.

Truth comes to us as a gift of Spirit,a nd not by own own effort or merit. It is discovered. Uncovered, or revealed, not apprehended by us. It IS stumbled upon, most often. --- and that's a wonderful thing because it is when we are on our knees that we are best able to examine that which we most earnestly seek. Perhaps that's what you mean by "exercises" that we can fall to...

All these useless metaphors for truth. First, truth is not gemstone. It is not any kind of rock. Nor is it whole. It comes in small and large pieces, and in between. I have my doubts that any sort of ultimate truth really exists; that the world is an onion whose layers never end no matter how much we peel.

[Ben Masada]

Ben, 2 Timothy is written in the context of Paul being imprisoned in Rome, not " almost killed for teaching idolatry in Jerusalem". Add to this that 2 Corinthians 11:3-6, 13 is not referring to the 11 apostles of Jesus, and I have no choice but to reject the entire premise of your post, except to agree that the Hebrew scriptures are indeed the word of God (I happen to believe the New Testament is also God's word though).

It happens though that when Jesus declared that the Truth was the Word of God he had only the Tanach in mind. He never even dreamed that the NT would ever rise. Now with regards to II Cor. 11:13, read Gal. 1:17. Paul said in there that before going to Damascus to preach his peculiar gospel. he didn't even go up to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before him. It means that he did not learn his gospel from the Apostles. Hence, as he said, the Apostles were preaching a different gospel about a different Jesus and for that matter they were false apostles. You are simply trying the best you can to defend the gospel of Paul. It won't work though. And for Timothy it does not matter where was Paul; he was kind of reporting that probably Timothy did not know that he Paul had been the one who had fabricated the idea that Jesus was Messiah from the lineage of David and that he had resurrected. (II Tim.2:8) And to preach that Jesus was the son of God in the synagogues of the Jews was the last hit that broke the camel's back. I mean, what got the Jews on his heels to kill him. Read Acts 9:20, 29.

[Ben Masada]

"Truth", in the context you place the word, is only what a person believes it to be. It has no more value as an objective measure carrying some value, than that. When considering the impact of religious teachings on the perception of "Truth", then that impact is only to limit the perception to conform to what another has believed.

In other words, you are trying to tell us that Jesus was wrong; that what he took as the Truth it was only for himself and not for others? That he had no idea of what really was the Truth? It is okay with me. It only shows that he was as common as any other Jew, able of the very same mistakes.

[Ben Masada]

When asked by Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?" Jesus was silent. (John 18:38ff).

Because Jesus immediately realized that Pilate had not asked for an answer as he left the room without it. At least not for the answer he expected. Does it ring a bell about the many today who ask the same question?

Edited October 28, 2013 by Ben Masada

[+Link of Hyrule]

It happens though that when Jesus declared that the Truth was the Word of God he had only the Tanach in mind. He never even dreamed that the NT would ever rise. Now with regards to II Cor. 11:13, read Gal. 1:17. Paul said in there that before going to Damascus to preach his peculiar gospel. he didn't even go up to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before him. It means that he did not learn his gospel from the Apostles. Hence, as he said, the Apostles were preaching a different gospel about a different Jesus and for that matter they were false apostles. You are simply trying the best you can to defend the gospel of Paul. It won't work though. And for Timothy it does not matter where was Paul; he was kind of reporting that probably Timothy did not know that he Paul had been the one who had fabricated the idea that Jesus was Messiah from the lineage of David and that he had resurrected. (II Tim.2:8) And to preach that Jesus was the son of God in the synagogues of the Jews was the last hit that broke the camel's back. I mean, what got the Jews on his heels to kill him. Read Acts 9:20, 29.

Apparently you've already decided what is true and what is not. I also foresee you using 2 Corinthians 11:3-6,13 as proof of your views, despite no scholarly basis for this. I know I've said this before and I regret having to say it again, but I wash my hands of your trickery and double-speak, and full well expect you too continue using such passages in a completely incorrect context. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother....

[Leonardo]

In other words, you are trying to tell us that Jesus was wrong; that what he took as the Truth it was only for himself and not for others? That he had no idea of what really was the Truth? It is okay with me. It only shows that he was as common as any other Jew, able of the very same mistakes.

The "Truth" Jesus preached was the truth he believed, nothing more. The same as the "Truth" promoted by the Jewish scriptures - that truth is only what the authors of those scriptures believed. Of course, those "truths" are now believed by many other people to also be a (or 'the') truth. But the amount of people who believe what another espouses is quite irrelevant as to whether what is espoused really is a 'truth'.

[Almagest]

I must protest to the capitalization of the word truth. I think doing so is an attempt to grant some kind of metaphysical objective status to something that is merely a matter of human opinion. After all, scientists might discover truths about the universe, but they'll never have access to the Truth that religious people do. Look to the people who hold onto these objective truths and you'll learn a lot about their personalities. I think one trait they would all have in common is a desire to control other people.

[Jack Skellington]

What is the Truth?

Once Jesus was asked about the Truth and he said that the Truth is the Word of God.(John 17:17) That's the Word of God which was given to the Jews only and to no other people on earth.(Psalm 147:19,20)

Hi Ben-- You seem like you have a pretty good awareness of scripture... Do you have a concordance? -I'm betting you do.

To begin with-- it doesn't seem like your original intent was to discuss the essence of Truth at all, rather you are making some claims regarding your opinion of what Jesus thought... more than what is recorded of all he said. That's fine, but you shouldn't play fast and loose with "the Truth' -right?

The writer of Psalms (David?) obviously mispoke.... I'm guessing you want to differentiate between Jacob, who heard the word, from the Spirit of God (or the angel of the Lord) and Israel... the nation? -instead of the person who was given that name (Jacob). Quite obviously, the word of God (what God said), and even the Word of God (Logos-- a title) were given to more than just the Jews, and the Law and the Prophets came far after Jacob.... some 700 years later concerning the Law which was given to Moses, not Jacob.

But let's look at Isaiah "the Prophet" who in context stipulates that "for both houses of Israel" (the Lord) will be "a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." Isaiah speaks of the Law and the testimony as something to "bind up" --as in do not consult- Just as they were not to consult the mediums and spiritists (the dead, on behalf of the living). Isaiah, when referring to "this word" -- is referring to the things HE was saying-- a NEW testimony, at that time.

[Labyrinthus]

I must protest to the capitalization of the word truth. I think doing so is an attempt to grant some kind of metaphysical objective status to something that is merely a matter of human opinion. After all, scientists might discover truths about the universe, but they'll never have access to the Truth that religious people do. Look to the people who hold onto these objective truths and you'll learn a lot about their personalities. I think one trait they would all have in common is a desire to control other people.

Lemme see if I got this straight....

You *protest* the capitalization of the word truth".

But then you complain about people who do that, whining that they have, "a desire to control other people".

?

go figure....

[Jack Skellington]

There is no greater teacher than Time.

...errr... time.

[Likely Guy]

In my view, "truth" or "the truth" cannot be discovered through dogma. Dogma will always be someone else's truth. Any kind of conformity will never lead us to knowledge of ourselves, and truth only lies within, untouched by external influences.

I consider truth to be the deepest understanding of ourselves. If we do not look objectively deeply into our own self to discover our fundamental being, we are just mimicking what others believe to be true. This kind of truth is superficial in that it does not originate from a deep knowledge of our own basic wisdom.

I think there is a universal truth for us in a broad sense. It can be discovered by getting to know ourselves, But when we look at ourselves through the filter of conformity we will never discover what lies beyond that conformity.

Truth is the freedom to be who we really are.

In my opinion, spiritually we're not supposed to know 'the truth' as that would destroy the mystery of life. I don't know, and I really don't want to know.

Call it 'my truth', or preferential ignorance. It's that, that gives me the freedom to be who I really am.

/go by the golden rule. what need else be said?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Likely Guy

[StarMountainKid]

In my opinion, spiritually we're not supposed to know 'the truth' as that would destroy the mystery of life. I don't know, and I really don't want to know.

Call it 'my truth', or preferential ignorance. It's that, that gives me the freedom to be who I really am.

/go by the golden rule. what need else be said?

I don't think we have to worry about knowing 'the truth' any time soon, in the sense in which you speak. I think what's really going on will continue to remain a mystery for a very long time. I agree that that is a good thing. I think a sense of mystery or wonderment is within all of us and is perhaps our most significant emotion.

When we consider ourselves to be the bearer of exclusive knowledge or truths, we no longer have this humbling sense of the mysterious. I think we loose some of our humanity in this way, resulting in vitriol that hijack threads and turn them into nothing more than personal vendetta.

[Frank Merton]

I must protest to the capitalization of the word truth. I think doing so is an attempt to grant some kind of metaphysical objective status to something that is merely a matter of human opinion. After all, scientists might discover truths about the universe, but they'll never have access to the Truth that religious people do. Look to the people who hold onto these objective truths and you'll learn a lot about their personalities. I think one trait they would all have in common is a desire to control other people.

English capitalization rules are something of a problem for foreigners. First you are told to not capitalize common nouns, but then you see the word "Truth" capitalized. What goes?

Well when I see it capitalized I assume I am looking at a proper noun (for example, "god" could be any deity but "God" is the head deity of some specific religion). So what sort of specific ("proper") truth is "Truth?" Now that's a tough one since it carries an assumption about the nature of truths that one may not agree with -- that it is unitary among other things. Still, that is the convention and we do well to live with such conventions (or at least understand them even if we personally don't use them).

[Almagest]

Lemme see if I got this straight....

You *protest* the capitalization of the word truth".

But then you complain about people who do that, whining that they have, "a desire to control other people".

?

go figure....

Because it's improper capitalization. I simply see it as part of the religious trend to attempt to elevate and monopolize certain ideas. Religion holds no monopoly on truth, and their truths are as subjective as everyone else's.

Truth is tricky too. For example the following statements are both true and contradictory;

"Sunlight is good for you."

"Sunlight is bad for you."

However when combined they form a better approximation of truth;

"Sunlight is good for you in small amounts, and is necessary to produce vitamin D, however too much exposure to UV radiation can cause skin damage and melanoma."

And again, that isn't exactly truth, because I'm writing it from a fair skinned European descendent's perspective. Those with more melanin are a lot less vulnerable to melanomas. These are truths derived from observation, and they are being refined as our knowledge expands. Objective truth is unbending, unquestionable and frankly useless for Human purposes.

English capitalization rules are something of a problem for foreigners. First you are told to not capitalize common nouns, but then you see the word "Truth" capitalized. What goes?

Well when I see it capitalized I assume I am looking at a proper noun (for example, "god" could be any deity but "God" is the head deity of some specific religion). So what sort of specific ("proper") truth is "Truth?" Now that's a tough one since it carries an assumption about the nature of truths that one may not agree with -- that it is unitary among other things. Still, that is the convention and we do well to live with such conventions (or at least understand them even if we personally don't use them).

I think a good example of such a convention is justice. Whatever we do to our criminals we have to convince ourselves that it is justice, when in reality there is nothing to measure it against. The justice systems of Eath are simply a wide range of our best and worst attempts to administer appropriate punishment to criminals. Everyone can find an example in their own justice system that they feel is wrong, but we're still dedicated to the overall cause of justice. Whether or not there is an objective Justice, such as being judged for our sins after death, has no bearing on temporal justice because we can't run our rulings by an objective judge before handing them down.

[ellapenella]

There is no greater teacher than Time.

...errr... time.

ahhaha...err time, that was funny...

[ellapenella]

What is truth ? I think it's all about discovering , and developing , by experience of course , from that place within .I think that ,nobody can dictate to one another what truth is. I admire the phrase which states : " To thy own-self be true".

[Leonardo]

English capitalization rules are something of a problem for foreigners. First you are told to not capitalize common nouns, but then you see the word "Truth" capitalized. What goes?

Well when I see it capitalized I assume I am looking at a proper noun (for example, "god" could be any deity but "God" is the head deity of some specific religion). So what sort of specific ("proper") truth is "Truth?" Now that's a tough one since it carries an assumption about the nature of truths that one may not agree with -- that it is unitary among other things. Still, that is the convention and we do well to live with such conventions (or at least understand them even if we personally don't use them).

The point of capitalisation for words such as truth, where they are usually considered abstract and/or subjective concepts, is intended to grant the word the state of being a proper noun for the purpose of changing it's abstraction/subjectiveness into a concrete/objective/absolute sense.

For example, I might write "There is no 'Truth'", intending to convey the message that an objective/absolute truth does not exist. It is a form of shorthand, if you will, so the writer does not have to write 'objective truth' every time he/she means that.

It's neither improper nor annoying when the 'rules' are explained and understood.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

Did I say there was something wrong with capitalizing abstractions? I just pointed out that it is more convention than really a proper noun. As far as I am concerned, whatever is the conventional use is the correct use, and wide variations in personal style help give a language its richness.

[Leonardo]

Did I say there was something wrong with capitalizing abstractions? I just pointed out that it is more convention than really a proper noun. As far as I am concerned, whatever is the conventional use is the correct use, and wide variations in personal style help give a language its richness.

Apologies, Frank. My suggesting the use of capitalisations was not directed at you personally but because others had commented such behaviour was 'annoying' or 'improper'. I admit my intention wasn't clear from the post, however - hence my apology.

[Jack Skellington]

Truth is tricky too. For example the following statements are both true and contradictory;

"Sunlight is good for you."

"Sunlight is bad for you."

However when combined they form a better approximation of truth;

"Sunlight is good for you in small amounts, and is necessary to produce vitamin D, however too much exposure to UV radiation can cause skin damage and melanoma."

And again, that isn't exactly truth, because I'm writing it from a fair skinned European descendent's perspective. Those with more melanin are a lot less vulnerable to melanomas. These are truths derived from observation, and they are being refined as our knowledge expands. Objective truth is unbending, unquestionable and frankly useless for Human purposes.

Both true and contradictory? Not really. Merely incomplete knowledge or understanding. Your examples at best could be considered aspects of Truth, but they fall short of the mark. Is sunlight good, or bad for us? What is the truth? To answer more completely and to avoid simply glossing over the question and calling it Truth, you'd have to further qualify your explanation and say something like- "Sunlight is generally good for you, but it's possible to have too much of a good thing."

That pays homage to your "facts" which are not 'truly' contradictory at all when accompanied by a greater understanding.

People like to hold to this idea that they can have "their truth" while another person can also have their own truth. It's a ridiculous notion for the most part and easily tested. When confronted by two truths-- supposedly both true and seemingly contradictory... see if your heart and mind allow you to hold both "opinions" at exactly the same time. If you can, it's only a result of a deeper understanding of both "aspects of truth" and the two concepts were not truly contradictory at all, when wisdom is the well you drink from.

[Leonardo]

Both true and contradictory? Not really. Merely incomplete knowledge or understanding. Your examples at best could be considered aspects of Truth, but they fall short of the mark. Is sunlight good, or bad for us? What is the truth? To answer more completely and to avoid simply glossing over the question and calling it Truth, you'd have to further qualify your explanation and say something like- "Sunlight is generally good for you, but it's possible to have too much of a good thing."

That pays homage to your "facts" which are not 'truly' contradictory at all when accompanied by a greater understanding.

People like to hold to this idea that they can have "their truth" while another person can also have their own truth. It's a ridiculous notion for the most part and easily tested. When confronted by two truths-- supposedly both true and seemingly contradictory... see if your heart and mind allow you to hold both "opinions" at exactly the same time. If you can, it's only a result of a deeper understanding of both "aspects of truth" and the two concepts were not truly contradictory at all, when wisdom is the well you drink from.

Might I suggest you test this "ridiculous notion" by spending a week blindfolded, then talk with your friends as to the "truth" of their week, as opposed to the "truth" of yours.

And might I further suggest you consider that 'truth' is not an objective, absolute 'thing'. It is not the existence of 'things', but a concept - born of sentience and totally dependent on the conscious recognition of a 'thing' or 'things'. Because it is a concept and dependent on conscious awareness or perception, truth is always subjective.