What is the Truth?

[Jack Skellington]

I disagree, respectfully. Opinions vary, but the Truth does not.

Expanding your example-- you sit naked and blindfolded on a metal chair with your hands zip tied behind your back, while I'm just as naked and blindfolded, but my lover feeds me grapes and tickles my fancy with a feather duster.

And so one asks--- How was your weekend? Yours was miserable, mine was quite ordinary. That doesn't mean there are two truths. It means we experienced two different aspects of what the weekend was like. The Truth is, "the weekend" isn't at all affected by how you or I experience it.

Likewise if you and I were even to sit naked and blindfolded like this in the same room, and you felt cold, while I felt warm then you might say that we each have our own truth. No.... again. The truth is that we just have different opinions or experiences. The room can't be both too hot and too cold at the same time. The temperature, like the truth-- is measured in degrees.

If you think that the sun is both good and bad for you.... try going on without it. Ultimately, it's good for you, and without it there is no you. That closer approaches the Truth of your situation. Don't confuse truth with perception.

You and I might argue about a car we see across the way illuminated by a street lamp one evening. To you it appears blue, while I know this car to be green, but at that moment, to your eye-- it appears blue. The next morning, in the light of day you would no longer argue because your perspective (and the amount of light you have) has changed.

-But then Blue or Green are simply degrees of color, aren't they?

[Almagest]

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.

If it's a matter of having complete knowledge, we'll never find the truth. I'd say both statements are true because they have a factual basis, but you're right, on their own they form an incomplete picture. To get to the core truth of the matter would take long winded explanations involving radiation and it's effects at the genetic and cellular level. I don't deny the existence of scientific fact, but I see it as a form of subjective truth because it is reliant on observation by human subjects.

[Jack Skellington]

I do see what you are all saying regarding subjective experience.

I guess my point is that Truth is not dependant upon our experiencing it at all. Is the sun good or bad for us? Is it too hot, or too radioactive, too close or too sunny?

The truth is that the Truth regarding the sun is independent of our experience altogether. The sun is just what it is, apart from us.

[ellapenella]

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.

Truth and lies both are always subjective, right ? But , is truth not also objective as well? I think so .

[Leonardo]

I disagree, respectfully. Opinions vary, but the Truth does not.

Expanding your example-- you sit naked and blindfolded on a metal chair with your hands zip tied behind your back, while I'm just as naked and blindfolded, but my lover feeds me grapes and tickles my fancy with a feather duster.

And so one asks--- How was your weekend? Yours was miserable, mine was quite ordinary. That doesn't mean there are two truths. It means we experienced two different aspects of what the weekend was like. The Truth is, "the weekend" isn't at all affected by how you or I experience it.

Yes it is, because your example depends entirely on the two people (you and I in your example) describing their experience of their weekend. That 'truth' is not known to either until this exchanging of information takes place and because it is unknown until then, it doesn't exist until then. It doesn't exist until then because truth is not a concrete 'thing', it is simply an abstract concept and requires conscious recognition to become the 'reality' of the subject.

And you are right, your example does not describe two 'truths' - it describes three. Each persons 'truth' of how their weekend was before the question "How was your weekend?" was asked, and the 'truth' that resulted from the exchange after that question.

You are presuming 'truth' can exist without the sentience necessary to conceive of it. It doesn't because it is only a concept.

[StarMountainKid]

I would say that Kurt Godel proved there is no absolute truth to mathematics with his incompleteness theorem.

The liar paradox: "This sentence is false." The sentence cannot be true and it cannot be false.

There are elements of logic that are contradictory, Can we prove that a truth is true? Are there truths than can be justified without reference to other truths? Truths that stand alone without referencing to anything else? Can logic be trusted in establishing these stand-alone truths?

Do we have enough knowledge or information to state any truth is absolute? Are truths empirical or are they based on theory or semantics or the method human intelligence operates? Is what are considered truths only an expression of the limited capabilities of the human mind?

What prejudices and self-confirmations influence our beliefs in what is true?

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

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

Touché.

Why is Jesus keeping his silence? Why, why, why!

It seems to me most people already have their answers. So, I'm not surprised why this coming avatar (Immanuel) is taking His sweet time. Think about it: Are we ready for the truth? Do we really want the truth? Some say truth is quite oppressive because it is absolute -- constantly hovering over us, invading every inch of our consciousness? Do you want eternal perfection as your reality?

Peace.

[Labyrinthus]

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.

Alert the media! I actually agree with something Leonardo said!

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

...it is about love and self love.

Hi Darkwind,

I have to agree with you. Love is the key. It's pointless to regurgitate the names of God or gods without love in one's heart -- ain't that the "truth." One has to put love into action. On the other hand, one should really find out one's prefered religion or path. Dissect it. "Neti neti" ("Not this, not this") is a process of elimination, and in my life, I still haven't eliminated these 2 realities: love and "Lord." Just like Kundalini Yoga, I, however, eliminated the Jesus Christ connection with this "Lord" (due to my "feverish," inspired studies). Therefore, my new lead is Immanuel and Isaiah's prophesy, a future event. I also believe that this "Lord" is getting ready to show Himself to the world, but it may not happen in my lifetime. Yes, He's going to be an incarnation of God, not a superhero "messiah" only to save a certain group of people. To be honest, a God (with "unconditional love" power) has no interest in putting souls in some kind of hell or torment. We also don't need meditation to access Him (just my belief system), but meditation is good for one's health to reduce stress, etc.

Peace.

[Jack Skellington]

Hi Darkwind,

I have to agree with you. Love is the key. It's pointless to regurgitate the names of God or gods without love in one's heart -- ain't that the "truth." One has to put love into action. On the other hand, one should really find out one's prefered religion or path. Dissect it. "Neti neti" ("Not this, not this") is a process of elimination, and in my life, I still haven't eliminated these 2 realities: love and "Lord." Just like Kundalini Yoga, I, however, eliminated the Jesus Christ connection with this "Lord" (due to my "feverish," inspired studies). Therefore, my new lead is Immanuel and Isaiah's prophesy, a future event. I also believe that this "Lord" is getting ready to show Himself to the world, but it may not happen in my lifetime. Yes, He's going to be an incarnation of God, not a superhero "messiah" only to save a certain group of people. To be honest, a God (with "unconditional love" power) has no interest in putting souls in some kind of hell or torment. We also don't need meditation to access Him (just my belief system), but meditation is good for one's health to reduce stress, etc.

Peace.

Great post. That is the mark of a true Truthseeker, measured not by what you've picked up along the way, but by what you've been willing to set down. People seem to have trouble with the idea that Truth is not something that belongs to them, ("your truth" or "my truth") no- our hope is to belong to it. Truth stands alone. Apart. If you wish, you could substitute the word Holy, or even God. All we ever apprehend is glimpses of Truth, aspects of Truth, or the essence and fragrance of it.

Ineffable.

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

Awareness of something is not knowledge of it. You might see me, and yet not know me.

They are two different things. You might form an opinion based upon what you see, yet remain entirely without knowledge of the truth.

Truth must be discovered. It has to be revealed. It isn't something you attain to, rather it descends to you in the form of knowledge when you become aware AND understand

Good one. St. Paul saw a light, assumed it was Jesus Christ (at least his first tale of this incident), and lo, his brand of Christianity dominated the other early Christian versions. I, on the other hand, saw a radiating figure and assumed it was Jesus Christ, even though It never said a word to me -- a mistake on my part, I admit. Nevertheless, I'm grateful to have studied the Christian religion, and the journey is far from over because of Isaiah's prophesy. For other people to go beyond this religion? There are revealing books (by highly trained bible scholars) and videos out there. Fortunately, I have the time to keep on studying (with an open mind). An open mind (genius is not mandatory) is very important, and having the "blessings" (hard, brutal lessons) to let go of my Kundalini/Siddha Yoga and wizardry paths make it easier to not completely attach myself to an imperfect "story." Here's one of the lines in Dangerous Liaisons: "You'll find the shame is like the pain, you only feel it once."

"Neti, neti."

Peace.

[Jack Skellington]

Not that... Not that.

Anthony DeMello was one of my favorite voices- pointing at the truth always.

[Ben Masada]

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....

I also think I have said this before but I'll say again: PA, the problem here is that you cannot stand still when your Christian preconceived notions are brought about before the test of the truth. I understand your fear to be disappointed in spite of so many years of learning something else. I met in Israel a missionary lady from Finland who after a two-hour face-to-face religious disputation she would cry like a child for contemplating the collapse of her faith after so many years. Her words, not mine. She quit what she was doing and returned to Finland. Pity that somehow we have lost track with each other.

[Ben Masada]

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'.

I agree with you 101% that the truth Jesus preached was the truth he believed. The truth according to the Law and the Prophets. (Mat.5:17-19) And yes, the same truth promoted by the Jewish Scriptures. Then that this is not the truth that other peoples believe, tell me something new for I am aware of that already.

[Ben Masada]

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.

The formality of the Law was given through Moses but the Law itself existed since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Nice try Skelington but "The Law and the Prophets" or "The Law and the Testimony" means one and the same. The testimony of the Prophets. That's how Jesus himself understood and came to confirm down to the letter in Mat.5:17-19 where he rephrases "The Law and the Testimony" into "The Law and the Prophets." I see you here implying a NEW testimony with the intent to insert the NT. It does not stick. Jesus never even dreamed that the NT would ever rise. Your purpose here is akin to the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

[+Paranoid Android]

I also think I have said this before but I'll say again: PA, the problem here is that you cannot stand still when your Christian preconceived notions are brought about before the test of the truth. I understand your fear to be disappointed in spite of so many years of learning something else. I met in Israel a missionary lady from Finland who after a two-hour face-to-face religious disputation she would cry like a child for contemplating the collapse of her faith after so many years. Her words, not mine. She quit what she was doing and returned to Finland. Pity that somehow we have lost track with each other.

Why should one random person who apparently went to Israel affect my faith? If you're as dishonest with her as you've been with me and this site it's not surprising she was left in tears, and not surprising why she didn't keep in contact. I know a little of how she feels.

[Frank Merton]

That is a problem when attacking someone's beliefs -- not just religious beliefs but even beliefs in things like astrology or aliens or the power of dreams. People base a lot of their lives and how they operate on these beliefs, and sometimes one is doing more damage than is immediately apparent. It may seem one is throwing out some useless rock work, when in fact one is undermining the foundation of a personality.

This is one of the reasons most monks avoid getting into such conversations, sticking with their message and deferring questions that pertain to other beliefs, trying to find something positive in it.

Of course I don't claim to be a good Buddhist, let alone a monk, and I've had some formal ideological training in Communism, so my immediate reaction is to assault with all cannons blazing, especially when what is posted is factually false.

[Leonardo]

I agree with you 101% that the truth Jesus preached was the truth he believed. The truth according to the Law and the Prophets. (Mat.5:17-19) And yes, the same truth promoted by the Jewish Scriptures. Then that this is not the truth that other peoples believe, tell me something new for I am aware of that already.

You are both right and wrong. I didn't, in the post of mine you quoted, actually state "the Truth Jesus believed is the same Truth promoted by the Jewish scriptures". What I stated is the Truth Jesus believed has the same quality as the Truth promoted by the Jewish scriptures - i.e. a Truth based purely on personal experience and opinion. Not an objective or absolute Truth, but a personal and subjective truth.

I have a mixed opinion as to whether Jesus believed the "Truth" as set out in Jewish scripture. I suspect he believed the meaning of it, but not the letter of it - and this was his dispute with the Jewish authority of the time and this is what caused the schism in Judaism leading to the birth of Christianity. What you call "Pauline replacement theology" is not exactly a replacement of Judaism, but an attempt to refocus back to the meaning of the Law, and not focus on the letter of it as the Jewish authority then, and since, has been prone to.

[hellig heilige]

The formality of the Law was given through Moses but the Law itself existed since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Nice try Skelington but "The Law and the Prophets" or "The Law and the Testimony" means one and the same. The testimony of the Prophets. That's how Jesus himself understood and came to confirm down to the letter in Mat.5:17-19 where he rephrases "The Law and the Testimony" into "The Law and the Prophets." I see you here implying a NEW testimony with the intent to insert the NT. It does not stick. Jesus never even dreamed that the NT would ever rise. Your purpose here is akin to the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

The laws have to go through a middle man. Human interpretation................. Do you mean "Jesus" the way the Roman progandists spread a story about him??????? Paul was interpreting his encounter with the unknown light and later embellished.

[Jack Skellington]

The formality of the Law was given through Moses but the Law itself existed since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Nice try Skelington but "The Law and the Prophets" or "The Law and the Testimony" means one and the same. The testimony of the Prophets. That's how Jesus himself understood and came to confirm down to the letter in Mat.5:17-19 where he rephrases "The Law and the Testimony" into "The Law and the Prophets." I see you here implying a NEW testimony with the intent to insert the NT. It does not stick. Jesus never even dreamed that the NT would ever rise. Your purpose here is akin to the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Nice try?

You now have the Pentateuch (books of Moses) written some 600+ years after Jacob given not to Moses on the mountain, but to Abraham? He should have mentioned this.

But try to stay on task. I am not suggesting a Pauline anything. I swear, I don't even know the girl. It is Isaiah (conveniently in the book of Isaiah) who is stating (not suggesting) that his own words (received from God) are a new testimony at that time. Isaiah is equivalent to Jesus (God is salvation) and also Immanuel (god with us)--- unless you think that the Spirit who fills the prophets is someone other than God?

"Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen..." Testify to the things I am showing you and all I am telling you. Write it down... The book of Isaiah was their new testimony. Wasn't this great prophet also a great lawbreaker?

[regeneratia]

I think truth is like a fauceted gem. Depending on what position you are to it, you get a different face/faucet. But all those faces or faucets reflect an different and real aspect of the gem. You must always remind yourself that you are seeing an abstraction of that gem, if you view it from one angle.

Edited November 2, 2013 by regeneratia

[Ben Masada]

Why should one random person who apparently went to Israel affect my faith? If you're as dishonest with her as you've been with me and this site it's not surprising she was left in tears, and not surprising why she didn't keep in contact. I know a little of how she feels.

Well, she was in my own country preaching the same idolatry that Paul was preaching at his time and almost got killed. At least I fought her back with a powerful argument that she could not refute but with all the respect and courtesy I could render. There was no dishonesty and there is not today and here with you as I document my assertions thoroughly in both the Tanach and in the NT. IMHO, she was terribly disappointed to see going down the drain so many years of illusions.

[Ben Masada]

You are both right and wrong. I didn't, in the post of mine you quoted, actually state "the Truth Jesus believed is the same Truth promoted by the Jewish scriptures". What I stated is the Truth Jesus believed has the same quality as the Truth promoted by the Jewish scriptures - i.e. a Truth based purely on personal experience and opinion. Not an objective or absolute Truth, but a personal and subjective truth.

I have a mixed opinion as to whether Jesus believed the "Truth" as set out in Jewish scripture. I suspect he believed the meaning of it, but not the letter of it - and this was his dispute with the Jewish authority of the time and this is what caused the schism in Judaism leading to the birth of Christianity. What you call "Pauline replacement theology" is not exactly a replacement of Judaism, but an attempt to refocus back to the meaning of the Law, and not focus on the letter of it as the Jewish authority then, and since, has been prone to.

So you suspect that Jesus believed the meaning of the Truth but not the letter of it. In that case I suggest that you read Matthew 5:17-19 when he rather went down to the letter of the Law as necessary to observe and to teach by all to be worth the Kingdom of God. Besides, in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus he made the punch line to be that the only way to escape hell is to listen to "Moses" which between parenthesis means the Law. Quite literal he was!

I do not wonder why you cannot see Replacement Theology in the gospel of Paul when he made it very clear that with Jesus the Jewish Priesthood was replaced which automatically meant also a change of the Law. Let alone that the Jewish Covenant was replaced by a much better one guaranteed by Jesus. Read Hebrews 7:12,22. Of course, no need to mention that this his arrogance worked only among Christians as Judaism still thrives. Anyway it has caused many Jews to deflect Judaism for the things of Christianity.

[Ben Masada]

The laws have to go through a middle man. Human interpretation................. Do you mean "Jesus" the way the Roman progandists spread a story about him??????? Paul was interpreting his encounter with the unknown light and later embellished.

Yes, "and later embellished" into Replacement Theology.

[Ben Masada]

Nice try?

You now have the Pentateuch (books of Moses) written some 600+ years after Jacob given not to Moses on the mountain, but to Abraham? He should have mentioned this.

But try to stay on task. I am not suggesting a Pauline anything. I swear, I don't even know the girl. It is Isaiah (conveniently in the book of Isaiah) who is stating (not suggesting) that his own words (received from God) are a new testimony at that time. Isaiah is equivalent to Jesus (God is salvation) and also Immanuel (god with us)--- unless you think that the Spirit who fills the prophets is someone other than God?

"Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen..." Testify to the things I am showing you and all I am telling you. Write it down... The book of Isaiah was their new testimony. Wasn't this great prophet also a great lawbreaker?

No, Isaiah was no lawbreaker. On the contrary, he rather composed the method to test those who claim to teach the Truth. (Isaiah 8:20) Only Christian preconceived notions dare to plagiarize the Tanach to claim that Isaiah was a facsimile to Jesus. By the way, Isaiah made no secret or mystery about Immanuel as he identified him by name with being Judah, the People and not an individual. Read Isaiah 8:8. "Thy Land, Immanuel." Who was in the Land when Israel was removed for good to Assyria? Judah.Therefore Immanuel is Judah the Jewish People. At least, I have a quote to prove what I am saying. What do you have to prove your assertion that Jesus was the one? Nothing but a Christian gospel that Jesus never dreamed would ever rise. Now, can you see what I mean by Christian preconceived notions?