Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    	Jesus is the truth, the life and the (only) way...
    
    	_ed-

    .1     No, the *essence* of Jesus, the Spirit/Light of God -- not 
           Jesus the "person" -- is the truth, the way, and the life.
    
    Paul
    

    Re.1
      
    Ed:

           What does that statement you have entered mean ?
          
           I am serious. As it stands I find it quite meaningless.


                                                               Mike

Truth?  It has been my experience that the most universal realities tend
toward the subjective realities; suffering, the sensation of laughter, hunger
and other yearnings, the sensation of rhythm and dance, feelings of desire,
feelings of isolation.

I don't believe this is what Pilate was asking though.

I believe Pilate was asking a philosophical question to which he believed
no answer genuinely existed.

Richard

    Interesting comment, Richard, about subjective realities.  I often feel
    that way myself; that is why I often find that art and storytelling
    have great value for me in my own explorations of life's meaning.  But
    I have to admit that I am also drawn to metaphysics; I can't help but
    ask myself the eternal questions.  As Ivan Karamazov told his brother
    at one point, "We in our green youth have to settle the eternal
    questions first of all."

    I also think that "What is truth" is related to a related, but distinct
    question:  "What is true?"   The answer to the former can tell us *why*
    we believe in our answer to the second question.  But the answer to the
    second one does not really answer the first one.  The distinction is
    one of epistemology versus ontology.

    Regarding Pilate's question, I don't have a concordance, but I was only
    able to find a reference Pilate's question in one of the Gospels
    (John).  The context of his question is as follows:

        [Pilate asked Jesus:]  "Are you King of the Jews?"  Jesus answered,
        "Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?" 
        Pilate replied, "I am not a Jew, an I?  Your own nation and the
        chief priests have handed you over to me.  What have you done?" 
        Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world, my followers
        would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. 
        But as it is, my kingdom is not from here."  Pilate asked him, "So
        you are a king?"  Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king.  For
        this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to
        the truth.  Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." 
        Pilate asked him, "What is truth?"

    Pilate does not wait for an answer.  He leaves Jesus and announces that
    "I find no case against him."  The question appears to have been
    rhetorical.  Perhaps he was less interested in the broadly philosophical
    responses Jesus gave to his questions than in the practical affairs of
    day to day life.  Perhaps he felt that Jesus's comments had no
    relevance to him.  And yet the consequences of his eminent practicality
    were to absolve himself from the moral implications of his actions;
    according to John, he repeatedly insisted that he had no reason to
    execute Jesus, but in the end he succumbed to political expediency and
    turned him over for punishment.  The irony of his caving in to what he
    knew not to be true seems to have been his own way of answering his
    rhetorical question.

    -- Mike

    Whether or not Jesus is "the" truth, I think that Pilate's question
    (what is truth, minus a definite article) is a distinct (and rather
    philosphical) question in and of itself.
    
    -- Mike

    re  .7
    
    How do you define "relationship"?
    
    And with whom or what?  With Jesus the person?  If so, why does Jesus
    say, "...the works that I speak unto you I speak not of *myself*,  but
    the father that dwells in me, he does the works..."
    
    If it is not Jesus *himself*, then what is it we are supposed to have
    a "relationship" with?  That which dwells in Jesus?  If so, what 
    exactly is that?  A personality?  A spirit?  An energy?  Is it possible
    that when Jesus said *I* am the way, truth, life, he really meant
    that which dwells inside, as opposed to the conscious personhood/personality
    of Jesus or personhood/personality of anything else, for that matter?  
    He calls that which dwells inside the "father."  Again, how do you 
    define that which constitutes "father"?
    
    Paul
     

re Note 324.7 by CSC32::LECOMPTE:

>     	He is the TRUTH:
>     		Truth is NOT relative it is eternal.  Real truths 
>     		do not change.*  Truth is NOT situational.
  
        There is at least one more thing to be learned from this
        teaching of Jesus:  truth is not a verbal statement, a
        proposition adequately expressed in words.

        Bob
        ---
        * I find it hard to accept "real truths do not change"
        without qualification.  Jesus, wholly human, is making the
        statement "I am ... the truth".  Real human beings change,
        change a great deal as they live.  Only dead people don't
        change.  In fact, Jesus may be saying something quite
        opposite traditional views of God and truth:  whatever God
        is, is true, and this cannot be adequately encompassed by any
        other expression than the being of God alone.

	If only Pilate had waited for an answer!  


	Joe

    Regarding Bob's comments on truths changing, perhaps the the
    changeability of truths depends on whether what you refer to is
    abstract or concrete; and perhaps it is both the abstract *and* the
    concrete that together define reality.  That which is concrete clearly
    changes; the concrete world is characterized by process and contingency. 
    That which is abstract does not change, however, and is therefore
    necessary rather than contingent.

    What we can say about God is that he/she is both abstract *and*
    concrete.  God's abstract qualities are his eternal attributes (his
    goodness, his love, his justice, etc.); but if you believe that God is
    not indifferent to the world, but rather responds to it, then God also
    has a concrete nature that represents his contingent responsiveness to
    the world.  When God shares in our joys and our sorrows, God's perfect
    knowledge records, and his perfect compassion responds to, that which is
    contingent, and therefore what might not have been (because we
    constituents of the universe have free will).

    Thus, I believe, God has both an unchanging *and* a changing nature. 
    Anselm and Aquinas believed that a perfect God must be unchanging in
    all aspects, and this led them to conclude that God cannot respond to
    the world; for the response would depend on the contingent events that
    occur.  They thus believed that God is therefore indifferent to the
    world (he only *seems* to be compassionate, in other words).  I believe
    that Aquinas and Anselm were wrong, and that instead it makes the most
    sense to think of God as having both necessary and contingent
    attributes, and both an abstract and a concrete nature.

    -- Mike

	re.9

	The Father is in the Son, the Son's the Spirit now.

	This is the Triune God. You will never figure Him out, but once 
you experience this magnificent One, then you will know truth.

Ace

    
    ...and the Truth will set you free!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

                         "Coal is black."

                         "Coal is not black"

     Both statements are true, but they contradict each other. 
     Such is the nature of truth.


                                                               Mike

re.15

	Cindy,

	Well, I didn't forget actually, I just didn't remember. 8*)

	But you remembered, and nice that you did and nice that you posted it!

Ace

    RE: 2
    
>    .1     No, the *essence* of Jesus, the Spirit/Light of God -- not 
>           Jesus the "person" -- is the truth, the way, and the life.
    
    I agree with you there.  John 1: 1-9, tells of that "essence" which
    "became flesh and dwelt among us" and I believe Jesus, the man is
    speaking of himself "the Essence" whenever he says things that upset
    the carnal minded.
    
    Playtoe

    Recent polls of Americans shows that 75% no longer believe in absolute
    truth.  Even a poll of those who called themselves Christians stated
    that 62% do not believe in absolute truth.
    
    Do you believe in absolute or situational truth?

    Hey, if you can't believe the authority of others, whom can
    you trust?  :-)

    There's one reality, one truth.  But the number of ways that
    we can look at/perceive that truth is unlimited.

    Knowledge of the *WHOLE* truth is unnecessary for deliverence/
    salavation/whatever.

    Tom

 Z    There's one reality, one truth.  But the number of ways that
 Z    we can look at/perceive that truth is unlimited.
    
    Truth - George Bush hates Broccoli.
    
    False - George Bush hates green vegetables.
    
    The actual falsehood has an element of truth in it because George hates
    certain green vegetables.
    
    You are trying to make scripture a subjective argument similar to the
    second George Bush example.  It is easier to do, doesn't hurt anybody,
    and makes everything inclusive.  Jesus provided us more with the
    concrete than the abstract, and regardless of how hard you try in life
    to thwart it off, it will never go away, because God defines eternal
    life in an absolute way through an absolute methodology.
    
    -Jack

>    You are trying to make scripture a subjective argument similar to the
>    second George Bush example.  It is easier to do, doesn't hurt anybody,
>    and makes everything inclusive.  Jesus provided us more with the
>    concrete than the abstract, and regardless of how hard you try in life
>    to thwart it off, it will never go away, because God defines eternal
>    life in an absolute way through an absolute methodology.

    I disagree.  And had really better get back to work....

 ZZ    I disagree.  And had really better get back to work....
    
    Sorry to hear that.  I'm sales coded and the job comes natural to me so
    I don't have to exert full effort! :-)

    My opinion:  God is absolute Truth.  You can't believe in Him without
    believing in absolute truth.  This is probably the root of the problems
    facing society and the church.  When people who call themselves
    Christians don't even support absolute truth, you can see why the
    church has been so ineffective lately.
    
    Mike

    Absolute truth is an ideal!  An ideal which is not present in physical
    reality!  An ideal beyond physical reality.
    
    All human perception of truth is situational.
    
    The Bible  contains one of the greatest situational ethicists of all
    time
    
    The Apostle Paul

    Exactly!  But when is born again, seal with the Holy Spirit, and
    baptized in the Holy Spirit, spiritual discernment through the Holy
    Spirit enables the believer the understand absolute truth.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    read 1 Corinthian 13 again.
    
    "Now we see in the mirror dimly but then face to face"
    
    That does not say the believer understands absolute truth.  It implies
    that the believer glimpses the truth and understands it dimly, but
    directly.
    
                                    Patricia

    Patricia, I read that this morning as part of my devotions.
    
    "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know
    inpart, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully
    known."
    
    This is in reference to the "perfect" and their revelation to believers
    as discussed within the context of chapters 12 and 13.
    
    A more appropriate passage for what I think you want is in 
    1 Corinthians 2:14-16 (NAS).
    
    "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for
    they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because
    they are spiritually appraised.
    But he who is a spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is
    appraised by no man.
    For 'Who has Known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him?'
    But we have the mind of Christ."

Mike,
    
    I love 1 Corinthian 2.  It is the cornerstone of my beliefs about the
    Holy Spirit.    You need more than the last couple of verses to fully
    appreciate the chapter though.  It is Gems like this that make Paul
    such a wonderful theologian.  A human theologian, but a wonderful
    one even with his human flaws.
        
    
                             The Bible Gateway
                       1 Corinthians 2 (English-RSV)

7    But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed
     before the ages for our glorification.
8    None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they
     would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9    But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the
     heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
10   God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches
     everything, even the depths of God.
11   For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man
     which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except
     the Spirit of God.
12   Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which
     is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
13   And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by
     the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the
     Spirit.
14   The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God,
     for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them
     because they are spiritually discerned.
15   The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no
     one.
16   "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we
     have the mind of Christ.
    

    I didn't read it all, but I think the RSV's rendition of verse 14 is
    just awful.  They completely altered the meaning of the text by inserting 
    the word "gifts."

    Mike

>They completely altered the meaning of the text by inserting 
>the word "gifts."

Inserting?

In the KJV and NIV it's "things" rather than "gifts".

No insertion; not necessarily a change of meaning.

/john

    changes the whole meaning.  instead of anything regarding the Spirit,
    it is gifts only.  According to Strong's, the word isn't even in the 
    original language (things is implied).  Same thing happens in 1
    Corinthians 12:1.  The word gifts isn't even in the original language. 
    It should say things just as it should in 2:14.