Can Truth Be Known? How

[Fervent]

I'm sorry you were misled by one statement.

The title is Can Truth Be Known? How
The subject matter is what many philosophers debate for centuries, and never come to a conclusion.... which is, Can Truth Be Known? How

The debate isn't just can truth be known, but to what extent and through what method.

The question - As a Christian, how does one determine what is truth? is to hear from all who identify as Christian, how they would answer the question.

There's so much loaded in this question that it would take volumes upon volumes to answer. Is personal identity the sole criteria? Or are we limiting it to a particular theological bent?

The body of the OP does not focus on a Christian having the truth, but rather, persons who did not have the truth, finding it... and how.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Seems viciously circular

 

[concretecamper]

That not the ring of truth and I did not have that in mind

I'm sorry, I can only respond to what you post, not what you think.

 

[timothyu]

Jesus said His Church would be built upon the rock solid foundation of God's truth. Man, of course, has other ideas as they built/build their own churches.

 

[Clare73]

I think you're missing the point. If someone has God, then God will lead/guide them. Since Jesus is the Shepard and we form our covenant with him, then we trust in his guidance. Can God use people and scripture to back up the truth? Yes, but without God's guidance, we can fall way off the road. Jesus is the "way, the truth and the light", all you technically need is God and he will guide/direct. When you start adding other things as a "requirement", you're essentially saying God can't guide correctly to truth without other stuff. If he really needs to, he'll show up himself. Loads of testimonies of God showing up in dreams and such, for people in other religions or even atheists. All you NEED is God, but scripture does help. As I said, it's an aid, but it shouldn't ever replace your walk/relationship with him on a personal basis.

The word of God is more than an "aid," it is
the source of spiritual regeneration (1 Pe 1:23),
spirit and life (Jn 6:63),
living and active. . .dividing soul and spirit. . .judging thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Heb 4:12).

 

[CoreyD]

The bible is only as good as our relationship with Jesus is.

Is this written anywhere in the scriptures? No?
Then it is your personal belief.

Contrary to that personal belief...
Acts 14:1
At Iconium, Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue, where they spoke so well that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed.

Acts 17:2
2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he declared.
4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few leading women.

What a contrast to the multitudes of Jews who did have a relationship with God, but of whom the scriptures said... But as for Israel he says: “All day long I have held out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” Romans 10:21

This, after it was said...
Romans 10:20
And Isaiah is very bold and says: "I was found by those not seeking Me; I became manifest to those not inquiring after Me."

Not seeking God? That's pretty far from God, isn't it.... and yet, they found the truth. How?
Romans 10:18
But I ask, did they not hear? Indeed: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."

They heard.
What did they hear?
The message of the good news that was preached by those sent out.

Again...
Romans 10:13-15
13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How then can they call on the One in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach?
15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

It was the message from the scriptures they heard.
That's why they were recorded, and preserved today... so that people can hear - whether heathen, or miserably lost.
Jesus set the example, when he repeatedly used the scriptures in his ministry... Even to the Devil, he said, "It is written."
The apostles followed suit, and used the scriptures, both to Jews and Greeks.

One cannot get close to God without the scriptures, so if it depends on how close one is to God, that person who is far from God would be completely hopeless when he is reading and studying the Bible.
However, since the Bible does not support the notion that God pours his spirit on the lost one, so that he somehow gets close to God, but rather, he uses his followers whom he guides by spirit, to teach such individuals (Acts 8::26-40), they can develop a relationship with God, and draw close to him, as they learn the truth... from the scriptures.

It seems you are moving the goalposts somewhat. Unbelievers are unable to know truth apart from GOD revealing it to them. Same way with believers.

I'm not going to ask how God reveals it to them, since that question seems to be the most difficult for those of you posting against the OP.
The OP as well as my other posts, makes it clear that God reveals the truth to unbelievers, by means of his followers who use the scriptures skillfully like Paul did, in imitation of the master apostle, Jesus Christ.

It really is a shame that the masses identifying as Christian, do not follow their example... One reason Christianity of this world is so divided.
However, the scriptures do say that this will be the case, and Jesus will condemn all who are saying Lord Lord, but not doing what he commanded. Matthew 7:21-23
Luke 6:46

Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not do what I say?​

I have no need for an argument on here anymore, good day.

No need to argue, when we can discuss.
Well goodbye to you, as well.
Pretty acid in here. I wonder why... I must have done a very bad thing.

Considering the fact that I am not tickling itching ears, that certainly is a reason to hate me, since the religious people of Jesus day hated Jesus for that same reason, and Jesus was not going to tell people what they want to hear, nor agree with them on what was false.
Neither am I. I welcome hatred for speaking the truth.
Luke 6:22. 23

Blessed are you when the people hate you, and when they exclude you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice on that day and jump for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For their fathers used to treat the prophets the same way.​

Now, I feel like Jeremiah, when he was sent to fellow Jews with a message they did not want to hear.

 

[CoreyD]

'The debate isn't just can truth be known, but to what extent and through what method.

To what extent can truth be known?
No. That is not part of the OP. I'm not sure where you read that.
The OP refers only to the truth Jesus refers to. John 17:17

There's so much loaded in this question that it would take volumes upon volumes to answer. Is personal identity the sole criteria? Or are we limiting it to a particular theological bent?

Sorry. In trying to simplify what, to my mind was a simple question, I may have complicated it.
So, someone asks you how does one determine what is the truth? I left out "the". Pardon me.
How would you answer the question.

Seems viciously circular

The body of the OP does not focus on a Christian having the truth, but rather, persons who did not have the truth, finding it... and how. is circular?
Do you mind saying how it's circular?

 

[Fervent]

To what extent can truth be known?
No. That is not part of the OP. I'm not sure where you read that.
The OP refers only to the truth Jesus refers to. John 17:17

The full scope of the philosophical question is not restricted by your OP.

Sorry. In trying to simplify what, to my mind was a simple question, I may have complicated it.
So, someone asks you how does one determine what is the truth? I left out "the". Pardon me.
How would you answer the question.

It's not a missing "the", it's the wheel that is created. If you don't know what the truth is, nor the appropriate method for making the identification, how do you go about answering either question?

The body of the OP does not focus on a Christian having the truth, but rather, persons who did not have the truth, finding it... and how. is circular?
Do you mind saying how it's circular?

The circularity is in the claimed act of finding it, particularly in the context of John 17:17. It seems you're not asking a question for the sake of exploration, but to launch off into pontification.

 

[CoreyD]

I'm sorry, I can only respond to what you post, not what you think.

I have not asked you to respond to what I think.
Responding to what I said is most welcomed.
What did I say the ring of truth refers to, in post #39, and post #56?

 

[timothyu]

The truth the Jews did not want to hear was that they had failed the mission the Father had given the house of Israel, where it was being shown by Paul, the 12, and the 70 sent to the 70 nations under control of the elohim, that Jesus had accomplished what they could not. Pride overcame their fall. They were failed servants even though they like Christians today, felt boastful about the relationship to the Father.

 

[CoreyD]

The full scope of the philosophical question is not restricted by your OP.

Well you just struck the cord that inspired the OP - the cord that asserts the truth cannot objectively be presented by any of us, but "it's only another opinion".
The OP is created for the purpose of laying that satanic lie to rest.
The question is not philosophical at all.

To make such a claim is to diminish or invalidate Jesus' words at John 4:23, 24; John 17:17... as well as a few other texts, including 1 Timothy 2::3, 4.

It's not a missing "the", it's the wheel that is created. If you don't know what the truth is, nor the appropriate method for making the identification, how do you go about answering either question?

It's simple.
You tell the person asking, Christians don't know what truth is.
Not only would you give them mixed emotions - whether to be puzzled or laugh, but you would have added to the confusion and perhaps the meaninglessness of Christianity today.

Do Jesus' followers know the truth?
Can Jesus' followers know the appropriate method for making the identification?
Can Jesus' followers answer the question?

The circularity is in the claimed act of finding it, particularly in the context of John 17:17. It seems you're not asking a question for the sake of exploration, but to launch off into pontification.

From your response and another poster, it seems the OP isn't being read in full, or the comments aren't being connected, or linked to each other. Or something...

Acts 17:1-4, 10-12
It was Paul's custom, to reason with people from the Scriptures; explaining and proving by giving evidence of what was true. Acts 17:2, 3
The result:
Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few leading women. Acts 17:4

Those in Berea examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.
The scriptures were what revealed truth to them. They could compare what Paul said, with the scriptures to see if what Paul said was in line with truth.
The scriptures were like a measuring rule.

Did the Bereans find the truth?
Was it clearly outlined in the OP what method led to their finding it?
It wasn't John 17:17, which says what the truth is.

 

[Fervent]

Well you just struck the cord that inspired the OP - the cord that asserts the truth cannot objectively be presented by any of us, but "it's only another opinion".
The OP is created for the purpose of laying that satanic lie to rest.
The question is not philosophical at all.

To make such a claim is to diminish or invalidate Jesus' words at John 4:23, 24; John 17:17... as well as a few other texts, including 1 Timothy 2::3, 4.

Pressing the question is not the same as making a claim.

It's simple.
You tell the person asking, Christians don't know what truth is.
Now only would you give them mixed emotions - whether to be puzzled or laugh, but you would have added to the confusion and perhaps the meaninglessness of Christianity today.

A dash of humility goes a long way.

Do Jesus' followers know the truth?

The question isn't do, but how?

Can Jesus' followers know the appropriate method for making the identification?

You tell me

Can Jesus' followers answer the question?

It takes engaging with it to make a determination

From your response and another poster, it seems the OP isn't being read in full, or the comments aren't being connected, or linked to each other. Or something...

the thread had been ongoing for a while when I jumped in, so my response wasn't directly to the OP

Acts 17:1-4, 10-12
It was Paul's custom, to reason with people from the Scriptures; explaining and proving by giving evidence of what was true. Acts 17:2, 3
The result:
Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few leading women. Acts 17:4

Those in Berea examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.
The scriptures were what revealed truth to them. They could compare what Paul said, with the scriptures to see if what Paul said was in line with truth.
The scriptures were like a measuring rule.

Did the Bereans find the truth?
Was it clearly outlined in the OP what method led to their finding it?
It wasn't John 17:17, which says what the truth is.

This is exactly the circularity I was referring to

 

[CoreyD]

Pressing the question is not the same as making a claim.

Fervent said:
The full scope of the philosophical question is not restricted by your OP.

You were not claiming the question is a philosophical question?

A dash of humility goes a long way.

Suppose I came to your house and said, I am a jeweler, and you ask, what kind of jewelry I make, or sell.
If I said I don't know what jewelry is, nor how to identify jewelry, would you consider me humble?
Would you really consider me a jeweler?

The question isn't do, but how?

No. It's do, because if they do, then they know what the truth is.
If they do, and
Fervent said:
It's not a missing "the", it's the wheel that is created. If you don't know what the truth is, nor the appropriate method for making the identification, how do you go about answering either question?

Then, humility would lead one to one conclusion.
If Jesus' followers know the truth, and I don't know what the truth is, nor the appropriate method for making the identification, then I ....................
I know what I would say. What would you say.

You tell me

I did more than tell you all. I showed you all.
However, I can do it again, more thoroughly.

Jesus said at John 8:31, 32

“"If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples.. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set free you."

At Luke 24:27-31, after Jesus, beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, explained to two of his followers the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures, they said...

“Were our hearts not burning within us when He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

John 7:14, 15

Jesus went up into the temple and was teaching. Then the Jews were marveling, saying, "How does this one know such writings, not having studied?"

At Acts 17:2, we read...

And according to the custom with Paul, he went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures

On a occasion, when Paul and Silas were in Berea, teaching in a Synagogue of the Jews, and according to Acts 17:11, those listening

received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

Acts 18:24-28
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the Scriptures.
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord and was fervent in spirit. He spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
27 When Apollos resolved to cross over to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On his arrival, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.
28 For he powerfully refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

What Jesus taught was from the scriptures.
What Jesus' followers taught was from the scriptures.
Those who listened to, and accepted what they were taught, found the truth. How?
What is "the appropriate method for making the identification?"

The answer:
When one studies the scriptures with the help of those sent by God, the truth of the scriptures become clearly recognizable.
Being able to identify those sent by God, and doing so by means of the scriptures, which reveal the truth, is crucial.

Why it sounds circular, is, because both the message and the messenger work together... What the messenger says, agrees with the scriptures, and what he explains, he does, by using the scriptures. The scriptures provide the truth. The messenger "opens it up" for the listener.

All the scriptural examples above, harmonize with Acts 8:26-40; 2 Timothy 3:14-16
It's summed up by the apostle John in 1 John 4:6

We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. That is how we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception.

One cannot know the truth if they refuse to listen to the messengers of God, who guides them by means of the scriptures from where the truth is found. The messenger is the one Jesus leads by spirit. So, both the scriptures and the message by the one sent, are a product of holy spirit.
If you do not understand this, that's okay. I will understand.

It takes engaging with it to make a determination

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

the thread had been ongoing for a while when I jumped in, so my response wasn't directly to the OP

That's usually a problem.
Proverbs 18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears it - this is folly and disgrace to him.

This is exactly the circularity I was referring to

I'm not sure what "This" refers to.

 

[Zceptre]

That's usually a problem.
Proverbs 18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears it - this is folly and disgrace to him.

I don't see a problem, unless you are stating it is a problem for you. Brother Fervent seems par for the course so far, I would agree with him generally speaking on this.

Could you elaborate on where the problem is you are encountering?

It takes engaging with it to make a determination

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I'm going to take the liberty of making a guess here and say it looks as though Fervent is using the word "it" to refer to "the truth."

If that is the case, it makes perfect sense. He is responding to your OP according to your inquiry.

As a Christian, how does one determine what is truth?

If I were to answer this question I would have replied exactly, and I do mean exactly verbatim with this statement or something very close. Maybe it wouldn't be as concise and precise, but meaning-wise, exactly that point.

It takes engaging with it to make a determination

So this, essentially, is the short answer to your OP.


Correct me if I'm wrong Fervent

If it wasn't what Fervent meant, it is still what I would say. You have to engage with the truth to decide if it is the truth.

 

[Fervent]

Correct me if I'm wrong Fervent

No, you understood. There's a bit more, because the "it" was both the truth and the question of how we know it.

 

[CoreyD]

I don't see a problem, unless you are stating it is a problem for you. Brother Fervent seems par for the course so far, I would agree with him generally speaking on this.

The scriptures - God's inspired word says... Proverbs 18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears it - this is folly and disgrace to him.
You are saying it's not a problem to reply to a matter before hearing the facts?
God's word disagrees... and anyone else who agrees with you.

It has been repeatedly observed that when people jump into a conversation midway, they miss the context, and communication becomes problematic.
Jumping into a conversation midway without knowing the full context can lead to misunderstandings because you lack the necessary information to grasp the overall purpose or meaning of the discussion. When you enter a conversation late, you may understand individual words or sentences but miss the broader point, which increases the risk of misinterpreting facts or placing them in the wrong context. This is especially problematic when the information differs from your own perspective, as it can trigger competitive listening, where you focus on how the speaker is presenting their ideas rather than truly understanding them.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.

Could you elaborate on where the problem is you are encountering?

I'm not encountering a problem.
I'm pointing out why jumping into a conversation midway, having not heard the facts, is a problem.
You just demonstrated here, why it's a problem, by your asking me a question based on your interpretation of what I said, which does not have anything to do with what you think.

Do you see how misunderstandings are created, when one does what Proverbs 18:13 rightly advises against.
The scripture are always correct, and the wisdom of Solomon, in the book of Proverbs are tried and tested. It's God's wisdom, which we do well to listen to.

I'm going to take the liberty of making a guess here and say it looks as though Fervent is using the word "it" to refer to "the truth."

It takes engaging with the truth to make a determination of the truth?
That's even more difficult for me to understand what is meant, because I don't understand what is meant by "engaging with the truth", and I can't see how any engagement with the truth is necessary to determine it, or how it's even possible to engage with something if one doesn't even know what it is, or how to identify it.


Asking AI what does engaging with the truth mean?
Engaging with the truth means actively seeking and honestly confronting reality, not merely accepting beliefs based on emotion or personal preference. It involves a commitment to discerning what is accurate and factual, even when it is difficult or challenges one's own views, and requires a willingness to listen, question, and learn from others in good faith.
Source references 1 2 3

Is that what you meant?
That left me frowning, because having a commitment to discerning what is accurate and factual, even when it is difficult or challenges one's own views, is making an honest search for the truth.
So, how can someone who is searching for the truth, of which they do not know what it is, actually engage with the truth?
Perhaps you can explain that first.

If that is the case, it makes perfect sense. He is responding to your OP according to your inquiry.

Fervent said:

the thread had been ongoing for a while when I jumped in, so my response wasn't directly to the OP​

Are you saying @Fervent is responding to the OP?

If I were to answer this question I would have replied exactly, and I do mean exactly verbatim with this statement or something very close. Maybe it wouldn't be as concise and precise, but meaning-wise, exactly that point.

Can you specify what statement you are referring to?
There are a lot of statements in the posts. I am lost as to which you are speaking of.

So this, essentially, is the short answer to your OP.

It takes engaging with it to make a determination is the short answer to the OP?
Then please respond to comment three in this post.

Correct me if I'm wrong Fervent

If it wasn't what Fervent meant, it is still what I would say. You have to engage with the truth to decide if it is the truth.

Okay. Thank you.
Please see my response in the third comment in this post.

 

[Zceptre]

Do you see how misunderstandings are created, when one does what Proverbs 18:13 rightly advises against.
The scripture are always correct, and the wisdom of Solomon, in the book of Proverbs are tried and tested. It's God's wisdom, which we do well to listen to.

What I see is a person that doesn't like the particular kind of responses he would like to receive. Conversations are not mathematical equations and people are not machines that are supposed to spit out desired conclusions to situational input. The Bible says we are brothers and sisters and neighbors to interact with and love each other. (John 13:35)

I gave a cordial response and meant well and I don't know why it bothers you but I can try to elaborate. I simply have encountered Fervent enough that I think he was trying to offer you insight based on his own experience and wisdom and in my opinion the response I alluded to was a good response, even if it wasn't acceptable according to your personal expectations.

That's even more difficult for me to understand what is meant, because I don't understand what is meant by "engaging with the truth", and I can't see how any engagement with the truth is necessary to determine it, or how it's even possible to engage with something if one doesn't even know what it is, or how to identify it.

So to expand on the simple statement, Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6). God says in Jeremiah 29:13 that people will find Him when they seek Him with all their heart, and if God the Son is "truth" then seeking the truth leads one to finding Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is also the Word of God (John 1:1) and so to "engage with the truth" would be to interact with the Scriptures.

If we are to be the Bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2) then this whole ordeal is about a relationship. To have a relationship you have to meet and engage with the person in conversation, you have to learn of them, get to know them, and find out who they are. If Christ is the Word of God, and He is also the truth, then to get to know Him is to interact with the Scriptures.

In other words, you can't know the truth anymore than you know a person you haven't met if you haven't met the truth, or engaged with it personally. Just like you didn't know me at all before this encounter, people cannot know the truth until they interact with it, just like you would not have known me if you had not met and interacted with me on this forum. If someone had asked you about me before this conversation, the best response you would have is "I don't know who that is or if he even exists."

A person not knowing that Christ is the truth doesn't mean that Christ isn't the truth, it simply means that person is unaware of something, just like children are unaware of danger at times even if it is right next to them on the playground or a snake is laying in the grass hidden. The truth is in the world, but it does not mean people are aware of it and they can't know it is the truth until they experience it for themselves, just like you now have an experience with conversing with me and know I'm real. Just because you didn't know who I was before you met me, did not make me any less real and it also didn't give you a way to identify me. Only meeting the truth (Christ) gives someone a way to identify the truth, otherwise they are still in the stage of needing to "seek" the truth (Jeremiah 29:13 - Matthew 7:7) because they haven't found it yet.

Fervent said:
the thread had been ongoing for a while when I jumped in, so my response wasn't directly to the OPAre you saying @Fervent is responding to the OP?

I'm saying here that Fervent's particular statement was a response to the OP. Fervent was trying to tell you that not everything he said was a direct response to the OP. He is trying to fill in dark areas around the core line of questioning and was trying to offer other insights that were brought up in the conversation. Responding to the OP is good, but when a conversation is being held by a group of people, the OP isn't addressed in every single statement, otherwise the subject would be extremely limited and confined and understanding is then lost and people cannot use analogies or examples. Fervent is a deep thinker and was simply telling you that he was adding to the conversation and trying to make it clear to you that those statements were not directly connected to the OP. They were indirectly connected being related to the subject and responses to other statements in the conversation.

Can you specify what statement you are referring to?
There are a lot of statements in the posts. I am lost as to which you are speaking of.

Sure.

It takes engaging with it to make a determination

This is the statement I'm referring to. He is saying "It takes engaging with the truth to make a determination."

In other words, you can't know who or what something is until you interact with it. You can't tell a court I'm a trustworthy person until you have met me and known me for some amount of time. You can't identify the truth, until you experience the truth, otherwise you are still searching and have not found it yet and simply "don't know," just like you didn't know me before this encounter with me.

 

[CoreyD]

What I see is a person that doesn't like the particular kind of responses he would like to receive. Conversations are not mathematical equations and people are not machines that are supposed to spit out desired conclusions to situational input. The Bible says we are brothers and sisters and neighbors to interact with and love each other. (John 13:35)

Why are you judging me, and are you not attacking the poster rather than addressing the post?
Is that how one is to be brothers and sisters and neighbors to interact with, and love each other?

I gave a cordial response and meant well and I don't know why it bothers you but I can try to elaborate. I simply have encountered Fervent enough that I think he was trying to offer you insight based on his own experience and wisdom and in my opinion the response I alluded to was a good response, even if it wasn't acceptable according to your personal expectations.

Do you realize you are judging me... and wrongfully at that?
Did I tell you that your response bothers me, or did you get that from reading my heart?

So to expand on the simple statement, Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6). God says in Jeremiah 29:13 that people will find Him when they seek Him with all their heart, and if God the Son is "truth" then seeking the truth leads one to finding Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is also the Word of God (John 1:1) and so to "engage with the truth" would be to interact with the Scriptures.

Okay, so to clarify... Which of the following 11 statements is incorrect, if any?
You believe...

• When Jesus said, If you abide in my word, you will know the truth John 8:31, Jesus was saying, If you abide in my word, you will know me.
• When Jesus said, But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing John 8:40, Jesus was saying, But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you me that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.
• When Jesus said, But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me! Which of you can prove Me guilty of sin? If I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me? John 8:45, 46, Jesus was saying, because I speak me, you do not believe Me! If I speak me, why do you not believe Me?
• When Jesus said, Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth John 17:17, Jesus was saying, Sanctify them by me; Your word is me.
• When Jesus said, But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:23, 24, Jesus was saying, the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in me, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in me.
• When Jesus said, For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ John 1:17, Jesus was saying, For the Law was given through Moses; grace and me came through Jesus Christ.
• When Jesus said, For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth. Everyone being of the truth hears My voice." John 18:37, Jesus was saying, For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I may bear witness to me. Everyone being of me hears My voice."
• Romans 1:18 is saying The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress Jesus by their wickedness.
• Romans 1:25 is saying They exchanged Jesus of God for a lie...
• Galatians 2:5 is saying We did not give in to them for a moment, so that Jesus of the gospel would remain with you.
• Ephesians 4:21 is saying Jesus is in Jesus...

Also, I have two questions.

1. At John 8:47, Jesus said, The one who is from God listens to God’s words. This is why you don’t listen, because you are not from God.
   Did Jesus speak God's words? and what are these words... Are they words of truth, and did Jesus come to teach these?
   
2. At John 16:13, Jesus said, However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.
   The Spirit of truth will guide Jesus' followers into all truth. What is that truth?

If we are to be the Bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2) then this whole ordeal is about a relationship. To have a relationship you have to meet and engage with the person in conversation, you have to learn of them, get to know them, and find out who they are. If Christ is the Word of God, and He is also the truth, then to get to know Him is to interact with the Scriptures.

In other words, you can't know the truth anymore than you know a person you haven't met if you haven't met the truth, or engaged with it personally. Just like you didn't know me at all before this encounter, people cannot know the truth until they interact with it, just like you would not have known me if you had not met and interacted with me on this forum. If someone had asked you about me before this conversation, the best response you would have is "I don't know who that is or if he even exists."

A person not knowing that Christ is the truth doesn't mean that Christ isn't the truth, it simply means that person is unaware of something, just like children are unaware of danger at times even if it is right next to them on the playground or a snake is laying in the grass hidden. The truth is in the world, but it does not mean people are aware of it and they can't know it is the truth until they experience it for themselves, just like you now have an experience with conversing with me and know I'm real. Just because you didn't know who I was before you met me, did not make me any less real and it also didn't give you a way to identify me. Only meeting me gives someone a way to identify the truth, otherwise they are still in the stage of needing to "seek" the truth (Jeremiah 29:13 - Matthew 7:7) because they haven't found it yet.


I'm saying here that Fervent's particular statement was a response to the OP. Fervent was trying to tell you that not everything he said was a direct response to the OP. He is trying to fill in dark areas around the core line of questioning and was trying to offer other insights that were brought up in the conversation. Responding to the OP is good, but when a conversation is being held by a group of people, the OP isn't addressed in every single statement, otherwise the subject would be extremely limited and confined and understanding is then lost and people cannot use analogies or examples. Fervent is a deep thinker and was simply telling you that he was adding to the conversation and trying to make it clear to you that those statements were not directly connected to the OP. They were indirectly connected being related to the subject and responses to other statements in the conversation.

Thank you for your explanation.

Sure.


This is the statement I'm referring to. He is saying "It takes engaging with the truth to make a determination."

In other words, you can't know who or what something is until you interact with it. You can't tell a court I'm a trustworthy person until you have met me and known me for some amount of time. You can't identify the truth, until you experience the truth, otherwise you are still searching and have not found it yet and simply "don't know," just like you didn't know me before this encounter with me.

I'm searching for a 30.10-carat very light pink diamond that Bill Gates hid, and is offering the value of it to the person that finds it.
Do I need to interact with it, to know what it is? I don't, do I.

A guy was found a map in a sunken ship. The map had an X, and a note "Buried Treasure".
Does the guy have to interact with the treasure, to know what it is? No.
He certainly does not have to interact with it to determine how to find it.

The scriptures, and Jesus tells persons that God offers them the truth, which leads to everlasting life.
The man that understands this to be the truth that Jesus was anointed to come to earth and teach, wants to find that truth.
Does he need to interact with Jesus, in order to search for, and find that truth?

Not at all, because Jesus went back to heaven nearly 2,000 years ago, leaving his followers with this command...

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19, 20​

...and this prophecy...

This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14​

The man in search of the truth has a map - a guide to finding the truth.

The man that thinks Jesus is this truth... what is he looking for?

 

[Zceptre]

Why are you judging me, and are you not attacking the poster rather than addressing the post?

I think you are confused. I did no such thing. Also, I did address the post, twice.

Best regards.