This was the question asked of Jesus some 2000 years ago. It was in response to Jesus stating that he had come to bear witness of the truth. Earlier Jesus had stated that he, himself, is the truth.

This is a continuation of my recent blog about the meanings of words. Truth is one of those words. Of course, I am only speaking of English words. In other languages, there may not be a problem like in English.

The problem as I see it starts with defining truth as the confirmation of a fact. You see, I see the truth as an interpretation of a fact. The opposite of the truth is a lie. The opposite of a fact is fiction. Fiction isn't a lie, while a lie could be referred to as fiction.

The difference between fiction and lying is the intent. I am lying if my intent is to deceive. So, if I tell fiction for the purpose of deceiving, then my fiction is lying.

This applies to the truth and facts. Facts can be used to deceive. When they are, they are not the truth even though they are factual. Facts can be presented in such a way that they are lies. So, truth and facts are not the same thing.

We see facts used as lies in the media, advertising and when people talk to each other. A person will swear that something is the truth. It can actually be a fact. But, when that fact is representing a lie, it is not the truth.

Truth can be presented by facts or by fiction. A fiction story can result in the hearer understanding the truth of a matter. Presenting a line of facts can lead a person to a truthful conclusion. So, facts are not necessary to know or to find the truth.

My point in all this is to say that knowing a list of facts does not guarantee that we know the truth. It is the same as knowing a person. To know facts about the person is not knowing the person.

As an example, lets say that I went to the store with Clyde and bought some screws. When we returned home from our trip to the store, Clyde was approached by Edna. She asked him, "Did you pick up some milk at the store?" His answer, "They didn't have any milk," a fact. But it was also misleading. Since I experienced the facts with Clyde, I know the truth revealed by the facts. But those who only know the facts, don't know the truth.

If I read all I could about the President of the United States, I would have acquired a list of facts. But, without interacting with him in life, I won't know him. I could feel like I knew him after learning the facts. But, if I met him and lived life with him, I might find that I was seriously mistaken.

This applies to knowing God. Jesus came to bear witness to the truth. He claimed to actually be the truth. But, knowing facts about him, doesn't mean we know him. He is the truth and knowing facts about Jesus doesn't mean that we know the truth or that we know him. To know the truth and to know a person requires experiences that align with the facts. The resulting knowledge is the truth.

To know the truth about God is to know Jesus. Knowing the truth doesn't mean knowing facts. It means experiencing life with him. The facts are always there to read about and discuss. But the knowledge of the truth only comes as we involve our lives with his.

Take an Inexpensive Cruise Vacation Advertisement
Luxury Cruise Vacation Advertisement

Category: , | 5 Comments

5 comments to “What is truth?”

  1. I don't understand the Clyde example. Did the store have milk? And if it was misleading, how was it the truth?

  1. Would you agree that the more "facts" you have, the closer to the truth you can get? Like if Willie knew that Clyde and you had been at a hardware store that didn't carry milk, or that the store was temporarily out of milk, those additional facts would get Willie and Edna closer to the truth. I am also wondering if you are trying to determine the truth about a purely scientific or physical event, like, how that scratch got on my watch face, facts could get you to the truth. But if you wanted to get the truth of why that crime was committed and how it effected me, then you would need to get to know the people involved, not just the inanimate pieces of the puzzle.
    This post made me think of the story of Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman. He began to give her facts about himself and salvation, and then she began to know him. Then Jesus told her that true believers must worship him in spirit and in truth. So could that mean with at least some of the facts straight AND knowing who he is....?
    Soon the woman went and gave the facts to her friends and family. After that they spoke to him and this is the result: 'Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers.
    They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."
    So they got to a place of a personal relationship with Christ, but it started with her relaying relevant facts about him.

    Wondering what you think about that? Dale

  1. When you go to the store to buy some screws and you actually go to a hardware store, it won't have milk. His answer was factual. It wasn't truthful. Got carried away and wasn't careful with my example. I will change that now.

  1. Truth does involve facts. But that doesn't make facts truth. The same facts used to present truth could be used to present lies.
    You could probably guess that I would not be inclined to believe that the truth can be extrapolated completely from fact gathering. There always has to be interpretation of the facts. The interpretation would be assumed by some to be the truth that they were looking for while gathering the facts.

    But, as we all know, not all the facts will necessarily be gathered and interpretations are colored always by our prejudices.

    Even if Clyde wasn't intentionally misleading Edna by presenting the facts the way he did, it is her interpretation of the facts presented that brings her to an erroneous conclusion.

  1. Ahhh soooooo. Thank you for that clarification!

I appreciate your comments. Thank you.