The ultimate truth is that there is Truth

[az_4_faith]

The Holy Bible:

John 14:6: Jesus said to him (Thomas) “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.”

Jesus is Truth.

He was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. On the third day, He rose again.

He spent 40 days walking, talking, preaching, eating and teaching after His resurrection.

Eleven of His twelve apostles died horrific deaths rather than deny that they knew Jesus had resurrected and ascended into heaven before their very eyes.

He promised to send the Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Ten days after his ascension, the Holy Spirit, in a form as of tongues of fire descended upon the twelve and Mary, just as He had promised.

Many, many more gave testimony. Saint Paul received Jesus’ revelation in full while hearing Jesus’ voice. He turned from persecutor to persecuted for the faith.

That, my friends, is Truth.

No one else’s god has mingled IN THE FLESH with their subjects or creation or died for them or resurrected and ascended into heaven. And no one else’s god has loved human beings with a burning love like Christ has.

That is TRUTH.

 

[cheddarsox]

I believe that there is Ultimate Truth, but that we can’t even know it, or how close we come to knowing it. It is bigger than us. We are too limited to know it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe that there is Ultimate Truth, but that we can’t even know it, or how close we come to knowing it. It is bigger than us. We are too limited to know it.

Hi
I don’t agree with you. If Moses could know the truth, by **certainty of experience **for for that matter any ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH, then through their truthful witnessing, we could know the truth. The doors of revelation are not closed by GodAllahYHWH, as it is one of His attributes that he converses with the God-Fearing/Loving person from those he chooses.
Thanks

The Word of GodAllahYHWH is and had been the first/authentic and primary source of human knowledge whether revealed on Moses/Jesus/Muhammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; it is of itself complete and without doubt and requires no external witnessing.

 

[rossum]

Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

No, Jesus did not say that. Jesus said something in (probably) Aramaic. Sixty or so years later John wrote his memory of those words down in Greek. We do not have John’s original manuscript, all we have is a copy of a copy of a copy etc. of John’s Greek. The words you wrote are a printing of a translation of a copy (many times removed) of John’s translation into Greek of his memory of Jesus’ original Aramaic into English.

If you want to show me that those words are Ultimate Truth, then you need to show me that John’s memory was absolutely correct, John’s translation into Greek was absolutely correct, all the copyists work was absolutely correct, all the translator’s work was absolutely correct and all the printer’s work was absolutely correct. If any of the steps in the chain was not absolutely correct then those words cannot be ultimate truth.

We know that copyists can make mistakes - for instance there are different endings to Mark, at 18:8, 18:9, 18:19 (with or without verse 18:9) and others with extra material after verse 14.

We know that translations can be wrong. There are words in the Bible that we do not know the meaning of, though we can make reasonable guesses: see The Unicorn for one example. However reasonable, a guess cannot give us 100% certainty, and so cannot be the ultimate truth.

Even if we know all the words, a translator needs to be able to translate idioms correctly. Knowing that a “red herring” is a pink fish does not help us with the real meaning of the words.

We know that printers can make mistakes:The “Wicked Bible” of 1631 contained the words, “Thou shalt commit adultery” in Exodus 20:14, omitting the vital “not.” The “Unrighteous Bible” of 1653 used the words, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6:9), again deleting the all-important “not.” A rather bizarre footnote to I Peter 3:7 appears in the “Wife Beater Bible” of 1549. It says, “And if she be not obediente and healpeful unto hym; endevoureth to beate the fere of God into her heade, that thereby she may be compelled to learne her dutye and do it.” Among the typos that slipped by the proofreader in early Bibles was the one in a 1717 Bible which contains a heading for Luke, chapter 20, which reads, “The Parable of the Vinegar,” (instead of “Vineyard”). Another amusing one is to be found in the 1806 Bible containing a misprint in Ezekiel 47:10 which reads, “that fishes (instead of “fishers”) shall stand,” giving it the designation of the “Standing Fishes Bible.”

Source: Bible Misprints

The words you quote cannot be the ultimate truth unless you can show that these errors, examples of which can be found in the Bible, have not happened in that particular passage.

As a Buddhist, what are your thoughts about Jesus’ claim to be God Himself?

There are tens of thousands of gods in the Buddhist scriptures, some of whom appeared in the material world. A god in the material world is not impossible. None of the gods can get me to nirvana. I wish Jesus well on his own path to nirvana and I shall follow mine as best I can.

rossum

 

[christcnection1]

No, Jesus did not say that. Jesus said something in (probably) Aramaic.

To say that Jesus did not say that is also speculation. To suggest that one cannot reasonably believe one can embrace a copy of a copy of a manuscipt, is a bunch of nonsense. Take the Dead Sea Scroll for example. This is primarily from the book of Isaiah (much older than the NT) and are astoundingly in line with today’s translation.

All things the considered, the evidence is very strong for our position; however, we are still entering the realm of faith. More brilliant and educated people than both of us combined has subcribed to Christianity.

If you want to show me that those words are Ultimate Truth

I didn’t say those words are the ultimate truth; I said that Jesus Christ Himself is ultimate truth. Do you understand the difference?

We know that translations can be wrong.

I agree. Likewise, Buddhist writings can also be wrong. The key is “can be,” though I think there is enormous reason to suggest that the Bible is not.

The words you quote cannot be the ultimate truth unless you can show that these errors, examples of which can be found in the Bible, have not happened in that particular passage.

I never said these words are the ultimate truth. However, I believe these words are inspired and point to the ultimate truth: Jesus Christ.

Pertaining to any supposed errors, there are individuals far more learned than myself that can deal with these issues. I have yet to come across any “contradiction” in the Bible that could not be easily explained.

There are tens of thousands of gods in the Buddhist scriptures, some of whom appeared in the material world. A god in the material world is not impossible. None of the gods can get me to nirvana. I wish Jesus well on his own path to nirvana and I shall follow mine as best I can.

Jesus Christ, Mary, the Angels, and many Saints have also appeared in hundreds of instances, but we believe there in only one true God. Likewise, we believe that Satan himself desires to be God, and pretends to be “an angel of light,” as the scriptures say.

Furthermore, we have countless other miracles which affirm our position. (Eucharistic Miracles, Healings, Levitation, Bilocation, Mystical Intuition, Power to raise the dead and heal the sick, Exorcism of demons, Authority to control Nature, on and on and on…)

I am usually a laid back and very diplomatic when it comes to these exchanges, but I believe that you need to hear this. You, my friend, are acknowledging false gods. If the ultimate reality and hope is nirvana (nothingness), then I question how your religion is greater than nothing.

Everything that is pure, holy, and of love is from our God, and He is beckoning you to His heart. Therefore, because God is love, the ultimate reality is not nothing; it is love. Please do not misunderstand me; I speak these words not out of condemnation, but rather love.

If I am wrong and you’re right, I have nothing to ultimately worry about. I will get to “nothing” eventually. If I’m right and you’re wrong, your mistake could be eternally grave for failing to embrace the very God who fashioned you, and is offering you His tender love and mercy. He is the ultimate Judge.

May the peace and truth of Christ be with you. I pray for an adundance of miracles from His hand on your life, that you will see the light of His divine love.

JB

rossum

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

Can there be a truth so great that possibly God can do nothing greater?

God loves each and every one of us as he loves himself?

Can God love us more than he loves himself?

Before the creation of the universe began did the greatest commandments apply to God, and if we are created in the image of God did he say these commandments are greatest for us, because they are greatest for him?

In the spirit of searching for a greatest truth

Eric

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The questions, as posed, are in fact compound questions. They assume that God, His nature, and His love, are finite entities. That’s why there is an apparent hook, or barb, in the questions.

But God is, by his very nature, infinite. That does not mean bigger than anything we can imagine. It means He is outside the constraints of the concept of size altogether. So the answer to whether or not he can love this, that, or the other thing beyond something else is not yes or no, but rather that his capacity to love is infinite.

Matching infinite things can lead to some interesting results, even within creation. For instance, did you know that there are precisely as many even integers (2, 4, 6, etc) as there are integers altogether (1, 2, 3, etc)? You can pair them up to prove that. And, there is an infinite number of each. One can’t approach the infinite in the same manner as the finite.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[rossum]

To say that Jesus did not say that is also speculation.

My apologies for not making myself clearer. What I meant was that Jesus did not speak in English, he spoke in some other language. It is clear to me that there is a falliable process between the words that Jesus actually spoke and the English words that we read on the page in front of us.

To suggest that one cannot reasonably believe one can embrace a copy of a copy of a manuscipt, is a bunch of nonsense. Take the Dead Sea Scroll for example. This is primarily from the book of Isaiah (much older than the NT) and are astoundingly in line with today’s translation.

There are differences in different Bible manuscripts - I already gave the example of the different endings of Mark. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are differences between modern Bibles and the DSS. For instance, the DSS have an additional verse in Psalm 145 between v13 and v14. The DSS confirm that what we have is imperfect.

All things the considered, the evidence is very strong for our position; however, we are still entering the realm of faith. More brilliant and educated people than both of us combined has subcribed to Christianity.

Yes, faith has a lot to do with it. Using the argumentum ad populum is dangerous, or do you believe that for the first few hundred years of Christianity, Buddhism was superior because at that time “More brilliant and educated people than both of us combined has subcribed to” Buddhism?

Pertaining to any supposed errors, there are individuals far more learned than myself that can deal with these issues. I have yet to come across any “contradiction” in the Bible that could not be easily explained.

My point does not rely on contradictions, it is merely that what we have now is demonstrably imperfect and so cannot be ultimate.

Furthermore, we have countless other miracles which affirm our position.

Miracles are not a relible proof: 2 Thessalonians 2:9 “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders”

If the ultimate reality and hope is nirvana (nothingness), then I question how your religion is greater than nothing.

You have misunderstood nirvana; easily done. The Buddha lived for 45 years while in nirvana, whatever it is it is certainly not nothingness otherwise the Buddha would have disappeared at the moment of his enlightenment.

If I am wrong and you’re right, I have nothing to ultimately worry about. I will get to “nothing” eventually. If I’m right and you’re wrong, your mistake could be eternally grave for failing to embrace the very God who fashioned you, and is offering you His tender love and mercy. He is the ultimate Judge.

And if we are both wrong then Zeus, Thor, Wotan, Amaterasu, Shiva, Allah, YHWH, Durga or whatever god will be angry with both of us. Pascal’s wager is not a good argument - I am better off attending a Hindu temple with thousands of gods rather than a Christian church with merely one God.

rossum

 

[christcnection1]

My apologies for not making myself clearer. What I meant was that Jesus did not speak in English, he spoke in some other language.

No problem. My final authority is not the Bible alone anyhow. Indeed, there is room for confusion based on language. That’s why we believe God has established a visible authority (the Magisterium), directed by the Holy Spirit, to lead us through these issues. The Catholic Church is the oldest and most influential institution on the planet.

There are differences in different Bible manuscripts - I already gave the example of the different endings of Mark. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are differences between modern Bibles and the DSS.

To me, this topic would be appropriate in a another thread. Christians never had a problem dealing with these issues, and I’m not about to try to undermine Buddhist writings to promote Christianity. This would be a fruitless, and less than charitable endeavor.

Yes, faith has a lot to do with it. Using the argumentum ad populum is dangerous, or do you believe that for the first few hundred years of Christianity, Buddhism was superior because at that time “More brilliant and educated people than both of us combined has subcribed to” Buddhism?

This wasn’t my argument; it was merely an observation that people more intelligent than us have wrestled with these questions. It’s unlikely we will iron out any issues going down this road. I will also be quick to acknowledge that Buddhism has many great intellectuals. This, however, does not mean I believe that through the ages it has surpassed Christianity in academic rigor (both in quantity and quality). Unfortuntely, the quality dimension is probably impossible to measure.

My point does not rely on contradictions, it is merely that what we have now is demonstrably imperfect and so cannot be ultimate.

Start another thread. We will tear this theory into oblivion.

Miracles are not a relible proof: 2 Thessalonians 2:9 “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders”

Since you’ve established in your own mind that the Bible itself is faulty, I find it peculiar that you would now use it as an authoritative source to undermine my convictions.

You’re right. Miracles are not always a reliable source for proof; however, to suggest they do not happen or are meaningless is to deny the vast majority of miracles in scripture (and historically). If the fruits from the miracle(s) lead people to God and closer to His heart, we also believe that “Satan does not cast out Satan,” because a “kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.”

You have misunderstood nirvana; easily done.

Please explain nirvana more to me. Although I took a world religions course in a secular college, I am not an expert on the Buddhist religion.

And if we are both wrong then Zeus, Thor, Wotan, Amaterasu, Shiva, Allah, YHWH, Durga or whatever god will be angry with both of us. Pascal’s wager is not a good argument - I am better off attending a Hindu temple with thousands of gods rather than a Christian church with merely one God.

This of course assumes any of these gods exist. (YHWH is the God of the Bible, for clarification.) If Hinduism is true, and I make one of the Hindu gods upset, I will merely be reincarnated. I’m not looking at eternal damnation.

To suggest that a person ought to believe in multiple gods because there is a greater probability they will be correct, is like saying a person should believe all religions are correct, because you are more likely at getting one of them right.

If we have two bags. One of the bags has a gold piece in it. The other bag has a gold piece in it with thousands of snakes. Which bag should I reach into?

You’re also making the assumption that I’m using Pascal’s wager. (I was not formally making that argument.) If I was, is sounds like you’re missing a key piece to the wager.

Followers of Christ have found their peace in this life. This is the primary point of the argument. If in the end we are wrong (and there is no God), we have lost nothing, though we have found peace in this life.

Rossum, I have found that peace. I was a former atheist, and now I’m in training to do missionary work in Papua New Guinea. I’m also considering the priesthood.

Recently I finished a short shory on my conversion, and I would like for you to read it. I am a man that’s genuinely seeking truth, and I would like to know more about your understanding of Buddhism. However, in order for you to be able to relate your faith to me, you ought to know where I’m coming from.

I would be happy to send you a free copy if you’re interested. Have a nice day!

God Bless,
JB

rossum

 

[Hellisreal]

The ultimate truth is revealed to each of us who seek.

We may argue the Who, what, where, why, how ect-

but in the end we have to accept that it is those who seek, that will hear.

We have to leave it at that.

The “problem” with some “believers” (of any stripe) is that they want everyone to think as they do, accept what they do and force it on everyone

We try to answer more questions than we are asked.

Seekers find.

Even if they only find more questions---- how is this bad?

Parasurry asks a good question, I do not have an answer for it, save that I think more thought needs to be given to a question before discounting it sheerly based on the questioner’s faith.

We have nothing to fear if we do have the truth by asking it of ourselves.

 

[Ahimsa]

Have any of youz guys defined “ultimate” and “truth” yet?

 

[christcnection1]

Have any of youz guys defined “ultimate” and “truth” yet?

Final Truth = is in Jesus Christ. That’s how I defined it.

 

[Willma]

Final Truth = is in Jesus Christ. That’s how I defined it.

Thats faith not truth.

 

[christcnection1]

Thats faith not truth.

If Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life,” of course it’s true.

I’m not saying it’s not faith Willma!

Yes, this is what I believe. You’re free not to believe it.

Let me ask you this?..

Is murder objectively wrong?

If you say yes, that’s your belief. You must have faith that it’s objectively wrong. And yes, if the Christian God is true, than this is an objective fact.

Likewise, if Christianity is true than God is the ultimate truth.

True or False, in this life, it’s a matter of faith.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Thats faith not truth.

I do hope that this is not a suggestion that faith cannot be a path to truth! It is, and that is revealed Christian truth.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Hellisreal]

Thats faith not truth.

The Word is not truth?

Faith in Christ

The work of God is this:

To believe in the one he has sent

Who did he send?

Muhammed?

Jesus Christ the Messiah, the savior? The Word, the Truth, the Light of the world, the I AM? the Alpha and Omega, the rabbi, the redeemer, The bread of life, the resurrection, the Vine, the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, The Son of Man, the teacher, the King of Kings, the New Adam, the Life, the Lord, The healer, Born of a Virgin, the Truth, the Way, the light- carpenter, the fisher of men, the Emmanuel, Lamb of God, The list goes on and on–

these are only a few attributes… there are so many more …( I would rather not get into a debate about the other names and attributes now)

more than a hundred (IE: the “hundred” attributes of Allah")

Jesus has attributes that go beyond that.

Muslims love and respect Mary.

May we all do the same.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, Jesus did not say that. Jesus said something in (probably) Aramaic. Sixty or so years later John wrote his memory of those words down in Greek. We do not have John’s original manuscript, all we have is a copy of a copy of a copy etc. of John’s Greek. The words you wrote are a printing of a translation of a copy (many times removed) of John’s translation into Greek of his memory of Jesus’ original Aramaic into English.
If you want to show me that those words are Ultimate Truth, then you need to show me that John’s memory was absolutely correct, John’s translation into Greek was absolutely correct, all the copyists work was absolutely correct, all the translator’s work was absolutely correct and all the printer’s work was absolutely correct. If any of the steps in the chain was not absolutely correct then those words cannot be ultimate truth.
We know that copyists can make mistakes - for instance there are different endings to Mark, at 18:8, 18:9, 18:19 (with or without verse 18:9) and others with extra material after verse 14.
We know that translations can be wrong. There are words in the Bible that we do not know the meaning of, though we can make reasonable guesses: see The Unicorn for one example. However reasonable, a guess cannot give us 100% certainty, and so cannot be the ultimate truth.
Even if we know all the words, a translator needs to be able to translate idioms correctly. Knowing that a “red herring” is a pink fish does not help us with the real meaning of the words.
We know that printers can make mistakes:The “Wicked Bible” of 1631 contained the words, “Thou shalt commit adultery” in Exodus 20:14, omitting the vital “not.” The “Unrighteous Bible” of 1653 used the words, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6:9), again deleting the all-important “not.” A rather bizarre footnote to I Peter 3:7 appears in the “Wife Beater Bible” of 1549. It says, “And if she be not obediente and healpeful unto hym; endevoureth to beate the fere of God into her heade, that thereby she may be compelled to learne her dutye and do it.” Among the typos that slipped by the proofreader in early Bibles was the one in a 1717 Bible which contains a heading for Luke, chapter 20, which reads, “The Parable of the Vinegar,” (instead of “Vineyard”). Another amusing one is to be found in the 1806 Bible containing a misprint in Ezekiel 47:10 which reads, “that fishes (instead of “fishers”) shall stand,” giving it the designation of the “Standing Fishes Bible.”
Source: Bible Misprints
The words you quote cannot be the ultimate truth unless you can show that these errors, examples of which can be found in the Bible, have not happened in that particular passage.

Hi
I agree with the above contents of your post.
May GodAllahYHWH bless you.
Thanks

The Word of GodAllahYHWH is and had been the first/authentic and primary source of human knowledge whether revealed on Moses/Buddha/Jesus/Muhammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; it is of itself complete and without doubt and requires no external witnessing.

 

[paarsurrey]

In the spirit of searching for a greatest truth

Hi
You are welcome for the greatest truth, it could come to you from anywhere, then one has to accept it.
Thanks

Since Jesus left no written Word of GodAllahYHWH revealed on him, or authenticated by him when he last departed from Galilee; hence my Catholic friends believe many creeds created by the Catholic Clergy not originated by Jesus himself in person.

 

[mark_a]

Hi
One of our members on the Apologetics sub-forum has the signature:
The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.
I don’t agree with him and I say:
The ultimate truth is that there is Truth.
What is you opinion?
Thanks

There is truth.

According to Pope Benedict, the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on truth.

The truth that the Catholic Church proclaims is all true.

 

[paarsurrey]

What I meant was that Jesus did not speak in English, he spoke in some other language. It is clear to me that there is a falliable process between the words that Jesus actually spoke and the English words that we read on the page in front of us.
There are differences in different Bible manuscripts - I already gave the example of the different endings of Mark. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are differences between modern Bibles and the DSS. For instance, the DSS have an additional verse in Psalm 145 between v13 and v14. The DSS confirm that what we have is imperfect.
Yes, faith has a lot to do with it. Using the argumentum ad populum is dangerous, or do you believe that for the first few hundred years of Christianity, Buddhism was superior because at that time “More brilliant and educated people than both of us combined has subscribed to” Buddhism?
My point does not rely on contradictions, it is merely that what we have now is demonstrably imperfect and so cannot be ultimate.
Miracles are not a reliable proof: 2 Thessalonians 2:9 “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders”

Hi
I agree with the above contents in your post.
Regarding the miracles/signs I would submit that Jesus himself opted to show no other sign to the adulterous Jews except the sign of Jonah. If one reads the Book of Jonah, one realizes that Jonah did not, in my opinion, show any sign (according to the perception of my Catholic friends) to the Ninevites that they could see. When Jonah went in the belly of the fish and when he came out of the belly of the fish, there were no Ninevites there to witness the event. That was only between Jonah and GodAllahYHWH.
As I understand the sign of Jonah is, first when Jonah told the Ninevites that they were wicked people GodAllahYHWH had told him, so they have to accept him and repent for their wickedness, but the Ninevites did not accept him and continued their wickedness. Later when they saw that they would be wiped out as Jonah had told them then they repented and improved (but Jonah was not there to see it). So the miracle of Jonah, if at all there was any (no relation with three days and three night), that the Ninevites (one hundred and twenty thousand of them all) repented and improved and when Jonah went to them that they had accepted him as a ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH.
In Jesus case, the adulterous Jews of Jerusalem did not accept him (if we see the Catholic interpretation) though with my interpretation when Jesus alongwith Mary to the lost tribes of house of Israel in India and neighboring areas, they accepted him and that was Jesus’ sign of Jonah; but the Catholic do not accept this. No compulsion.
Thanks