The exchange between Pontius Pilate and Jesus in John 18:28-38 illustrates another of the big questions of life. The passage tells us that after Jesus had been arrested, Caiaphas and the Jewish council sent Him to Pilate. The council did so because they wanted Jesus put to death, but under Roman law they had no authority to enact the punishment. Pilate had several questions for Jesus. First Pilate asked whether Jesus was King of the Jews. Jesus responded by asking Pilate if the idea that Jesus was King of the Jews was the latter’s own idea, or if someone had told him that. Pilate, apparently seeking the truth so that justice could be served, wanted to know what Jesus had done, because it was the Jews who had handed Jesus over to the Roman authorities. Jesus indicated that His kingdom was not of this world. Pilate exclaimed, “You are a King, then!”
Jesus reply is astonishing, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
“What is truth?” Pilate asked.
Interesting question, isn’t it? Is Jesus, having established that his kingdom is not of this world, stating that he holds dominion over an idea, which is truth? Pilate does not give Jesus a chance to answer. I doubt Pilate expected one because for him the question is rhetorical. For Pilate, there is no truth. Everything is subjective, and justifiable from a point of view. Pilate is pragmatic; he does what works. In this case he needed to placate the Jewish leaders and avoid riots.
The Bible doesn’t shy away from presenting two philosophies that compete with each other. On the one hand, Jesus proclaims that there is objective truth, that the truth is knowable by anyone, and that he can lead you to it. But he makes claims that are difficult to accept, as are claims made about him. Among them are He and the Father are one, if you believe in him you will have eternal life, and His virgin birth. On the other hand, those that live by the idea that there is no truth, or that it is not knowable, reject Jesus’ testimony because all humans have parents, and all life dies. Those that reject Jesus know these things to be objectively true and therefore his story is unbelievable. How would you resolve these apparent contradictions?
Welcome to The Red Cell!
If this is your first visit here, please take a moment to peruse the posts and comments. Try to see things from the vantage point of someone who does not know God.
The "Red Cell Thoughts" are not to be taken as a position of this blog- they are meant to stir thought. Please feel free to post other thoughts, questions, and possible answers. All posts are anonymous, but feel free to provide your name if you so desire. The Red Cell facilitators reserve the right to edit comments that are rude or offensive. Having said that, a little bit of offensiveness may be allowed- because if we offend no-one, then we might not be working hard enough! Remember, the Christian religion was founded on questioning the prevailing wisdom of the day and the Protestant Reformation continued that tradition. Don't be afraid to question all your assumptions.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well then, 'Red Cell' is right up my alley...
ReplyDelete"...a little bit of offensiveness may be allowed- because if we offend no-one, then we might not be working hard enough! Remember, the Christian religion was founded on questioning the prevailing wisdom of the day and the Protestant Reformation continued that tradition. Don't be afraid to question all your assumptions.", I doubt that anyone's hypothesis is more "offensive" than mine...
Where to begin?
I suppose the 'beginning' is when the 12 tribes of Jews decided to become "a nation". The prophet Samuel was shocked and dismayed at their desire to alter their traditional 'constitution' or make-up. Nevertheless, Samuel relented... and, 'anointed' Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, to be the 1st king of the Jews. King Saul was replaced by David, of the tribe of Judah. King David was succeeded by the 'anointment' of his son, Solomon. King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam. Ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam (as well as the heretofore 'theocratic' government as instituted by David and maintained by Solomon) and established a parallel 'secular' government instead. This schism, among the Jews, continued down through the centuries... and into the days of the Roman installed governance of Herod (an Edumean and convert Jew).
Jerusalem, at that time, was 'home' to Saul of Tarsus, -a schizophrenic, flunked-out Pharisaic student (of Gamaliel) and 'temple' thug.
Few seem to realize (know or otherwise gloss-over and conveniently ignore) the fact that young Saul is the namesake and descendant of king Saul (who was displaced by David and his descendants who maintained the marginalized rulership... of only two tribes.
We are lead to 'believe' young Saul and the 'descendant of David and Jewish messiah' ('anointed') never met or even knew of each other. Aside from the 'Holy Gospels' documentation, human nature dictates the each man knew the other very very well... they were arch enemies since their births.
Because of Saul of Tarsus' hatred, resentment, jealousy and envy towards 'the descendant(s) of David and the Jewish messiah' he ("Jesus Christ") was arrested, tried, found guilty (for simply 'being' who he was) and crucified... together with a complete alteration of his true identity and mission.
In the meantime... there was also another man... "Jesus" by name, "Barabbas" by appellation (see the original Greek Gospel according or attributed Matthew: 27:17).
There is more to this story than meets the eye... and will continue in another Post.
Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.
Roland- welcome. Although I'm not sure your post answers the question raised in the original- they are still interesting. I guess tangentially they DO address the underlying theme: how do we know what "the Truth" is?
ReplyDeleteAs Didymus asks: "what is truth"? And how do we know what Objective truth is? Much of post-positivist viewpoints make the case that "the known" and the "knower" cannot be separated- in other words knowledge is a social construct that cannot be separated from the person experiencing the event. Therefore, there is no objective reality that holds true for all times, places, and observers. This makes logical sense to those who have thrown a ball in a moving vehicle and then have seen the same motion from outside the vehicle: depending on the perspective, the path of the ball can be described very differently- and both are "true". Can there really be multiple truths? Or is there one Truth that we can only "see" through Jesus?
The problem I have with understanding one "Truth" is that no matter what I do I still have to filter everything I see, experience, and read about through MY lense. As much as I'd like to believe that Christians believe the same things- my experience doesn't back that up. I've found that no-one interprets the Bible the same and thus no-one lives the same- even though many people believe THEY are following Jesus' teachings.
Likewise, this "One, Objective Truth" really hits a wall when looked at across religions. Millions of believers claims they know the One Truth and therefore they can damn everyone else and act according to their understanding of the "One Truth". It is really hard to argue with a suicide bomber- especially after they hit the button on their vest. But how do we KNOW 100% they aren't right- or, more importantly, that we are right?
In the wikipedia entry on "positivism"- there is this line: "Knowledge is a social variable – knowing one is a subject of a study changes one's behaviour and results can modify the future (self-fulfilling prophecy)."
When I read that line it makes me think of this line: "Be careful when you feel confident in your knowledge of God: '...But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God...'" from Matthew Chapter 22 and found at the top of this blog. It makes me have this uncomfortable feeling that we won't know "The Truth" from our perspective as humans on Earth- because, as the line from positivism suggests: we can't! We may one day- through something we understand here as "Jesus"- but beyond that we are here for an unknown purpose- some of it hinted at in records such as The Bible- but in the end: to KNOW why we are here would ruin "the study"...
This is postmodern rubbish. To suggest that truth is ultimately unknowable is to deny Christ, His church, and two millenia of foundational Christian doctrine. Our starting points are Christ and His revealed truth in scripture. They apply to all people in all places at all times. This is why we know the suicide bomber is wrong: he is a murderer. This is why we have confidence in the object of our faith--Christ--and his gospel, because of the doctrine of the perspecuity of scripture and the historical confence we have in our Savior. "Post-positivism" is a humanistic superstition unfounded in God's unchaning, absolute truth. To deny this is not only illogical, it is to deny Christ himself.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous-
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think your remark that this is "rubbish" is not in keeping with the spirit of the website, I would offer these comments to your post:
- When you say "our" starting points are Christ and His revealed truth in scripture- I usually have no problem with seeing "our" as being "believers". What I am more interested in is how we can convince others- nonbelievers- that the scripture is "truth"? Other than you saying it is- how can you "prove" it?
- I also think it is beneficial for believers to also question scripture and "truth". Without investigating on your own and attempting to come to an objective conclusion about matters of faith seems to me to be awfully haphazard with respect to what one believes is "the truth".
- Since many Christians interpret "the truth" in the scripture in different ways- how might one find the "real", one and only, Truth? Some "Christians" say that murdering an abortion doctor is okay according to scripture. Are they wrong? To them- those who call them wrong are just as wrong.
- perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture: where did that "doctrine" come from? Did God define this doctrine? Basically, as I understand it, this doctrine was developed by men and it basically states that if Scripture is not clear- it isn't because it was written unclearly, but because we are not smart enough to understand it (due to our laziness or just lack of intelligence).
- "the historical" confidence we have in our Savior is fine for those, maybe, who have that confidence- what of those who DON'T have that confidence or don't believe at all? Maybe there is "truth" revealed in Scripture- but it isn't necessarily given weight through historical confidence in anything nor a doctrine that humans developed. Is that possible? Is that possible for an all-powerful God?
- Applying "logic" to Christ is problematic for me. From wikipedia: Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which asks: "How do we know what we know?"
ReplyDeleteSo, to just say that we know it because of historical confidence and a doctrine of the Church isn't really applying logic at all. You MAY come to the logical conclusion through different arguments that Scripture is True, but I don't see it through those two methods. Not to say that that is necessary- just because the human concept of logic can't prove (or disprove) God- doesn't make Him false (or even true or logical). My only point is that if you truly wish to apply logic, there would most likely be different logics to apply and different conclusions.
For instance- using the logic of experience, I would conclude that much of Scripture is written in a form that is difficult- if not impossible- for a human to understand. Using one example- none of my experience has led me to believe there have been any examples of miracles being performed. That isn't to say that miracles are not performed- but using MY EXPERIENCE- I cannot draw a logical conclusion as to what the Scripture was really saying about them. (NOTE: that isn't a final conclusion- as there are other "logics" to apply- but was using just one example to show that not all logic points to the conclusion that Scripture is "true".
Don't get me wrong- I am not "denying" Christ or that scripture is true. What I am advocating is that we study it more, question the concepts and the "why do we believe what we believe" more, suspend our belief for a moment to entertain other possibilities, and question all assumptions (or at least define them and acknowledge them as assumptions). Without doing that, I fear, we fall into a group of cattle that simply follow the one in the lead.
And- please don't think that I am calling your comments as "rubbish"- I think they are worthy of stating and study and testing. I do, however, ask you to respect others' opinions in the future in turn, and to avoid the use of inflammatory speech.
This was lovely to rread
ReplyDelete