Why did Jesus not reply to Pilate's question 'What is Truth'

Joe1919

Hello all.
I am hoping to do an essay related to the whole idea of 'Truth' and was going to use John 18.37-9 to illustrate a point that in the text, Jesus did not in fact answer this question. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018%20;&version=9;#

Any thoughts about this? Why did he not answer Pilate?

robindch

Joe1919 wrote: »

Why did he not answer Pilate?

Because in the general sense of "truth", there's no answer to the question.

sorella

Because Jesus is, was and ever shall be the Truth.

And saw and sees the truth in everyone; and knew Pilate for what he was.

See the passage as a whole; not the words isolation. " I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

And see also the preceding verses and the context.

See what is there?

There is no need for Jesus to say anything; He has said all.

As Pilate sees and knows full well.

We are not speaking of truth in human terms here, but divine. Not of man, but of God; as the entire passage reveals clearly.

The truth Who is Jesus.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Hello all.
I am hoping to do an essay related to the whole idea of 'Truth' and was going to use John 18.37-9 to illustrate a point that in the text, Jesus did not in fact answer this question. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018%20;&version=9;#

Any thoughts about this? Why did he not answer Pilate?

Joe1919

Thanks both for replies.
From a Christian perspective, then, is there no secular truth. i.e. Is Truth something that cant exist independant of religion i.e. Can a non-Christian know the Truth about anything?
Or is the whole idea of Truth from a Christian perspective anchored in the idea of God and all 'Truth' or indeed all language outside this framework meaningless? Or to put it another way, is Jesus' word the ultimate and only truth?

Fanny Cradock

You seem to be straying into post-modernism here. (Perhaps Pilate was pre-empting it.)

I would assume that most Christians would believe that the truth of Jesus (the cross etc.) is one of the most important truths they can belive in and abide by. However, I don't think all other truths suddenly become 'truths' in comparison. In other words, they aren't somehow devalued, meaningless or even non-existent. Broadly speaking , there is simply truth or untruth.

On a personal note, I don't believe there is such thing as a secular truth (such a distinction doesn't imply non-belief, only a belief operating outside the boundaries of the God question), a non-religious truth or a religious truth. Again, something is either true or it isn't. Assuming a question is clear and unambiguous (for example, is there now a snowman in my back garden?) then I believe it follows that there is an ultimate truth. That we may not be honest enough or sufficiently developed as a species to answer these questions is besides the point.

Joe1919

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem to be straying into post-modernism here. (Perhaps Pilate was pre-empting it.)

That precisely the area that I'm interested in exploring. Post-modern often argue that there is no truth or that truth is relative or only within a given framework. This can be interperated two ways. It can be interpretated to mean all truth is nonsense. Alternatively, it can mean that Truth is only possible within a given framework or context and we must enter that framework or context to experience this truth.
This would seem to push the idea of truth back into the idea of Faith e.g. That the only way that Christinity (or Hinduism or Islam etc,) can be true for me is to 'take the leap' so to speak (or possibly be born into) that framework, where within this framework, this truth is coherent but this truth makes no sense outside of this framework.
Perhaps Jesus was pre-empting it by not replying?

sorella

For a Christian, all is rooted and grounded in Jesus.

Our mindset is different.

How could it be else?

Blessings this night

Joe1919 wrote: »

Thanks both for replies.
From a Christian perspective, then, is there no secular truth. i.e. Is Truth something that cant exist independant of religion i.e. Can a non-Christian know the Truth about anything?
Or is the whole idea of Truth from a Christian perspective anchored in the idea of God and all 'Truth' or indeed all language outside this framework meaningless? Or to put it another way, is Jesus' word the ultimate and only truth?

wolfsbane

Joe1919 wrote: »

That precisely the area that I'm interested in exploring. Post-modern often argue that there is no truth or that truth is relative or only within a given framework. This can be interperated two ways. It can be interpretated to mean all truth is nonsense. Alternatively, it can mean that Truth is only possible within a given framework or context and we must enter that framework or context to experience this truth.
This would seem to push the idea of truth back into the idea of Faith e.g. That the only way that Christinity (or Hinduism or Islam etc,) can be true for me is to 'take the leap' so to speak (or possibly be born into) that framework, where within this framework, this truth is coherent but this truth makes no sense outside of this framework.
Perhaps Jesus was pre-empting it by not replying?

Truth is. Our recognition of it is what varies. The idea that an error can be true if someone believes it, or that the truth is not the truth if unrecognised, is unreal/erroneous/untrue.

Fanny Cradock

Joe1919 wrote: »

That precisely the area that I'm interested in exploring. Post-modern often argue that there is no truth or that truth is relative or only within a given framework. This can be interperated two ways. It can be interpretated to mean all truth is nonsense. Alternatively, it can mean that Truth is only possible within a given framework or context and we must enter that framework or context to experience this truth.
This would seem to push the idea of truth back into the idea of Faith e.g. That the only way that Christinity (or Hinduism or Islam etc,) can be true for me is to 'take the leap' so to speak (or possibly be born into) that framework, where within this framework, this truth is coherent but this truth makes no sense outside of this framework.
Perhaps Jesus was pre-empting it by not replying?

I would think that the 'all truth is relative' thing is entirely incompatible with Christianity. So Jesus was not pre-empting a postmodern take on truth. If you happen believe in ultimate truths - and a Christian such as myself most likely will - then I don't think that a framework is at all necessary. This is because that an ultimate truth is something that is all encompassing. When Jesus refers to himself as 'the truth' it is not a statement to be understood within a certain framework or only true in a certain context; it is a statement of ultimate truth. The sharp end of such statement can not be dulled no matter what circumstance or framework one cares to bash it with.

TBH, I find the whole postmodern take on truth most perplexing and quite tiresome. It probably gets mentioned often, but the belief that there is no objective truth is a statement of ultimate truth within itself.

As for why Jesus didn't reply, I'm not entirely sure why this is. Maybe Jesus felt there was no need - he had said his piece and there was no use in saying more. His fate had been sealed. Or maybe Pilate was simply asking a rhetorical question.

Here are a couple of links (from a Christian perspective) that you might find useful:

http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-2.html

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/groothuis-truth.html

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would think that the 'all truth is relative' thing is entirely incompatible with Christianity. So Jesus was not pre-empting a postmodern take on truth. If you happen believe in ultimate truths - and a Christian such as myself most likely will - then I don't think that a framework is at all necessary. This is because that an ultimate truth is something that is all encompassing. When Jesus refers to himself as 'the truth' it is not a statement to be understood within a certain framework or only true in a certain context; it is a statement of ultimate truth. The sharp end of such statement can not be dulled no matter what circumstance or framework one cares to bash it with.

Part of the issue, I think, is that modern philosophers (not post-modernists) consider that "truth" is a property of statements or propositions. So the statement "2+2=4" possesses the property of truth (more simply, "is true"), at least in conventional arithmetic. When Jesus refers to himself as "the truth", however, "truth" has much broader connotations - it's not just about propositional truth, but also implies that Jesus is the ultimate in faithfulness, reliability and trustworthiness.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

TBH, I find the whole postmodern take on truth most perplexing and quite tiresome. It probably gets mentioned often, but the belief that there is no objective truth is a statement of ultimate truth within itself.

There are different degrees of post-modernism - pragmatists such as Richard Rorty don't deny a concept of truth, but see it in terms of consensus or utility. So the statement that there is no objective [in the sense of independent of people] truth can be "true" in a subjective sense if (a) that's what most people believe, and (b) it is efficacious to believe this.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for why Jesus didn't reply, I'm not entirely sure why this is. Maybe Jesus felt there was no need - he had said his piece and there was no use in saying more. His fate had been sealed. Or maybe Pilate was simply asking a rhetorical question.

I always think of the remark of Francis Bacon, in his Essays of 1625: " 'What is truth?' asked jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." This implies that Pilate was making a flippant and cynical remark rather than a genuine question, and seems to be supported by the rest of the verse (John 18:38): "After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, 'I find no case against him.' "

Phototoxin

Post-modern often argue that there is no truth or that truth is relative or only within a given framework. This can be interperated two ways. It can be interpretated to mean all truth is nonsense. Alternatively, it can mean that Truth is only possible within a given framework or context and we must enter that framework or context to experience this truth.

What colour is red ? Those wavelengths which fall between 625–740nm? Does it include infra red ? what about bees and things who cannot percieve it does it make it less true? (not trying to be smart just wondering as who's perception of somehing is the 'true' perception

if Jesus is 'the Truth' what is he the truth of? And how is this evidenced.

eg If I have a knife with a dead bob's blood on it, and bobs corpse has multiple stab wounds from that knife and if jims fingerprint is in bobs blood on the knife then the evidence tells us that its most likely that jim stabbed bob.

Isn't jesus more like evidence rather than truth? Although evidence is the truth but only after interpretation.

I always think of the remark of Francis Bacon, in his Essays of 1625: " 'What is truth?' asked jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." This implies that Pilate was making a flippant and cynical remark rather than a genuine question, and seems to be supported by the rest of the verse (John 18:38): "After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, 'I find no case against him.'

"

we cannot assume to know the tone of Pilate. He could have been genuinely interested. He was afraid of the Jews and so to keep them happy he killed Jesus.

Is Schroders cat is alive?

Maybe its not recorded because the disciples dont know what happened after that point ?

hivizman

Phototoxin wrote: »

Is Schroders cat is alive?

You are probably referring to "Schrödinger's cat" - as Erwin Schrödinger worked for many years at TCD, and took out Irish nationality, that makes him one of Ireland's greatest scientists.

aligator_am

Dunno if any of you know the show Babylon 5? there was a character in it named G'Kar who became a Jesus like figure to his people, there was a great scene where a group of his followers asked him "what is truth, and what is God" he tried to give them a parable to (in my opinion) get their minds working and help them understand, rather than just devote themselves blindly. After the parable he was asked again "what is truth, and what is God" in the end he gave an answer that still sends shivers down my back even after all this time, he answered "truth is a river, and God is the mouth of that river"

Apologies if this was off topic or offensive to anyone, wasn't my intention.

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

Part of the issue...

Good response!

santing

Phototoxin wrote: »

if Jesus is 'the Truth' what is he the truth of? And how is this evidenced.

Yes, its hard to understand. Jesus is not the truth of something, He is the Truth full stop. The greek uses here the definite article (the) to emphasize the object, and to exclude anything else. So when the Lord Jesus is the Truth, there is no other truth. When the Lord Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the live," again He speaks exclusively. Outside of Him there is no way or truth or live.

The Truth is a person, and you cannot evidence a person, you can only relate to a person. Things that you can evidence are not truth but they are true, or valid. This is a challenge. Because something is "true" it is not necessarily Truth. If what I say is true, but meant to harm/anger you, it is most likely not Truth.

As it says in John 1:17 "The grace and the truth came about through Jesus Christ."

sorella

Amen.

santing wrote: »

Yes, its hard to understand. Jesus is not the truth of something, He is the Truth full stop. The greek uses here the definite article (the) to emphasize the object, and to exclude anything else. So when the Lord Jesus is the Truth, there is no other truth. When the Lord Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the live," again He speaks exclusively. Outside of Him there is no way or truth or live.

The Truth is a person, and you cannot evidence a person, you can only relate to a person. Things that you can evidence are not truth but they are true, or valid. This is a challenge. Because something is "true" it is not necessarily Truth. If what I say is true, but meant to harm/anger you, it is most likely not Truth.

As it says in John 1:17 "The grace and the truth came about through Jesus Christ."

Joe1919

Its interesting then that both Christians and post modernists could have a lot in common when it comes to truth.
1. Both believe that truth is in the mind (intellect) and not in the world. i.e Truth is subjective. There is no objective Truth.
2. Both believe that since the human mind is finite and different and imperfect, then any human idea of Truth is finite and different and imperfect.
3. For Truth to be absolute, the intellect must be absolute.
4. But the human intellect is not absolute and therefore there is no absolute truth.

However the Christian would go one step further and argue,

5. God has an absolute intellect and therefore God is absolute Truth.

Conclusion: There can be no absolute Truth with an absolute intellect. (God).

Fanny Cradock

Joe1919 wrote: »

Its interesting then that both Christians and post modernists could have a lot in common when it comes to truth.
1. Both believe that truth is in the mind (intellect) and not in the world. i.e Truth is subjective. There is no objective Truth.
2. Both believe that since the human mind is finite and different and imperfect, then any human idea of Truth is finite and different and imperfect.
3. For Truth to be absolute, the intellect must be absolute.
4. But the human intellect is not absolute and therefore there is no absolute truth.

However the Christian would go one step further and argue,

5. God has an absolute intellect and therefore God is absolute Truth.

Conclusion: There can be no absolute Truth with an absolute intellect. (God).

Sorry Joe, but I disagree with you from the outset. As a Christian I believe that there are objective truths independent to intellect. Disciplines like science and theology would seemingly support this notion.

Joe1919

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry Joe, but I disagree with you from the outset. As a Christian I believe that there are objective truths independent to intellect. Disciplines like science and theology would seemingly support this notion.

Thanks for your reply. One classical argument against Objectives Truths is that to talk of Truth on an uninhabited planet or without reference to some type of intelligence is absurd and therefore Truth is always subjective.

Most of the main theories of Truth also need some type of mind e.g. Correspondence or coherent or pragmatic theory see truth as a correspondence/coherence between what's in the mind and the facts in the world.

Also if you read Saint Thomas Aquinas, he states "Truth is rightness, perceptible by the mind alone"...."Truth is the equation of thought and thing" http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm

So can Truth exist outside the mind? I dont think so.

But a Christian (IMO) can really only anchor some type of Objectivity by claiming God as the only source of Truth i.e. Objective Truth (which cant exist for a post-moderinist) can exist for a Christian because it resides in the subjectivity of Gods own intellect.

So
1. The truth is always subjective.
2. The Christian concept of God/Jesus as the only possible source of (absolute?)Truth is coherent with post-modern thinking.

Fanny Cradock

I would think that truth can sometimes be subjective. For instance, questions like is she beautiful? are understood to be subjective. But if we are talking about something like mathematics then I don't see that subjective truth has any place. For that matter, when discussing the Christian God you are dealing with an absolute being. Aquinas believed that God's truth - which I contend that we are all in some way or other bound by - was immutable.


::Edit::

As I've personally never dipped my toe into the world of philosophy, maybe somebody else will be able to challenge your position more thoroughly.

sHnaCk

“And I will pray to the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.”

When Jesus promised His disciples that He would ask the Father to send them a divine Helper, He gave this Helper a special name: “the Spirit of truth.” At the same time, however, He warned them that the world would not be able to receive this Helper. For this, the Scripture supplies two reasons.
First, from the time that men turned away from God in rebellion, they have been unwilling to accept the truth which exposes their unrighteous deeds. Therefore they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”
Second, rebellion against God has exposed humanity to the domination of the god of this age, “Satan, who deceives the whole world.” Deception is the primary weapon that Satan relies on to keep humanity under his control. Once his ability to deceive is stripped away, Satan has nothing to
offer anyone except a place with him in the lake of eternal fire!
Over many centuries, human philosophy has never been able to produce a satisfactory definition of “truth.” On the other hand, the Bible gives a threefold answer.
First, Jesus said, “I am the truth.”
Second, in praying to God the Father, He said, “Your word is truth.” Third, John tells us, “The [Holy] Spirit is truth.”
In the spiritual realm, therefore, there are three coordinates of truth: Jesus, the Scripture and the Holy Spirit. When these three are in agreement, we know that we have arrived at truth—absolute truth. It is important, however, that we check all three coordinates before we arrive at a conclusion.
There are three questions that we must ask concerning any spiritual issue:
Does it represent Jesus as He truly is?
Is it in harmony with Scripture?
Does the Holy Spirit bear His witness?
Historically, the Church would have been spared many errors and deceptions if it had always checked all three coordinates of truth. It is not enough that a teacher paints an appealing picture of Jesus as a perfect moral example. Or that a pastor batters his congregation with a barrage of Scripture verses. Or that an evangelist impresses his audience with a thrilling display of the supernatural.
Before we can accept what is presented to us as truth, all three coordinates must be in place: Jesus, the Scripture, the Holy Spirit.
*Sorry about the preceeding novel. Seemed necessary so as not to be glib about the subject. I wanted to provide the truth. LOL

sHnaCk

These are the references for my previous post. Thank you to Derek Prince for supplying them.
John 14:16–17
Romans 1:18
Revelation 12:9
John 14:6
John 17:17
1 John 5:6
1 John 5:6
1 Thessalonians 1:5
John 8:44
Acts 5:3–5
Job 42:7
2 Samuel 12:1–15
Matthew 21:11
Proverbs 28:13
1 John 1:9
Daniel 4:27, KJV
1 John 5:17

Soul Winner

Joe1919 wrote: »

Hello all.
I am hoping to do an essay related to the whole idea of 'Truth' and was going to use John 18.37-9 to illustrate a point that in the text, Jesus did not in fact answer this question. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018%20;&version=9;#

Any thoughts about this? Why did he not answer Pilate?

It doesn't actually say he didn't answer him in that particular verse. He obviously knew the answer as is revealed in other text when He said that His purpose in life was to bear witness to the truth. If there is a God and He is the creator of all things then all truth leads back to Him eventually. Some far eastern religious thought expresses truth in this wise: "There is no ultimate truth, except the truth that there is no ultimate truth" that means ITO there is truth.

Phototoxin

You are probably referring to "Schrödinger's cat" - as Erwin Schrödinger worked for many years at TCD, and took out Irish nationality, that makes him one of Ireland's greatest scientists.

yeah that's him. The effect of perception on the cat who may or may not be dead inside his little box.

Yes, its hard to understand. Jesus is not the truth of something, He is the Truth full stop. The greek uses here the definite article (the) to emphasize the object, and to exclude anything else. So when the Lord Jesus is the Truth, there is no other truth. When the Lord Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the live," again He speaks exclusively. Outside of Him there is no way or truth or live.

I disagree with this as if I have sufficient evidence that shows that Potato mcGinty killed Patches McCabe then it is true that Potato kiled Patches.
Also 2+2=4
so there can be other truths.

Because something is "true" it is not necessarily Truth. If what I say is true, but meant to harm/anger you, it is most likely not Truth.

this makes no sense. If you say that I am a murderer and i am, it is true irrelevant of weather it harms or angers me.

Truth is something which is true. Factual correct, accurate. It might be because of what I've studied but that's how I see truth. Also supporting evidence helps.

Húrin

No, truth could not exist without God. Absolute Truth is surely a complete understanding - a "God's eye" view - of the universe and everything else, if there is anything else. We like to think that science is capable of such a view, but it is more like a map of the earth as compared to the real earth - a good projection, but not an exact representation or understanding of the real thing.

I think the postmodernists argue that there are only representations, but no orginal absolute truth. Though when put like this it sounds quite nonsensical.

Joe1919

Húrin wrote: »

No, truth could not exist without God. .

This appears to be the crux of the argument. i.e. If one is an atheist, there can be no 'God eye' or objective truth. The nearest thing that can be got is an intersubjective truth. i.e. Whatever the mob or majority think is the truth.
Perhaps this is why pilate asked the crowd" Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?" [and] They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!"
(Pilate thought the truth was intersubjective? )