VERITAS ~ Truth
"Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
(2 Thessalonians 2:14)
​St Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the Catholic Church holds the Bible in one hand, and a structure of the Church in his other hand. Together they represent what St Paul spoke of in (2 Thessalonians 2:14),
the written words of God's chosen, and oral teachings within the Catholic Church.
VERITAS (TRUTH) synonymous with reality, certainty, immutability, law and order with honor.
(Antonyms: misunderstandings, disinformation, fabricate, deception, distortion, and, of course, lies.)
​
"Evidence~facts" and "truth" are similar but quite different in many ways.
"Evidence~facts" may point to something, but until it's proven, it's not yet "truth (veritas")".
"Truth (veritas) is only verifiable through "evidence", while evidence is used to support or refute claims and is not always conclusive. Evidence can be used to prove a fact, but a fact in itself doesn't need to be proven; it's a standalone truth. Facts are specific, verifiable pieces of information, pieces of a puzzle, while truth is a broader concept encompassing not just verifiable facts, but also beliefs, values, and interpretations, emerging as a more comprehensive picture."
This may sound like word salad and semantics, but facts can only establish something as truth with evidence to help point to a greater truth. Perceived "facts" can be proven true or false with evidence and greater understanding, subjective and not always verifiable. By definition alone, things are not always as they seem on the surface. Likewise, seldom are "truths" straightforward, cut and dry, black and white, as much as we may have a tendency to want to believe something as truth. Likewise, beliefs and even faith are nothing without evidence to establish it as universal truth.
There are a number of ways to understand or perceive "truth".
1.) Deductive reasoning: Evidence of facts can lead to a truth.
2.) Reverse reasoning: examine the opposite; if it can be determined something is not supported by the evidence, then possibly the opposite is correct leading to "the truth".
3.) Inductive reasoning: Subjectively stating something is true, "God created everything", then examine evidence to prove it. This will all become more clear as we move forward.
As when we start putting a puzzle together, we begin with many individual pieces on a table and one by one we figure out how they fit together in a mosaic of pieces working toward seeing a picture emerge. This requires objective reasoning as we study each piece as they fit together. We don't modify pieces to make them fit to our preconceived perceptions. We allow the "evidence" (pieces) fit together on their own until a picture becomes clear. This requires "work".
This same approach applies exploring scripture as well. One doesn't need to be a scholar or theologian to explore and fit these pieces together. Simply follow the facts, "evidence" discovered. Yet many have simply "read", explored the pieces of the puzzle, the Bible, and yet have come to many different conclusions, arriving at over 40,000 different denominations, all claiming to believe in one God.
*Important Notice: You will note there are many Bible verses highlighted in "BLUE" throughout. Right click on each instance and choose "Open link in new tab" and go directly back to this page.
This site deals primarily with "Christology", the branch of theology that deals directly with the nature and works of Jesus Christ, and His claim to be the source of all knowledge and "truth". Therefore, "...know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) Jesus' ministry exclusively targeted the Jews first, the "truth" to make them free, to set them free them from the old Mosaic Law covenant, free them from sin and damnation, by entering into a new covenant with Jesus as the foretold Messiah. Jesus didn't force the Jews to believe in Him. He invited them to listen to what He said and compare it to the words of the prophets and the Mosaic Law. An example is when St Paul spoke to the Bereans who listened to Paul and compared what he said to what they were taught from the Law and the prophets, the Old Testament scriptures. As a result many believed.
jews He was
Finding "the truth" isn't as simple as picking up a Bible and reading it on our own. Coming to an accurate understanding of what's in the Bible requires the help and support of Christ "appointed" apostolic teachers referred to in scripture as "bishops", overseers, "episkopos" in Greek. No one has the right, authority, or qualifications to appoint themselves as a teacher of apostolic words in holy writ. This authority was handed over to Peter and the apostles. (Matthew 16:18-19) The apostles were also bishops (magisterial overseers, and teachers) with authority to teach and manage the "flock of God". They received this authority on Pentecost when the Holy Ghost (spirit) arrived on them as Jesus promised it would. (John 14:16) "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another "Paraclete", that he may abide with you for ever." (The '"Paraclete" here is the Holy Spirit, advocate, helper, and counselor), not just some nebulous 'active force' proceeding from God. The Holy Spirit is a personage with God's divine nature and purpose to carry out the Father's will. When the apostles received the spirit in the form of tongues over their heads, they received knowledge and understanding from God, the Holy Ghost (spirit). In turn, the apostles laid their hands on their disciples and so forth. Unless one receives authority "as a bishop" from Christ's Church, they do not have apostolic authority to go out and "teach". Preaching is NOT teaching. This is God's arrangements in His Church, not just any group referring to themselves as "a Church".
This is part of putting the pieces together of a puzzle, searching for clues as to how the pieces, the "facts" fit together with solid evidence. Just as we wouldn't accept just anyone who claims to be a doctor perform surgery on us, why allow ourselves to put our eternal life in the hands of laymen, amateurs, self appointed ministers just because they had some Bible classes and a nice personality. Again, Jesus established an order like His father in heaven. Though he accepted the message from Phillip and was sent to "preach", there's no mention the "Ethiopian eunuch" was ever appointed as a bishop of the Church in Africa. And there's no evidence he was "gay' either. Sometimes high officials would order servants castrated to become eunuchs to prevent sexual conduct among woman of the court so there were no mixing races or classes.
Finding answers requires also looking at history and tradition. The "evidence~facts" discovered along the way need to be proven as immutable, unchangeable, and truthful. Connecting these pieces of evidence together requires commitment, persistence, patience, and through the lens of scripture and Church tradition as Paul wrote at (2 Thess. 2:14), and not just any religious order has thev authority to teach scripture and apostolic tradition.
Like a scientist, seeking the answers requires being devoid of feelings of attachment to the outcome. A theory is just speculation until it's measured against empirical evidence and proven. Scientists must have an open mind as they explore the facts before they arrive at a conclusion. This is especially the case with Christology, with Christ holding the key to the ultimate "truth", since He is "the word of God", "the logos". (John 1:1)
Let's first consider an example of how to explore truth "outside Christology", in the natural material world around us. In the 5th century B.C. a Greek philosopher, Democritus, coined the Greek word "atomos," meaning "indivisible" or "uncuttable". He theorized in his mind that all matter is made up of tiny, indivisible particles, we now call "atoms". Ingenious, right? Where did he come up with this idea? Fast forward 2300 years later to the British chemist, John Dalton in the 19th century who discovered empirical "evidence" based on experimentation in the laboratory. Turned out, Democritus was correct. Then in the 20th century, scientists discovered more ecidence of even smaller subatomic particles; electrons, protons, neutrons, and even smaller particles then these within each atom; neutrinos, quarks, etc. We can't see these particles without highly sophisticated x-ray equipment. These new "facts" were discovered by maintaining an open mind to discovering previously unknown truths.. Atoms didn't change, but new knowledge, "evidence~facts" emerge that demonstrated how Democritus only had partial knowledge of these atoms. Democritus didn't know what he didn't know "yet". We learn by questioning, searching, and accepting new "evidence~facts" as we discover them. If Democritus were alive today, no doubt he would acquiesce and accept the "evidence~facts".
It takes humility to recognize we don't have all the answers, even after years of knowledge.
Another approach discovering truth comes from learning that certain"evidence~facts" we accepted previously were incorrect and false, something most are not willing to accept or admit as Mark Twain said below. Yet this is how many fields of science progresses by testing and refining theories, sometimes leading to the replacement of previous misunderstandings with new "evidence~facts".
Another example is the world famous scientist, Louis Pasteur who questioned conventional thinking at the time, the notion of Spontaneous Generation; that living organisms could arise spontaneously from non-living matter. Through careful investigation and painstaking experimentation, Pasteur was able to demonstrate that microorganisms require a source of life first, and cannot arise spontaneously. Pasteur discovered that microorganisms cause disease and he found a way to develop vaccines against cholera, anthrax, and rabies. "The truth" of science saved lives. What motivated Pasteur to pursue his quest? Turns out, he was a devout Christian (French Catholic) but he used "facts" based on experimental evidence to prove his hypothesis to help people. What was considered "truth" (Spontaneous Generation) was proven false under the weight of evidence, new "facts". We learn from this the importance of putting aside misinformation and conventional thinking that often misleads us, and to accept "facts" to arrive at "the truth"
Do the same principles and laws of science apply to "Christology"? Is "the truth" of Christ immutable, unchangeable? Most Christians would say "yes", based on "the Bible". You might think, wait a second, these "evidence~facts" are thousands of years old. How do we view what we read in scripture as newly discovered "truths"? This is what we'll discover together.
The first question to consider is, WHICH BIBLE? Does it matter? Let's apply the principles of science by following the "evidence~facts". This is developed on the next page; "Biblia~Bible".
​​​
Most Christians are familiar with the pejorative comment by the infamous Pontius Pilate who said to Jesus on the day of His trial, "What is truth?" (John 18:38) Pilate wasn't asking a question to acquire an answer. Jesus knew the sarcasm in Pilate's comment, so Jesus didn't respond to Pilate. Truth doesn't need to defend itself. Truth simply "is". Truth is based on "facts". Jesus previously made it known to His followers, "I am the way, and "the truth" and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Though Pilate didn't know this doesn't take away from this reality.
​
No sooner had Jesus made these statements did many Jews deny, in fact, condemn His claims, saying He was blasphemous and contradicted the Mosaic Law. In fact, many called into question Jesus' claims of divinity, that He and the Father in heaven are one. This stood in stark contrast to their monotheistic view "the Lord our God is one Lord", not two, or three. (Deuteronomy 6:4) But did Moses mean Almighty God was ruling the universe alone by Himself as one? Was it not Moses who also spoke of "us" and "we" in Genesis, as co-creators? (Genesis 1:26, 3:22) Let's follow the "facts".
Many claim that Jesus was simply the first born "creation" of God based on (Colossians 1:15). Was Jesus merely a "created" being in heaven who came to earth as a man, like some angels did? Again, let's follow the facts. When He assumed flesh as a man (incarnation), did He not acquired human nature becoming "fully man", and maintaining His divinity? When Jesus ascended back to heaven 40 days after He resurrected to sit at the right hand of His Father, was He "fully divine". (John 10:25-33)​
THINK ABOUT IT; Everything we've come to know and believe, was learned postnatally (after birth), from family, friends, school teachers, neighbors, public figures, and religious leaders we'be come in contact with over the years. No one was born with the knowledge of God. And no one picks up a Bible, reads it on their own and fully understands it. Someone explained it to us. Once we hear what someone told us, we have a choice to believe it or not. If we trust and accept the explanations and believe them, the tendency is to only then see and hear from that point forward what supports that belief. But the people we've relied on for these understandings received it from others, and so forth. Wouldn't it be best to trace back where these beliefs started? Who can we trust?
Something else to contemplate: If you've ever played chess, imagine making a move that cost you an important piece on the board, a knight, a bishop, a rook, or the queen, resulting in "checkmate". Now "WHAT IF?" you knew ahead of time what would happen so you could make an alternate move to avoid loss. Wouldn't you take advantage of that knowledge? Aren't we all given this same opportunity with what Jesus taught? All He asks is that we follow His directives when faced with choices.
Remember the Indiana Jones movie, Last Crusade", when the voice of the imaginary middle-ages knight in the cave said to Indy when given the choice between sevaral cups to drink the healing water, many looked fine, but only one was the "holy grail", the cup that Jesus supposedly drank from, in order to save his father (Sean Connery in the movie). The knight said, "Choose wisely my son." wi t
Ask yourself; are you sure you're drinking from Christ's cup? How would you know? Keep reading.
THINK ABOUT IT: ​
If we're basing our knowledge and beliefs in "Christ om just the Bible, how do you know the one you chose is from the cup Jesus and the apostles drank from? The challenge is that there are now over 4,000 different versions or translations of the Bible in circulation. Which one can we trust to be the closest to the "original"? Are they all the same? Then why the need for so many? Or are there things missing, added, or changed in many of these translations that are different from the original scriptures? We may think we're free to choose for ourselves, but what did Jesus Himself say? (John 17:3) Our "eternal" lives depend on following God's words as revealed by Christ. Wouldn't it be wise and safe to rely on the most accurate translation of the scriptures in existence today?
The next page is crucial.
"the Bible", but which Bible?