Truth ...
Why are Plato and Socrates on a Vatican wall?
What Is Truth?

Last week my son ended up getting the "third degree" interrogation from his girlfriend's mother over the beliefs of our congregation. I was pleased that he held his own and actually left her with a lot to think about, but we ended up discussing it for hours the next day and dealing through the aggravation of it all. Unfortunately, this is a road that very often I have personally already taken. I am frequently amazed to find that many "Christians" believe what they believe because someone taught them and in "blind faith" they just believe it. They also seem to believe that if they argue with someone long enough that they will accept their often-unbiblical position out of the sheer argument. When Jesus asked his disciples in Matthew 16:13-17 (also Mark 8:27-29; Luke 9:18-20), "Who do the people say that the Son of Man is?" they answered with various replies. When He asked again, "But who do you say that I am?" it must have been so silent you could hear a pin drop. Then Peter responded: "You are the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the living God." Often missed, however, is the significance in Jesus' reply: "Blessed are you Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Allow me to state this in more modern terms: 'Blessed are you Simon Barjona, no one argued with you until you finally saw their point, but My Father who is in heaven revealed it to you.' If I can help it I will not get into "it" with anyone who simply wants to argue to prove to me that they are right all the while I am trying to prove to them that they are wrong. If there is obviously a heart to understand based on an obvious revelation from the Lord, then we can talk, but where there is an argumentative (unholy) spirit, discussion is futile at best.

Frequently, in various scripture-oriented discussions I have heard many people say, "Well, that's just your interpretation." They do have a "right" to their opinion just as I do, but the real issue is not their opinion or my opinion but what is God's perspective. Notice that I have been careful to use the word "perspective" in relationship to the Lord's thinking. To say that God has an "opinion" may also infer that He may choose to change it. Since He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, that would be inconsistant with His very character. So I have decided to focus on this topic of truth because of all of the philosophical thought that prevails in modern Christianity, which is, simply put, garbage. A big piece of the problem is that this "garbage" has been passed down to us for such a long period of time that, if we choose to deal with these issues, we find ourselves questioning our faith and beliefs right down to their foundations. Another piece of the problem (which led to the first stated) is the simple-minded "blind faith" approach to the scriptures that lacks continuity and consistency, which are obvious attributes of the very personality of the God of the scriptures. If the apostle Paul used two completely different words ("justification" and "salvation") to describe two very different issues, why has modern Christianity chosen to lump them together and assume that they mean (or are describing) the same thing? They are not the same thing. This is very important because it is close to impossible to find a congregation anywhere that has not defined their very function as a congregation and as individual Christians in "saving" everybody on the earth. In fact, consciously or not, they have simplified Jesus' message (the message of the Kingdom of God) down to a mere fragment of his message (the message of reconciliation). This message has been so twisted through two millennia of "Church" history (and control) that what is now being preached actually presents itself in opposition to Jesus' message. Jesus never preached on reconciliation. Two individuals on separate occasions came to Him and asked Him questions concerning their own posture and the answer that He gave them would be considered heretical in modern "churches." With all of this in mind I present the following questions:

Question 1: Is the modern "church" consistent with and therefore the fulfillment of what Jesus intended the first century church to be? I don't think too many would have to work on that one too long before saying: "NO, not even close!"

Question 2: If the "Church" has strayed (become apostate), where, and when did that happen?

Question 3: Who was/were the person(s) that were responsible for that breakdown?

Question 4: How can I know what is the real "truth" and filter out what is potentially two thousand years of man's philosophies in order to get back to the truth?

So let's deal for a moment on this issue called "TRUTH." Webster defines truth as being fidelity, faithfulness, constancy, and honesty. The state of being the case: FACT; also the body of real things, events, and facts." In Hebrew the word "truth" is "ehm-et" which also means "reality." This means that when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light…" he was also saying "I am the way, the reality, and the life…". Like the Greeks, I could get into another philosophical mess trying to define "reality" and, of course, those of us who have endured and survived the 60's will prefer to just leave that there.

The philosophers of Ancient Greece were deliberate in defining "truth" also. "Microsoft Encarta 2001 identifies the following statement on this issue:


Truth, a concept in philosophy that treats both the meaning of the word true and the criteria by which we judge the truth or falsity in spoken and written statements. Philosophers have attempted to answer the question "What is truth?" for thousands of years. The four main theories they have proposed to answer this question are the correspondence, pragmatic, coherence, and deflationary theories of truth. One of the earliest versions of the correspondence theory was put forward in the 4th century BC by the Greek philosopher Plato, who sought to understand the meaning of knowledge and how it is acquired. Plato wished to distinguish between true belief and false belief. He proposed a theory based on intuitive recognition that true statements correspond to the facts-that is, agree with reality-while false statements do not. In Plato's example, the sentence "Theaetetus flies" can be true only if the world contains the fact that Theaetetus flies. However, Plato-and much later, 20th-century British philosopher Bertrand Russell-recognized this theory as unsatisfactory because it did not allow for false belief. Both Plato and Russell reasoned that if a belief is false because there is no fact to which it corresponds, it would then be a belief about nothing and so not a belief at all."


The problem already existent in Plato's time is that there were (and had been for some time) all kinds of religions with belief structures that were just plain, flat out lies; wrong; no evidence to support them whatsoever; yet people believed them with all their heart. Now here is one of the problems with philosophy, rather than calling non-truths lies, they attempt to justify (rationalize) the thought process that accepts falsehoods leaving nothing but confusion and in the end "lawyers." Before we hastily blame the Greeks for this mess, the word "Theology" (meaning the study of "God") never defines what "god" it is referencing and simply boils down to a sorry, unbiblical, philosophical approach in attempting to define "God." This is in and of itself antichrist since the Lord himself declared that "He would be that which He would be" making himself indefinable. This point is magnified by the picture below which is found on a wall in the Vatican in Rome. It honors Plato, Socrates, and many other philosophers up until the time of the painter's life (Raphael-early 1500's A.D. [only 57 years following the fall of Constantinople, the eastern end of the Roman Empire and the moving of the library to Florence, Italy]) giving greek philosophy the same merit as scriptural truth.

"The School of Athens" painted by Raphael (Sanzio Raffaello) in the Stanza della Segnatura, Palazzi Pontifici, Vatican, Rome.

More Information.

Interestingly enough, our modern judicial system (which is based on the British judicial system) was based on the Biblical God's prescribed plan for knowing the truth. In the courtroom a person is convicted of a crime based upon the testimony of either eyewitnesses or evidence that also constitutes a form of a witness. Jesus said (Matthew 18:15-16)

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed."

Many may be surprised to find that Jesus did not just come up with this concept. He was quite a "Torah" scholar. In fact, it is difficult to find anything that Jesus said that is not a direct quote or a paraphrase of scripture from the "Torah" (the first five books of the Bible as penned by Moses). In fact, when Satan tempted Jesus, He specifically answered Satan by quoting from the Torah. Notice that the only time Satan used scripture to tempt Jesus that he quoted Psalm 91 (which was also written by Moses). The important variable is that Jesus' responses constitute three witnesses that go right to the foundation of our faith (i.e. the first five books of the bible). So let's look at what Moses said (Deuteronomy 19:15):

"A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed."

In his second letter to the church at Corinth (2 Corinthians) chapter 13 verse 1 the apostle Paul is dealing with the issue of sin within that congregation that may render the congregation without a Head (i.e. Jesus) or leave it to a replacement head (i.e. a spirit of a false Jesus or antichrist) and he says:

"This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

So as you can see we have three witnesses on God's method of knowing the truth; "three witnesses." You may ask: "Are there more?" Yes there are more and if you reference any of the above stated scriptures your bible will probably footnote the other references. The most important, however, are not the words in the scripture but the very acts of God. Consider the establishment of Israel as a nation in a covenant relationship with God. The Lord makes a covenant with Abram (later renamed Abraham) that states (Genesis 15:18):

"'On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:"'"

As we continue through the book of Genesis we not only see that promise restated to Abraham, but we also see the same promise made to Isaac, Jacob, and later all of Israel. The promise was and is that they would be a people before Him and that this land within these specific boundaries was theirs; forever. Notice the established covenant is before the faces of at least three witnesses. Regardless of what "Palestinians" say, the land of Israel belongs to God and He has the right to give it to whomever He chooses. He has clearly stated and with multiple witnesses that He has chosen to give that land to Israel. If the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, then no matter how unfaithful Israel has been, that promise is still a promise of the unchanging God of the universe.

In the Messianic (New Testament) scriptures we see the life, words, actions, and being of Jesus clearly stated by four writers (witnesses). If a doctrinal position is valid or "true," then we should see not only three witnesses but also witnesses from different time periods saying exactly the same thing. I am always amazed to hear preachers saying "God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" and then almost in the same breath they tell us that, with regard to God's standard of judgment, everything changed at the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus himself said (Matthew 5:17):

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets (Torah or Haftorah), I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Since I have already made statements concerning God's judgement, I will finish by focusing on multiple scriptural witnesses on this topic. Please read through Ezekiel Chapter 18 and hear what the Lord (the One who never changes [His perspective either]) has to say about His standard of judgment. Please also recognize that this was written about 600 B.C. Other witnesses of this same statement are Moses in Exodus 32:32-33 (there are books and there are names that are blotted out of books based on deeds or actions). Also Jesus himself states (John 5:28-29)

"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds (actions) to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgement."

Paul restates this posture in Romans Chapter 2 (remember that Paul is writing to the church {real believers} in Rome) and John does likewise in Revelation 20:11-15. Here we see five witnesses from the beginning to the end of the whole bible saying exactly the same thing. That's our God; the real God. I am going to be very bold here to say that NOTHING CHANGED. The redemption for which Abraham confessed that he was trusting God (as he was about to sacrifice Isaac he said: "God will provide Himself a lamb.") was fulfilled in Jesus' death and resurrection. What about all the other things that Jesus said that we have been told refer to final judgment? ([i.e. John 3] "You must be born again to see {perceive} the kingdom of God"). Well he is either contradicting himself (I don't think so!) or he is not speaking of final judgment but how we can relate to him now, in this life he has given us.

Yes, everyone needs the blood of Jesus, it's just that there is absolutely no place in all 66 books that says that the Father (like a human being) requires anyone to know Jesus' name before He (the Father) will apply the blood of His son to a repentant sinner.

I could go through a great number of these doctrines now, but I think it best to let this foundation, the foundation of multiple witnesses, be firmly established in you as you seek the Lord in washing away two millennia of doctrinal philosophy from your thinking.

I know that I did not completely answer the four questions earlier stated. I therefore refer you to the Tzemach Institute for Biblical Studies which offers great course work. For most people you would be looking at two or more years of study but you would be receiving a "whole bible" perspective. Click HERE to review course offerings.


May the Lord richly bless you as you seek Him.


James Wingerter
Praise Encourager