Christ Is The Truth

[reyb]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1873394' date='May 22 2009, 05:30 PM'][b]Yes, I know him.[/b][/quote]

Now since you said, you know Him - which you strongly confess and obviously referring to The Christ of God - then, you should know the Truth as well because, ‘Christ is the Truth’.

If that is the case, may I know, what do you mean by saying , ‘Truth is more than what we know’?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='reyb' post='1873810' date='May 23 2009, 09:48 AM']If that is the case, may I know, what do you mean by saying , ‘Truth is more than what we know’?[/quote]

Knowledge about a person does not mean you have a relationship with that person. There are academics who know everything about the so-called "historical Jesus," but they are a stranger to Jesus as their Savior and God. You could learn everything there is to know about anybody famous, but have no relationship with that person. So the point is being a Christian involves not only knowing basic theology about Jesus (he is God and man; he physically died, rose, and ascended into heaven; etc.) but also being devoted to Jesus by imitating him in your actions and choices and prayer life... living by the grace of God that comes through Christ.

[reyb]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1874607' date='May 24 2009, 09:40 PM']Knowledge about a person does not mean you have a relationship with that person. There are academics who know everything about the so-called "historical Jesus," but they are a stranger to Jesus as their Savior and God. You could learn everything there is to know about anybody famous, but have no relationship with that person.[/quote]

[post="1851735"]I discussed this issue in another thread showing the mendacity of an unbeliever’s documents in upholding the existence of a historical Jesus as the true Jesus Christ with respect to the testimony of Apostle Paul. [/post]

I do not mean, historians like Josephus are liars but, it is not possible for Josephus to write about the real Jesus Christ without becoming Christ’s disciple himself for a reason which Apostle Paul clearly stated in his letter that an unbeliever cannot see the light of God, who is the Christ. In other word, If anyone can see Christ through their (Apostle Paul and other witnesses) gospel then he is a Christ’s disciple otherwise, he cannot see Him. There is no gray area in this issue, whether he is a believer because he sees Christ through their gospel or a nonbeliever because he cannot see Him through that same testimony.

But if we are talking about a Jesus Christ who was preached by many even during the days of Apostle Paul – a different Jesus Christ known by men through tradition or word of mouth and not through God’s direct revelation. Then, it is possible for Jewish historians like Josephus to write something about these new issues on religious discussions during his time which now I called the ‘historical Jesus’. And he wrote about this historical Jesus not because he is an eyewitness of this historical Jesus but because he heard about him from other believers who themselves failed to see the real Jesus Christ. Historical Jesus was born and formed in the mind of people who called themselves Christians out of misguided rendition to the scripture because there is no historical Jesus while the real Jesus Christ was known by men through God’s direct revelation. In short, you can only recognize the real Jesus Christ if you hear God yourself – when God reveal himself thru Christ - and not because of your faith.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1874607' date='May 24 2009, 09:40 PM']So the point is being a Christian involves not only knowing basic theology about Jesus (he is God and man; he physically died, rose, and ascended into heaven; etc.) but also being devoted to Jesus by imitating him in your actions and choices and prayer life... living by the grace of God that comes through Christ.[/quote]

Therefore, the relationship you are talking is your experience of having moral theology brought by your knowledge and faith to Jesus Christ (historical Jesus).

Edited May 27, 2009 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1852497' date='Apr 29 2009, 06:35 PM']If you read Aquinas you may quickly notice a pattern: that an expression has different meanings and that the appropriate answer to a question involves the examination of all the possible meanings of that question.

Truth is, in the most common sense, is defined as "adaequatio rei et intellectus", correspondance between the mind and reality.

However, in Aristotelian-thomist metaphysics, truth is also defined as one of the primary universals; it is the intelligibility of a thing, the measure in which it is comprehensible by an intellect.

Thus in Summa Q16 a.5, at the question "Is God truth?", Saint Thomas Aquinas beings his answer by making this very distinction: [url="http://newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm#article5"][b]truth is found in the intellect according as it apprehends a thing as it is; and in things according as they have being conformable to an intellect.[/b][/url] He then goes on to explain that both of these meanings can effectively be said of God*, hence that God is truth.

Now, Christ is God.
Hence, Christ is truth.


*Full answer : [b]As said above (Article 1), truth is found in the intellect according as it apprehends a thing as it is; and in things according as they have being conformable to an intellect. This is to the greatest degree found in God. For His being is not only conformed to His intellect, but it is the very act of His intellect; and His act of understanding is the measure and cause of every other being and of every other intellect, and He Himself is His own existence and act of understanding. Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.[/b][/quote]
------------------
There is no problem saying ‘Christ is Truth because God is Truth and Christ is God’, based on our belief and understanding about God but this article 5 tends to set aside the question on the existence of God which can only be proven beyond doubt if you know the Truth itself - meaning – first, you must know the Truth before you should know if there is God and not the other way of saying ‘There is God and God is Truth’.

That is why even your analysis runs upside down by saying ‘God is Truth, Christ is God and therefore, Christ is Truth’.

The question is ‘What do you mean by saying ‘Christ is the Truth’?

[reyb]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1852507' date='Apr 29 2009, 06:46 PM']Sensible light shows things to our senses. The intellectual light is to manifest the truth which is contained in thoughts. [color="#0000FF"]But those who receive the spiritual or supernatural Light, perceive what is beyond all intellect[/color]. They participate in the divine energies and become themselves, in a sort, Light. When they unite to the Light, they see with it in full all that is hidden from those who have not seen the grace of Llight. The Uncreated Light is the Light where God makes Himself manifest to those who enter into union with Him.

[i]St. Gregory Palamas[/i] (1296 - 1359)[/quote]

If [b]‘[color="#0000FF"]... those who receive the spiritual or supernatural Light, perceive what is beyond all intellect [/color]‘[/b] is true – in what way they ‘.[color="#0000FF"][b]perceive what is beyond all intellect.[/b][/color]’?
Do you mean through faith?

Edited May 30, 2009 by reyb