In John 18:37–38, Jesus says He came into the world *“to testify to the truth,”* and Pilate responds, *“What is truth?”* In Christian theology, “truth” is often associated with God’s nature, His Word, and the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Jesus also says in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all truth.” However, does this theological concept of truth also encompass factual truths about the created world (e.g., the shape of the earth, historical facts, scientific realities), or is it limited to spiritual and moral truths revealed by God? How have Christian theologians understood the scope of “truth” in Scripture?

## Overview Question ## **When a truth in the various fields of human knowledge contradicts or appear to contradict Divine Revelation, what is an overview of what various Christian religious traditions say is incumbent upon a Christian when their religious tradition hasn't said a thing one way or the other about the contradictory truth?** Science says > *"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us."* - WMAP Site FAQs Q9. Here are some fields of human knowledge (of course not exhaustive): *Mathematics, Astronomy & Cosmology, Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History, The Arts, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems*. If a truth in these appears to contradict or directly contradicts Divine Revelation [= Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition for the Church], what is an overview of what various Christian religious tradition teach a Christian ought to do, when their religious tradition hasn't said anything as yet on the truth in question? The best answer will also have Scriptural support and include a Catholic Perspective. Some examples: - *Current Cosmological model.* Outer Space, shape of the earth, that the earth moves and rotates, etc. - Darwin's *"Descent with modification"*. The above appear to contradict Genesis. - This one was big with me: that *that SARS-CoV-2 - a **"novel virus"** that is supposed to cause CoViD-19 disease - could have been created in a lab* when both Scripture and my Catholic Church says only God is Creator Please note that the answer can use an example for illustrative purposes, but not labor in trying to prove or debunk a truth in human knowledge field. Finally, it appears we are in the End-Times, and if the devil is the deceiver of the whole world, and in the End-Time he will be most active, one would expect to find his lies pervasive in ALL human fields of knowledge.

The Bible teaches that we should seek truth and avoid falsehoods. However, when it comes to things like the shape of the earth, most Christians rely on information from governments or scientists, since none of us have personally verified it by traveling to space. If a Christian sincerely believes something that is false (like the earth being flat or round), before it has been revealed to them or verified firsthand, is that considered heresy, or just ignorance? At what point does holding a false belief cross into spiritual error? I'm especially interested in how this applies when the belief doesn’t directly affect one’s salvation or core doctrines. Is believing in a scientifically incorrect idea — even unknowingly — a form of heresy in the eyes of the Church or Scripture?

I'm just curious how there can be more than one truth at the same time? God came to establish a church. Not any church. The church of the first thousand years is the Eastern Orthodox church.

The angel Gabriel foretells what many Christians interpret to be the Great Tribulation, followed by salvation of the saints and the judgment of the wicked. **Daniel 12:1-3** >“At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever. How is arch-angel Michael standing up for Israel(or the new Israel) and triggering the apocalypse if he is not Jesus himself?

We read in John 18:37-38 how Pilate poses an inquisitive question on Truth to Jesus : > Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate asked him, “What is truth?” The Evangelist does not record as to what answer Jesus gave to Pilate, but goes on to say: > After he (Pilate) had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no case against him.” It is possible that Pilate posed the question on Truth just to tease Jesus, and did not expect an answer. It is also possible that the Lord knew the futility of explaining to Pilate and therefore, kept mum. Be that as it may, John does not record the answer, nor does he talk of Jesus's silence, whichever may have taken place in response to Pilate's query. My question therefore is: **Why does John the Evangelist *not* record Jesus' response to Pilate's query on Truth?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

To the best of my understanding, Christianity lacks a unified theory or epistemology. Instead, each denomination proposes its own framework (though calling these "theories" may be controversial; see [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/118294/80226) and [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/119181/80226)) that combines practical/experiential and non-practical/abstract elements. There are significant disagreements between denominations, each having its own epistemological basis—either explicitly defined or implicitly assumed—by which they often critique or reject the perspectives of others. To illustrate, here are some prominent examples: - **Jehovah's Witnesses** receive skepticism from other denominations because of their rejection of the Trinity, unique eschatological beliefs, and exclusive claim to doctrinal truth. - **Latter-day Saints (Mormons)** face skepticism for their additional scriptures like the Book of Mormon, beliefs in continuing revelation, and doctrines about God and the afterlife that differ from mainstream Christianity. - **Catholicism** includes beliefs such as Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles, which other denominations often view skeptically as unbiblical or exaggerated. - **Pentecostals and Charismatics** are critiqued for their emphasis on spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues, healing, and prophecy, which some see as lacking biblical or historical support. - **Calvinists** hold strong views on predestination and the lack of human free will in salvation, which others find incompatible with notions of divine justice and human responsibility. - **Eastern Orthodox** theology and practice differ from Western Christianity in areas like the Filioque controversy, the veneration of icons, and the concept of theosis, which others sometimes dismiss as overly mystical or traditionalist. Suppose an outside, non-Christian observer sympathetic to Lakatos' concept of [Scientific Research Programmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Research_programmes) examines the landscape of deep Christian disagreements. Each Christian group is skeptical of every other group, with no shared research project advancing toward the truth—each simply holding its own beliefs regardless of what others believe. **What reason does Christianity offer this skeptical observer not to doubt all denominations simultaneously?** If there are *N* denominations, and each is already skeptical of the other *N-1* denominations, why would it be unreasonable for a skeptical observer to extend this skepticism to all *N*? After all, it’s merely adding one more denomination to the list. Alternatively, does Christianity present its own version of a progressive research programme (in line with Lakatos' definitions of *progressive* and *degenerative* programmes, as explained [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience)) ? Could such a programme offer a pathway for an outside observer to eventually converge on certain truths that might align with one denomination or another? ----------------------------- Additional clarifications: * If an answer merely focuses on listing a minimal set of Christian tenets as the theoretical *hard core* of Christianity (in Lakatosian terms), that would still leave unanswered **why an outside skeptical observer would have any reason whatsoever to accept these hard core tenets in the first place** in light of the fact that (1) even within Christianity there are smaller groups that do not accept them, and (2) a simple listing of tenets doesn't explain how these tenets are useful to *make progress* in our understanding of reality. * Related to the previous point, it's important to keep in mind that a key concept that Lakatos retains from Popper is *falsifiability*, which means that a scientific research program has to make *falsifiable predictions* which are so in virtue of being testable empirically. Thus, **does Christianity share this scientific appreciation for the empirical testability of its claims to any extent whatsoever?**

In the spirit of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12584/on-what-basis-do-some-denominations-prohibit-christians-from-drinking-alcohol and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10051/why-do-young-earth-creationists-make-such-a-big-deal-about-the-yec-view First, what this question isn't: - It is not asking whether the gifts discussed are still valid today. (That's been asked already). - It is not asking if the Ongoing Revelation as believed by some denominations is ***valid*** or ***true***. - It's not about asking for a Scriptural reason. As noted in the question linked to in the first bullet point, Scripture can be interpreted either way on this. Put other way, ***this is not a "Truth" question***. It's a question of the cultural and doctrinal understandings that leads to adherence to a particular view. In other words, what are some of the reasons some Christians are so wary of a view that other Christians are so willing to embrace? --- Many of the Pentecostal denominations believe that things like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and ongoing revelation are still happening today as ways for God to provide us with Truth. Likewise, the LDS Church believes in continuing revelation to the Church through the Prophets , as do others . Some of the more conservative/Fundamentalist denominations believe that extra-Biblical revelation stopped with the closure of Canon , and tend to view modern day practice of these types of personal revelation as false, and even dangerous. Most people can understand the Scriptural arguments, which would lead to believing that such a view is either true or false, but why ***dangerous***?

I am convinced that none of Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God are sufficient to proving his being. All of these have been thoroughly destroyed, underwritten, decimated by secular philosophers, starting with Hume, and then Kant, who argued that the concept of God must be believed only because he wanted moral stability within society. Kant was right in saying that the idea of a 'metaphysical science' is absurd. This might be a contested statement, but I believe the bible affirms this too, by giving no real understanding to the reader of metaphysical concepts except through vague sentences. So, because I was so discouraged with the knowledge that I cannot prove God's existence, I realized that he is not the same as I first envisioned Him to be. I approach the issue with a look at truth. I think there is one statement that we can, universally, regardless of dispute, agree upon. This I lay before the reader: Truth is. There are no implications of this statement. There ought to be no disagreement over this statement. I am not arguing that “Truth is existent”. Nor am I arguing that “Truth is non-existent”. Neither of these arguments are possible to argue. Truth is; but what it is, how it is, when it is, even who it is, is irrelevant. To add anything to this statement is like adding a paper tag to a metal airplane and arguing that the paper tag is the airplane. It simply is ridiculous. Thus, the conclusion of this argument about truth is not that we can recognize its ‘particulars’, nor that we can somehow cross the barrier of the noumena to access it. Rather, we settle upon this, a modest yet incredibly profound idea. If the only thing we can say about truth is that ‘I don’t know’, then what shall I say? Shall I argue about it at all? Shall I simply fall back on the centuries old maxim created by Kant that subjects our whole study of philosophy to the study of cognitive structures? Shall we follow the path of Plato, arguing that there exists a world of forms that is beyond our understanding, but is perceived by a select few; a world whose existence is totally impossible to prove? Should we simply trust God, and believe, as Locke and Descartes did, that our senses are good enough to find the truth? Or should we completely subject ourselves to skepticism, relativism, and nihilism? What shall we say? What is truth? We hardly know if we know that we do not know anything. Notwithstanding the uncertainty of defining truth, of showing that it is, or is not, there is one more thing, a simple thing, a thing that is impossible to prove, but a thing that is necessary: Truth is. God is. These are one and the same. Perhaps this is a bold assertion. The words I use to make it are certainly not enough to encapsulate what I am trying say. I think it is impossible to fully encapsulate with words what I am trying to say. I think it is impossible to fully understand what I mean by saying this. Yet I think this one statement, this one idea, which no one can really understand, is so necessary, so critical, to our knowledge, to our purpose, to our existence, that nothing can more fully show this. That truth is, is both undeniable and unproveable, but necessary; that God is one and the same with this truth, is foundational, I think, to not just theology, but philosophy. When Abraham spoke to the burning bush, he asked it, “Who are you?” And God answered, I AM THAT I AM. The importance of this cannot be overstated. It cannot even be understated. It is something profound, unknowable, unreachable; yet it is something that is. It is something that cannot be overstated because it is so necessary; but it is also something that cannot be understated because that is simply impossible. In dealing with the idea of God, we ought not to subject it to any rational or empirical review; there is no ‘transcendental logic’ robust enough to evaluate this. But, by taking this theory, that ‘Truth is. God is. These are one and the same’, are we subjecting ourselves to Simon Blackburn’s critique that we are “stepping outside our own skins and essaying the mythical transcendental comparison” (Blackburn 180)? Are we evaluating truth by proposing a “second-order, philosophical, subtle and elusive theory called realism to explain [truth’s] success” (Blackburn, 180)? No; rather, we take the same view as Blackburn, who, notably, said “Science explains the success of science” (Blackburn 181). The only thing that differs in my argument is my choice of words. Truth is only ‘mystical’ in the sense that we cannot understand it. About truth we can only say ‘it is’. Perhaps this is because ‘it works’. Perhaps ‘science explains the success of science’ in the same way ‘truth explains the success of truth’; or we could simplify this to say, ‘Science is science’ and ‘Truth is truth’. And this I put a label on and call God--that is, ‘God is God’. God is merely a label put on truth. In many instances it is put on something that is not really what it is. An enormous misconception of God has beleaguered all attempts of God-believing people to prove the existence of God. There is this odd idea that God is merely an ‘all-powerful, all knowing, all-good’ being as if God were a human granted superhuman powers. Simon Blackburn, in the book, ‘Truth’, referencing an analogy Bertrand Russel composed, compared the idea of a deity to the possibility of a teapot floating in orbit around the sun. “Bertrand Russel…[compared] religious belief with…factual kinds of belief, which were as improbable, scientifically, as anything could be: the belief there is a china teapot floating around the sun, for example…Now imagine, however, that this teapot undergoes a sea change. Suppose it becomes an authority (out of its spout come forth important commands and promises) …it answers prayers, adopts babies, consecrates marriages and closes grief…Is there a difference between animation and belief? Is there really a space for theology without onto-theology, and if so, how does one tell the difference?” (Blackburn, 19). Blackburn and Russel rightly question the trustworthiness of religious belief. Why is a ‘belief’ or a ‘feeling’ enough to prove the idea that God exists? Religious belief, in these men’s minds, is an imagined, cultlike fantasy. What is the difference between a deity and an imaginary friend? This is my personal opinion: Secularists, which dominate the educational community, have dismissed the significant implications of a deity by replacing the true deity with a fake one, a straw man that was put in place so that atheism could easily topple it. Theists, however, have actually given to atheists the strawman that atheists have used to deride theism. Atheists are only right in their denial of God because theists have failed to aptly define God. How should Christians define God in light of these issues?

Actually me and my girlfriend are in a relationship from 7 months. But the problem is we are from different religions. We can't lose eachother. As I know I worship the True God Jesus. According to the bible, Can i Ask God to Reveal Himself to her, Change her and save her so I can marry her? Can it be true??? Does the bible approve this kinda prayer?

I posted a question on Philosophy Stack Exchange titled [*Is the Skeptic's Prayer a legitimate scientific experiment?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/108053/66156) . Please review it for contextual information. Numerous responses, predominantly from non-believers and skeptics, present various objections to the scientific validity of the *Skeptic's Prayer*. However, let's consider a scenario where a skeptic, intrigued by the possibility of God's existence and the truth of Christianity, decides to earnestly give it a try. This individual prays with the hopeful expectation of a divine response, but despite genuine effort, experiences no discernible outcome, and no conversion experience takes place. Eventually, the skeptic abandons their exploratory pursuit. From a Christian standpoint, what conceivable explanations exist for why a truth-seeking skeptic, in the specific endeavor of seeking an encounter with or a response from the Christian God, might perceive a lack of "results" in their pursuit?

I have two questions actually for Latter-day Saints: - If a person is rational, honestly interested in the truth, and well-informed (by studying as much of the available evidence as humanly possible), should that person be able to reach the conclusion that Mormonism is true? - If so, how do Latter-day Saints explain the fact that many individuals, Christians from other denominations included, fail to reach that conclusion?

Based, in part, on some rather passionate comments regarding theologians made by user Geremia in the post "Who Said: 'God Did Not Become Man in Order for Man to Become a Theologian'? ", I have been enticed to look a little further into Catholic theology. After thumbing through some of the section that Geremia alludes to in Ralph McInerny's *What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained* p. 96 , I have decided, for purposes of this post, to take as my starting point Dr. Ludwig Ott's *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* . Therein (§ 6. "Catholic Truths", pp. 8-9), I have extracted (eliminating the Latin and adding some bold) the following: >Those doctrines and truths defined by the Church not as immediately revealed but as intrinsically connected with the truths of Revelation so that their denial would undermine the revealed truths are called Catholic Truths or Ecclesiastical Teachings to distinguish them from the Divine Truths or Divine Doctrines of Revelation. These are proposed for belief in virtue of the infallibility of the Church in teaching doctrines of faith or morals. > >To these Catholic truths belong : > >1. **Theological Conclusions** properly so-called. By these are understood religious truths. which are derived from two premises, of which one is an immediately revealed truth, and the other a truth of natural reason. > >2. **Dogmatic Facts.** By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. > >3. **Truths of Reason**, which have not been revealed, but which are intrinsically associated with a revealed truth, e.g., those philosophic truths which are presuppositions of the acts of Faith (knowledge of the supersensual, possibility of proofs of God, the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of will), or philosophic concepts, in terms of which dogma is promulgated (person, substance, transubstantiation, etc.). Can someone clarify for me, in a little less technical language, what Catholic theology means by "Catholic Truths"; and especially, "Truths of Reason"—which I find the most difficult to understand in the above list.

If a person has a choice of being truthful or nice to a friend, what does the Bible tell us to do? Example: Suppose you will hurt the feelings of your friend if you tell them the truth. Is it better to lie (or twist the truth) and be nice?

The doctrine of papal infallibility is not founded on biblical texts specifically. It is founded on the "biblically supported" doctrine that the church is the *custodian of truth*. What is the scriptural support for the Catholic church's claim that they are the custodians of truth? What does it mean to be the *custodian of truth.* Does this mean that they believe in modern revelation and receive direction from God?

I have a necklace that is a cross charm with Jesus Christ on the cross but on both sides. What's the meaning of this symbol?

We see Jesus telling the Samaritan woman at Jn 4: 23-24 (NRSVCE) : >"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” See that Jesus repeats the phrase 'worship in spirit and truth', implying that he attaches much importance to it. Here, spirit and truth are components of a single integrated concept and are not separated from each other. While he explains ìn spirit 'by attributing it to the nature of God who is spirit, he does not elaborate the phrase `in truth'. Of course, he says elsewhere: "I am the way, the truth and the life " (Jn 14:6). We also see Jesus telling Pilate : >“You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” Though we see Pilate putting a question to Jesus on what truth is (Jn 18:38), he does not get an answer from Jesus; rather, he does not wait for one. My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the term 'to worship in spirit and truth' as used by Jesus at Jn 4: 23-24?

Let's say someone is looking for the best Christian church/group/denomination, a place where they hope to find the right kind of fellowship, support and the teaching of accurate and sound doctrines. For such a seeker, there should be nothing better than being guided by God Himself to the right church. Which Christian denominations or groups consider themselves to be in that position, with such a degree of confidence that they openly invite/challenge people to ask God Himself for confirmation that they are the right church? I know that [Latter-day Saints](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83925/50422) are one example. Are there any others? _____________ A somewhat related question: [Do any Christian groups/denominations encourage their members to seek personal revelations from the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret Scripture?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83849/50422)

Is belief in the divinity of Jesus an essential feature of a true Christian, according to Latter-day Saints? If so, would that imply that Christian denominations or groups that deny the divinity of Jesus, such as [Jehovah's Witnesses and Biblical Unitarians](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/82573/50422) , by definition, cannot be truly Christian? **Note**: By true Christian I mean whatever Latter-day Saints mean by someone who is walking the narrow path that leads to salvation, according to the **perfect** will of God, following the example set by Jesus Christ for all believers to come.

Does the Bible contain any conditional promises for truth seekers that can be empirically tested, in their lifetime, to confirm the veracity of the Christian faith? By conditional promise I mean any kind of predictive statement of the form *if you do X, you will experience Y*, where Y is promised to take place in this lifetime (i.e. the person doesn't have to wait until death to see the outcome), as long as the seeker satisfies X (the conditions). What is an overview of such conditional promises in the Bible? **Note**: this question is a variant of (and inspired by) the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85814/50422