Philosophically, what does this Bible verse mean?

Jesus:" [I] came into the world ... to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to [my] voice" Pilot: "What is truth?" This caught me completely off guard; this appears to be a very uncanny reply. What exactly is meant by this? And do you think Pilot actually said this?

[Scott]

The Bible says that some snakes can talk and that some humans have lived for over 3 hundred years. So it is not a credible source, in my analysis. Are there any other historical documents from the time that provide an account of such a conversation involving Pilot saying something like that? If not, then I doubt it happened.

What did he most likely mean if he did indeed say it? That's hard to guess. It would probably require expert analysis by expert translators. We'd also need as much historical data to provide context to the encounter, which the Bible cannot provide for the reasons mentioned above (i.e. it's a fictional account). So what we can possibly guess he meant would depend on what kind of information we can gather about the conversation, its exact wording and context from credible, non-Biblical sources.

Hi Jackwhitlocke_005,

I think that Jesus meant that he came into the world to be a witness of the gospel truth, and to be a part of that truth - that is the truth concerning his father God. What he means by people who are on the side of truth, I think are those who believe in him, and believe that he is the saviour. In all honesty, I think that Pilot, was asking the same question as you are. I think that Pilot, not being a Christian would of definately asked Jesus what truth he was talking about. It would be the natural question to ask in my opinion.

The Bible says that some snakes can talk and that some humans have lived for over 3 hundred years. So it is not a credible source, in my analysis. Are there any other historical documents from the time that provide an account of such a conversation involving Pilot saying something like that? If not, then I doubt it happened.

What did he most likely mean if he did indeed say it? That's hard to guess. It would probably require expert analysis by expert translators. We'd also need as much historical data to provide context to the encounter, which the Bible cannot provide for the reasons mentioned above (i.e. it's a fictional account). So what we can possibly guess he meant would depend on what kind of information we can gather about the conversation, its exact wording and context from credible, non-Biblical sources.

Fine points, Scott.

What always concerns me deeply is the valuation placed upon these supposed events and characters, where logic, reason, evidence and common sense tell us that they are not worth the paper they're printed on.

'Do not eat from the tree of knowledge' perfectly encapsulates the fear that religious leaders had, even in the early days, of the people becoming inquisitive or rational. We're still waiting for the majority of the world to become enlightened. Ironic, isn't it?

What is truth is a good question. It is just like what Socrates asked. You cannot really know what is truth, so you have to guess. It gets confusing, and I ask myself that all the time.

Maybe Pilot was an early moral relativist........

I think the reply was from a frustrated politician who was exhausted with the constant bickering of the people he governed. Although I believe the Bible, I also take the context and historical situation into account. The Jews had a problem with anyone claiming to be the Son of God, the Romans would have no problem with it as many of their mythological stories had sons of the gods in them, even our famous Heracles was a son of Zeus. So I believe that he said this, but as he was done with dealing with the problems, and put an end to Jesus' life and hoped it would end with that. What is truth? Isn't that what we all look for, why question the fact that it happened, he obviously did this act to placate the people who wished Jesus' death, and to stop what he may have believed was a revolutionary movement started by Jesus and his followers, but when confronted with the person himself, he may have seen in Jesus a vision of Socrates, or Diogenes of Sinope, and asked the question so many people have asked these men, only to realize he'd asked it as so many of us have, not willing to listen to the answer, or afraid of the answer. Remember, there was a sizeable Cynic movement in Gadara close to Nazerathe, perhaps Pilate took Jesus for a Cynic, and posed it. Just thinking. Diogenes of Utah

Maybe real truth is ensconced in realms of being far, far, beyond our powers of understanding......maybe not.

Jesus would have had to use language in keeping with the lay people he was dealing with so maybe truth should be viewed as a guide and not an absolute.

Truth is relative is what Pilate meant. Jesus in the story as told stands for the Jewish dogmatism that truth is absolute and that God reveals absolute truth.

It does not matter whether or not the story or bits of the story is historically accurate nor even that the incident took place. What matters is that the story is devotional for believers in the revealed word of God.

It means that truthful (sincere) people will listen to Christ. Since all worldly rulers are liar and insincere devil’s protégés Pilate was one of them truth-rejecters. So Christ didn’t take the trouble to answer.

This surely begs the question.

To say that to be uncritical of Jesus, Buddha,Brahman, Mithra, Moses, or whoever makes for humanity to be ruled by the whims of any esoteric or literal interpretation, does it not?