Problem with the Truth

 Why is it that we have such a problem with the truth?

 You may scratch your head at that statement, but hear me out.  I believe that we as humans have a love-hate relationship with the truth.  We love to think that we are diligently seeking it out or that we have found it, but, in reality, we don’t actually want to find it.  We’d rather think that truth does not exist or is so completely subjective and relative that it doesn’t apply to us.  Why would I say such a thing?

 Well, I want us to think about it for a minute as we apply the truth to some very real world situations.  Let’s take the issue of hunger in the world.  We all know there are people in this world who face hunger every day.  We also know that people die from hunger every day.  And we also know that we produce enough food in the world to feed everyone with no problem.  No one should go hungry, so why do they?  I have said before that the truth of the matter is: we don’t have a hunger problem; we have a distribution problem.  Food is not distributed to those who are in need.  That’s the truth.  We may all nod in agreement this morning with that statement, but here is where the truth hurts.  If you are like me, you have a pantry full of food.  You have a refrigerator full of food, and you have a freezer with plenty of food in it.  Most of us have enough food stored up in our house to last for months.  We have much more than we need, so we are actually part of the problem.  When the truth confronts us, we don’t like it. 

 Or, let’s turn our attention to politics for a little bit.  I know we have both Republicans and Democrats sitting here this morning. Some of you are passionate about supporting your political party, and I understand that.  Some of you are more quiet than others given that this area leans very strong Republican.  We are in the midst of a presidential election year, and the newspapers, radio waves, and internet feeds are going nuts talking about how the end of the world–or at least the end of the U.S. will be at hand if either Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders is elected.  So, what is the truth of the matter.  Well, if history is any judge, it’s not going to matter who is going to get elected.  Really.  Think about it.  Has the election of anyone really made a difference for any one of you here today?  Has your life improved substantially by the election of any particular person to office?  The reality is that elections are more about which corporate entities get richer.  You and I almost never benefit, and yet we fight amongst each other as if these elections were life and death.  And the truth hurts because we become so emotionally involved in these things.  When the truth confronts us, we don’t like it.

 And God forbid that anyone asks us what we really believe is the truth about a particular issue.  I’ve stepped in it a bit with my first two illustrations.  Perhaps I’ve gotten myself into a little bit of hot water, but that’s going to be nothing compared to this next topic.  I’m going to talk about altar flowers.  Some of you may laugh at this.  Others are already gearing up for a battle.  If you are not a Christian or are new to the Christian church, you may not realize that there are actually conflicts in churches about whether or not you can use artificial flowers on the altar.  And we pastors are oftentimes thrust right into the midst of the battle.  “Pastor, can we use artificial flowers on the altar?”  “Pastor, tell them that only live flowers are allowed on the altar.”  Believe me, you don’t want to be caught here.  It’s not pleasant.

 What is the truth of the matter here?  My honest answer to folks on this one is: God doesn’t care what kind of flowers you put up there, but people do.  Before anyone throws anything, hear me out.  Do you really think God in heaven looks at a congregation and says, “Whoa there!  They put artificial flowers on the altar down there.  That’s a huge no, no.  Gonna have to move them to the going to hell list until they repent and use real flowers.”  I mean, it’s just as plausible as God looking down from heaven and saying, “Wait a minute!  I gave these people the ability to produce very realistic flowers so they wouldn’t have to destroy the beauty of my creation just to add color to their worship services.  Why do they persist in taking the wondrous beauty I produce outside and move it inside when they don’t have to anymore?  I’m going to put them on the going to hell list until they repent and change their ways.”  Do either of these things make any sense what-so-ever?  But, this truth confronts us in our own traditions–traditions that are very important to some of us.  And if our traditions are shown to be not as important as we once thought, we are not happy about it.  The truth hurts.

 In each of the examples above, when truth is brought to the matter, we don’t like it.  It makes us dig deep down within ourselves to confront our biases and our behaviors.  The truth reveals that we are not as holy, as good, or as worthy as we think that we are; so even though we like to think that we strive for the truth (because that makes us look good), when confronted with the truth, we generally shy away from it or refuse to admit it.  It is too painful.

 I believe this is why the Jewish authorities were trying so hard to get rid of Jesus.  This is why they paid Judas to betray Him.  This is why they put Him on trial.  They could not stand that He, as the way, the Truth, and the life, revealed their shortcomings and showed how they had corrupted the Jewish faith.  Unable to handle the Truth, they chose to get rid of it.

 After Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gesthemane, they brought Him to the high priest.  This move was highly unusual.  The Jews had developed a system of jurisprudence that followed the Torah.  They prided themselves on being a just people, but all of that was thrown to the wind because of their hatred of Jesus.  Ordinarily, they would meet in the daytime so that all proceedings could be public.  Not so now.  Ordinarily, they met “in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, north of the temple sanctuary, adjacent to the Court of Israel.”  (Edwards) Not so now.  They met in the high priest’s house to expedite the process and keep out public influence.  Ordinarily, they gave the accused time to prepare a defense.  Not so now.  All of their jurisprudence, they threw out the window because of their hatred of Jesus.

 And they certainly didn’t have any ideas of innocent until proven guilty.  Mark says they were seeking evidence so that they could put Jesus to death.  They didn’t have any evidence!!  But they desperately wanted some, so they tried their hardest to produce such evidence.  They failed repeatedly.  You see, according to Jewish law at the time, two witnesses were necessary to provide evidence for a death penalty, and those two witnesses had to agree on every detail–every single detail.  The Jews knew how unreliable eye-witness testimony could be.  They knew that oftentimes people saw what they wanted to see and heard what they wanted to hear.  They wanted to insure this did not happen to an accused person.  They wanted to make sure people weren’t lying just to get rid of someone.  They questioned witnesses individually to safeguard fraud.  And their own system was failing them.  The false witnesses who came to testify against Jesus could not agree on details.  Not surprising since they were making stuff up as they went.

 Mark records then, a very interesting note.  Witnesses came forth to say that Jesus had said, “I will tear down this temple made with hands and build one not made with hands.”  Nowhere in Mark did Jesus say this.  There is a reference to this in the book of John.  It’s an interesting accusation because of what it connotes.  According to Craig Evans, “Referring to the temple as... “made with hands” in itself would have been offensive to the ruling priests, for in addition to denying the divine status of the temple such a statement would even hint at its idolatrous status.  In the LXX, ...“made with hands” appears several times in reference to idols.  Such a connotation would only intensify the prophetic indictment of Jesus’ saying” The temple establishment is likened to something human, perhaps even idolatrous, that will be destroyed when the “son of man” comes and a temple...”not made with hands” is erected.”  The accusation here against Jesus is that He is claiming that the temple is an idol.  That would have infuriated the Sanhedrin, and could have carried a death sentence.  However, we know from the book of John that Jesus was not referring to the temple proper but His body.  This is most probably why, “on even this point they could not agree.”

 The trial at this point is not going well for the Sanhedrin.  The false witnesses cannot come up with a proper accusation.  Jesus is not cooperating with His silence. Ordinarily, an accused person would speak up and defend himself, but Jesus does not.  If He opens His mouth, it is very likely, the Sanhedrin will find something to accuse Him of, so Jesus lets things play out.  He will not answer falsehood.  There is no need.  It will always undermine itself.  Therefore, since the witnesses cannot agree, and Jesus remains silent, Caiaphas, the high priest takes matters into his own hands.  With the thought of this trial slipping away and the distasteful prospect of having to release Jesus, Caiaphas speaks, “ 60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?’ 61But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

 Let me read to you Walter Liefield’s comment here, “The silence of Jesus to the first questions prompted the high priest to ask him another.  The question “Are you the Christ the son of the Blessed One?” indicates that by this time the religious authorities either knew or suspected that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah.  “The Blessed” is a reverential circumlocution to avoid the pronunciation of the name of God and stands in apposition to the title “Christ” or “messiah.”  “Son of God” was understood by the Jews of Jesus time solely in a messianic sense; and since the Messiah in Jewish expectations was to be a man, the question of the high priest was about Jesus’ claim to messiahship and had nothing to do with deity.  The question proved to be a stroke of genius.  Blasphemy was a capital crime.  If the religious authorities could not effect an accusation by the testimony of others, Jesus’ own testimony about himself would do.  Had Jesus refused to answer this question, the Sanhedrin would have had to devise some other plan.”

 If Jesus would have remained silent, some other plan would have needed to been devised.  If Jesus would just have remained silent.  But He did not.  At this crucial junction, Jesus spoke.  And He didn’t pull any punches.  “I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”, and “coming with the clouds of heaven.”  Now, if Jesus would have simply admitted that He claimed to be the Messiah, there would not have been much of an uproar.  There were people who claimed to be the Messiah all the time, and the Sanhedrin didn’t accuse them of blasphemy.  There is something more to Jesus’ statement here.  There something that truly sets Him apart form these other wanna be Messsiahs.  Let’s start with the first two words of Jesus’ answer. “I AM.”  Some scholars debate this particular response as to whether Jesus is simply self identifying or if there is more going on because the Greek words here: ego eime are the exact words used for God’s name in the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible.  If Jesus is using the name of God right here, it is no wonder He is accused of blasphemy!  He is telling the Sanhedrin He is God!!!

 And Jesus does not quit there, He continues by quoting Psalm 110 and Daniel 13.  N.T. Wright says this, “...these two biblical texts, taken together, answer all the questions simultaneously, and add to them the assertion that Jesus will be vindicated, exalted to a place at God’s right hand.  The answer says, in a tight-packed phrase: yes, I am a true prophet; yes, I am the Messiah; you will see me vindicated; and my vindication will mean that I share the very throne of Israel’s God.  At last the masks are off, the secrets are out, the cryptic sayings and parables are left behind.  The son of man stands before the official ruler of Israel, declaring that God will prove him right, and the court in the wrong.”

 Throughout the book of Mark, there has been a Messianic secret.  Jesus has commanded the disciples to silence about His identity.  Jesus has commanded the demons to silence regarding His identity.  Jesus has commanded those whom He healed to silence regarding His identity, but here, in front of His accusers; in front of those who are waiting to put Him to death, He reveals Himself.  “I AM!” 

 And the high priest tore his robes.  This is a sign of deep distress.  This is a sign of anger and grievous wound.  This Jesus has placed Himself in a position only reserved for God.  Jesus has elevated Himself far too high.  Indeed this is blasphemy!!  All the rest of those gathered agreed and condemned Jesus to death.  They couldn’t handle the truth!  And so convinced of their rightness; so convinced are they of their position, they begin to slap Jesus and hit him.  Jewish law required that if a man is condemned of death, those who have accused that man are made to cast the first stones.  The members of the Sanhedrin are following through on this.  They are unabashedly killing the truth. 

They cannot stand in its presence. 

 It’s not surprising, because when we are confronted with the truth, we don’t like it either, and now I am going much deeper than those opening illustrations I used at the beginning of this sermon.  I am going straight to the source of all truth.  I am going straight to Jesus, and I am telling you this morning that if you stand in the presence of Jesus, you will find it a very painful experience.  You will find yourself cut to the core.  You will find yourself revealed in all of your weakness.  The truth hurts, and being in front of Jesus is no different.

 But...

 But...

   But...  Jesus is love.  Standing in front of Him won’t hurt.  He simply loves us; unquestioningly; without reservation.  Yes.  Indeed He does love us without reservation, but He loves us not because of who we are but in spite of who we are.  Let me say that again, Jesus loves us not because of who we are but in spite of who we are.  It is this that hurts most deeply when we come before Jesus because we are truly revealed.

 We are revealed as those who have murdered others simply by being angry with them.–Matthew chapter 5.

 We are revealed as those who have failed to give up our possessions and follow Him.–Luke chapter 14.

 We are revealed as those who did not love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength.  We are revealed as those who chase after false Gods.

 We are revealed as those who have failed to love our neighbor as ourselves.

 We are revealed as those who have failed to love our enemies and bless those who persecute us.

 We are revealed as those who talk the talk but fail miserably to walk the walk.

 We are revealed as those who want to justify our actions and make excuses instead of accepting our faults.

 We are revealed as those who would seek to escape the truth or have it silenced.

 If you ever stand in front of Jesus, these things cut you to the core, and you know deep down your failure.  You know deep down your own darkness.  You know deep down your sin.

 And it is at this point, where the great I AM stretches out His arms and dies for you.  It is at this point where you know you are not worthy of the truth, that the truth sets you free by saying, “I will take your sin upon myself.  I will offer you forgiveness.  I will clothe you with my righteousness that you may be blameless; you may be flawless.”

 The truth will go to the cross to right all your wrongs.  He loves you that much.  “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved by Him.”

 Ah, and once you experience these two things: once you are condemned by the truth and then embrace by it with its great love: no longer will you run from it.  No longer will you avoid it.  You will stand in it and upon it.  And you will unabashedly point to it–not as something you own or claim, but as the person who was unafraid to announce it; die and then rise as it.  You will point to the truth.  You will point to Jesus.  Amen.

When the Truth Confronts You

No one likes to be told or shown that they are wrong. No one. Most of us are quite happy to grasp onto our beliefs despite argument to the contrary. Even if we are confronted with strong evidence that our stated positions are lacking, we will end any sort of debate or conversation with the be all and end all phrase, "Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree." Such a statement is fine if you are simply disagreeing about an opinion. I mean we can agree to disagree that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream or that pepperoni pizza is better than cheese pizza, but when it comes to matters of deep substance, when it comes to matters of truth, we can’t simply agree to disagree. We must have the courage to argue; to debate; to wrestle; and to even change our minds when presented with evidence that we are wrong.

As Christians, this is particularly so because it follows the nature and teaching of our founder, Jesus. Jesus was not an "agree to disagree" kind of guy. Nowhere in the Gospels do you see Him acquiescing to a point of view that is different by simply agreeing and letting that viewpoint go unchecked. Jesus entered into the dialogue, defined His position–which was God’s position, and then pointed out the error of the other view. It cost Him to be less likeable among certain groups, but it also won Him the admiration of many who saw that He was both impartial and consistent as He taught and proclaimed God’s Kingdom. Today’s Gospel lesson is a perfect piece of evidence showing Jesus’ confrontational nature when it comes to matters of Truth.

Let’s set the context once again as we turn to this encounter between Jesus and the Sadducees. Remember, Jesus had entered into Jerusalem with all the markings of the coming Messiah. He cleansed the Temple pointing out how the Sanhedrin or Jewish Religious High Court had used the Temple for their own selfish purposes instead of using it as a place where all the people of the world were intended to worship. The Sanhedrin took objection to Jesus’ actions and wanted to arrest Him and kill Him, but they could not because Jesus had endeared Himself to the crowds. Arresting Jesus without pretense would have caused a riot amongst the people causing the Romans to intervene thereby causing the Sanhedrin to lose their standing both in the crowd’s eye and in the Romans’ eye. Therefore, they had to discredit Jesus and turn the crowd against Him or show that Jesus was a threat to Rome. Last week, the Herodians and Pharisees took their shot with a question about taxes. This week, the Sadducees throw Jesus a religious curve ball.

Now, unlike the Pharisees and Herodians, the question the Sadducees throw at Jesus is not a life or death question. No one is going to kill Jesus or arrest Jesus based upon Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection. The Sadducees are trying to discredit Jesus by making Him look stupid. Little do they know the consequences that will befall them.

Mark tells us the Sadducees–who do not believe in the resurrection come to Jesus. Now, let me take just a moment to explain why this detail is important. You see, Judaism during the time of Jesus was not a united religion. There were many different groups vying for the heart of the populace. There were Pharisees, there were Sadducees, there were Zealots, there were Esseens, there were Herodians, and so on and so forth. Each of these groups practiced the Jewish faith a little different from the others. Each had various authorities they cited to bolster their positions. All of them agreed on the basic tenets of Judaism, but there were other things they disagreed about vehemently. The resurrection was one of them. Most Jews at the time believed that in the future, God would indeed resurrect those who had died as part of establishing the Messianic kingdom. They gleaned their beliefs from portions of the Psalms, Ezekiel, and the book of Daniel. However, the Sadducees did not buy these arguments. The Sadducees were convinced only by the authority of the Torah–the first five books of the Old Testament. If it could not be found in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy, then it was human ideal and not to be trusted.

The Sadducees were convinced there were no referents to the resurrection in the Torah despite many arguments from the Pharisees to the contrary. The Sadducees were convinced that all of the Pharisaical arguments fell short, and they felt confident that they could show how stupid the belief in the resurrection was. They attempted to use that argument on Jesus.

"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her."

Now, my initial answer to this line of thought would be, "What in the world was that woman putting into her cooking?" I mean, honestly, if I were like the fourth or fifth brother in line, I would have been like, "Uh, no thank you. I would rather take the chance of enduring God’s wrath than marrying her!!" But, perhaps this is beside the point.

The point the Sadducees are trying to get across is a point based in the Torah which God was offering both protection for a woman and protection for the blood line of a family. There are certain stipulations that surround this law in the Old Testament, and should you like to delve into it further, you can read about it in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. We will not do that now. What we will do now is follow the train of thought of the Sadducees. They are basically trying to show the absurdity of this scenario. If the resurrection is real, and if we are married to our spouse in the resurrection, then this woman will have seven husbands. There is no allowance in the Torah for a woman to have seven husbands, therefore the resurrection will not happen.

Jesus responds rather harshly and with a great deal of confrontation, "Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?" I want you to stop right there for just a moment and contemplate Jesus’ words. I mean, really just let that sentence sink in for just a moment. How in the world would you feel if someone asked you that question? Don’t you know you are wrong because you neither know the scriptures or the power of God? Jesus cuts the Sadducees to the heart because they prided themselves in knowing the Scriptures. They prided themselves in knowing about the power of God, but Jesus says they are ignorant of both, and He does so in two ways.

First, Jesus challenges their premise about being married in the resurrection: "25For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Now, some of you might be looking at your spouse right now and thinking, "What? I won’t be married to her in heaven? That’s not what I want!" I am sorry to break the news to you. In the resurrection, there will be no need for marriage. We will indeed recognize one another. We will be overjoyed to see one another, but we are entering into a totally different reality. Angels don’t need to marry because they are totally and completely satisfied by the love of God. We will be like that, Jesus says thus nullifying the Sadducees premise and their logic.

But Jesus doesn’t stop there; He continues on with point number two: and as to the resurrection–whether or not it will take place. Jesus points out a critical text in the Torah. It is when God reveals Himself to Moses in the burning bush. God tells Moses, "I AM the God of Abraham. I AM the God of Isaac. I AM the God of Jacob." God does not say, "I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." No, God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And then Jesus makes another appeal to a belief held by every religious group, "God is the God of the living and not of the dead." If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not to be raised; if they had ceased to exist, then God would not have spoken as if He were still their God! Jesus points this out to the Sadducees, I am sure, much to their dismay.
And then Jesus drives the final nail, "You are quite wrong." "You are way off base." "You do not know what you are talking about."

Oh, imagine Jesus saying that in our cultural milieu today. Imagine Jesus confronting the various religious groups today and saying, "You’ve missed the mark. You are wrong. You don’t understand scripture or the power of God."

You know what most folks would say to Jesus? You know how they would respond?
It’s not hard. We hear the arguments all the time:
"What gives you the right to say that I am wrong?"
"What is the Truth?"
"How do you know the Truth?"
"How do you know your read of Scripture is the right one?"
"We will just have to agree to disagree.
And, of course, Jesus isn’t exactly here to defend Himself. We are. And it is we who bear the brunt of these questions. They deserve some sort of answer as well–particularly if we want to establish Jesus as our authority.

First, we must establish that there is some sort of Absolute Truth. There are some who wish to say that truth is relative or that truth does not exist, but that is an absolutely illogical position to take. How so, you might ask. First off, you cannot start with a self-refuting statement. If you say, "Truth is relative," then the statement "Truth is relative" must be absolutely true. How can that be? Or, if you say, "Truth does not exist," well, then how can the statement "Truth does not exist" be true? It can’t. There must be some sort of Objective Truth giving meaning and, well, truth to our statements.

But now comes the hard part. We can know that there is objective Truth, but we cannot know it objectively. Think about that for a minute. There is objective Truth, but we cannot know it objectively. We are dependent upon that Truth being revealed to us. This is important especially when we get into arguments of a religious nature.

For instance, in the above argument between Jesus and the Sadducees, there are two positions: the resurrection will happen or there is no resurrection. Which of these is True? We have no evidence of resurrection (at least we didn’t at the time)? The two positions are mutually exclusive. They both can be wrong. One can be right, but they cannot both be right. How does one decide? They appeal to the evidence. They appeal to what God has revealed.

As Christians, this is exactly what we do when we enter into arguments of a religious nature. We do not appeal to our own authority. We do not appeal to ourselves. We appeal to Jesus. For if Jesus is who He says He is and did what He said He did, then to use the famous catch phrase of C.S. Lewis: He is either Lord, a lunatic, or a liar.

Jesus, of course, claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed that He was laying His life down for the world. He claimed to be the ransom for many who would reconcile the world unto God. He claimed to be the I AM, God incarnate. He claimed to be the resurrection and the life. He claimed to be Lord of the world. He claimed that God sent Him into the world because God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Folks may say, "Well, that’s not good enough. Just because He said these things about Himself doesn’t prove that He wasn’t a liar or that His followers turned him into something that He was not." Fair enough criticism. But let’s look at the facts because there have been a lot of people who have claimed to be a Messiah. There have been a lot of people who came along in the history including the recent history of humanity who claimed to be God. What happened to their followings? What happened to their followers after these folks died?

Historically, whenever such folks came about, they would raise a following, but when the leader died, all the followers left. No one stuck around. Not so with Jesus. Everyone thought His followers would disband. Everyone thought the things that He taught would go away. But something happened that changed all that. Something happened that showed that Jesus was who He said He was and did what He said He did. That was the resurrection. Jesus was raised from the dead. Oh, sure, there are those who scoff at the notion and say that such a thing is impossible. Might I remind you that even science cannot say that such an event is impossible–they can only say that it is highly unlikely. If you add up all of the cumulative evidence, you must admit that something happened that unexpectedly changed the fortune of the world–that transformed a movement that should have died–that initiated a movement that has now spread throughout the globe. You can’t escape it. You must wrestle with it.

And when you do; when you delve into the resurrection you come face to face with Jesus. You come face to face with the God who died for you. You come face to face with the Truth who will confront you and love you with a love too deep for words. He will tell you you are wrong; that you are a failure; that you have misread scripture and gone astray, but He will also take you into His loving arms and transform you and your life like nothing else can do. Amen.

Objective Truth

I came across a quote the other day while watching a lecture by Don Carson on Youtube.

Within it, he said the following, "There is objective Truth, but we cannot know it objectively."

His argument is quite coherent, I think--and it makes sense, to me at least.

I will attempt to apply it in regards to the Christian faith and in particular to the person of Jesus.

Jesus makes the straight forward claim in John chapter 14, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."  For the purpose of this post, I would like to simply shorten what Jesus says to, "I am the truth."  I am not purposely trying to pick and choose or remove Jesus' words from the context.  Lord knows there are enough times when I and others do such a thing to further our own philosophical/theological positions.  However, in this case, I believe shortening Jesus' statement will be productive in illustrating Dr. Carson's statement.

Can we know Jesus?

The answer is yes and no.

There are things I think we can absolutely say that we know about Jesus.  If we trust the gospel narratives, there are things we can say He did and said.  Through His words and actions, there are aspects of Jesus we can most certainly say we know.

Aside from those who push for an absolutist minimal approach (who might as well give up the pursuit of ancient history), we can say Jesus did some quite astounding things.  He healed.  He preached.  He performed acts witnesses regarded as miracles.  He taught about God.  He received and accepted worship.  He saw Himself as the Son of God.  He revealed what the Kingdom of God was like.  He went to Jerusalem.  He found Himself on the short list of enemies of the state.  He was killed.  His followers believed He was raised from the dead. 

This list is far from exhaustive.  These are some of the basics.  We could delve further and add much, much more, especially if you trust the biblical narratives to have reported accurately the things Jesus said and did.  (For the sake of brevity, I will not go into the arguments among scholars who claim the gospels warrant a high degree of historical trust and those who believe they warrant a low degree of historical trust.)

Point being--there are things about Jesus the person we can say we know--unequivocally.

And yet, we do not know everything there is to know about Jesus. 

As one reads the New Testament and what Jesus says repeatedly, new insights and thoughts continually are revealed.  If one delves into the Greek and into the historical situation in which the gospels were written, one uncovers even more understanding.  There seems to be a never-ending stream of learning more and more about this person who walked the earth so long ago.

It's not surprising.

It's the way relationships work. 

We know people.  As we spend time with them, we come to know them even more, but we never, ever fully know them.  We never, ever can say, "I know this person inside and out.  I know the way their mind works.  I know what actions they have taken and will continue to take.  There is nothing about this person that can or will surprise me ever again."

No one I know of is capable of making this statement about another human being.

And so, we can say, "I know a person, but I don't fully know a person.  I know much about him/her, but I do not know him/her fully."

And so it is with objective Truth. 

Jesus claimed to be the Truth.  We can know it, but we can't know it fully.

Just as a mathematician (as Don argues) knows mathematics, but he/she doesn't know if fully.

Just as a chemist knows a lot of chemistry, but does not know everything in chemistry.

Just as a mechanic knows a lot of mechanics, but does not know how to fix everything.

And so on and so forth.

Which brings us to another important aspect of getting closer to the Truth--we need interplay between one another to bring a fuller picture of the Truth.

It is quite amazing what others oftentimes see in us that we do not see in ourselves.  It is quite amazing to talk to someone about a book one has read or a show one has watched to find that you missed something. 

I remember well reading Tolkein's Lord of the Rings.  I remember having a discussion about the movie trilogy versus the book--particularly about the battle for Minas Tirith.  One of my friends commented about how ludicrous it was to have the Army of the Dead show up at that battle in the movie. 

"It wasn't in the book," he said.

I thought him daft.  I thought I remembered reading that in the book, so I went home and consulted.  My friend was correct.  He saw it.  He remembered it.  I didn't.  I didn't see it until it was fleshed out by another.

Even though it was written in black and white in that book, my brain had constructed something very, very different, and it needed correcting.  It needed the input of others to help me grasp the reality.  And, I must humbly say, I still do not fully know the entire Lord of the Rings Trilogy even though I have read it a dozen times or so.

Just like I don't know Jesus fully.

Just like I don't know the Gospel fully.

Oh, I know some of it.  I've studied it thoroughly.

But there is still much to learn.

And there always will be when one pursues objective Truth.