Do you agree that the 'truth', in John's context, is none of these? And how would you define it in the context in which John originally used it? I don't even want to try to define it; it is like trying to define 'God' - a discusssion which goes nowhere - which was pretty much my original point.

Mike,

I think 'truth' in this context has to be some heightened state of consciousness which presents two problems for me.  First, even though all of us here are familiar with the idiom, it's still a sloppy distortion of the word.  Secondly, I think it's illusory.  I don't think the problem's defining it necessarily.  Just like we can define God easily enough (such that any child gets the concept easily enough), we can define 'truth', I think.  It's just not real, that's all.