Amaleq13

No, just unwarranted uncertainty.

Toto

http://scripturetext.com/1_thessalonians/4-14.htm

ει γαρ πιστευομεν οτι ιησους απεθανεν και ανεστη ουτως και ο θεος τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου αξει συν αυτω

I am not a Greek expert, but the term appears to be based on the root for pistis, which means faith, not knowledge. Paul appears to be saying that the faith in the event is what is important.

Anyone who knows more, please correct this.

Clivedurdle

KJV has "if" instead of since.

IVF New Bible Commentary Revised notes "the quintessence of the gospel".

Steven Carr

Many people say 'I believe so' in those sorts of circumstances, because they are indicating that they are not sure of the facts.

Tigers!

Or they are using the two words interchangeably.

Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that God would not be able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will?

Doug Shaver

Nobody does that.

Tigers!

No, some people are impossible to satisfy.

Nero's Boot

....which is why BibleGod must tack on the ultimate threat of eternal torture to get the reaction he wants. He loves free will so much that he engages in terror tactics to see his will done.

--"Serve mor burn!" is not an endorsement for free will NB

karlmarx

No educated person in the greco-roman world would *ever* use the term "pistis" (faith, trust), and the terms "doxa" (practical knowledge, or "opinion") and "gnosis" ("true" knowledge) interchangeably. Plato, the cornerstone of western philosophy, went to great lengths to draw the distinction between the terms. Anyone with a minimum of education would be familiar with Plato and consequently have known this distinction - to not know this would have been a real howler.

Paul, by virtue of being literate in greek, would also have known this, and it's inconcievable that he would have used the terms interchangeably. Paul is clearly showing that he only *believes*, or *trusts* that Jesus died and rose. In fact, this is perfectly consistent with his other claims, that his faith only came through revelation (in other words, he has no way of "knowing" this, i.e. it's not "gnosis", it's not even "doxa").

If one accepts that the gospels came long after Paul, and one frees the mind of preconceptions brought on by the gospels, it is clear that Paul never indicates that the crucifixion and resurrection are historical fact. He never indicates that they are something that ought to be "known" instead of simply "believed". The historicity of these events is a later addition, brought on by an assumption that the gospels are historical records, as later authors assumed (something totally unwarranted, IMO).

"Pistis" was also used by pagans in the sense of having "faith in the gods". Greek myths, for instance, were not something to be "known" but something to be thought of as "pistis". Very telling, as no-one would have thought real history to be "pistis", e.g. no-one would claim the Battle of Salamis to be "pistis", even centuries after all the participants were dead and buried. On the other hand, I suspect if one claimed to have "doxa" that Zeus had come to visit, there would be many interested listeners eager to see the evidence.