Faith is the belief in the unbelievable and reconciler of contradictions based on the best arguments that can be made to justify it. But ultimately it rests on absurdity as the main doctrine for its existence. The doctrine being that its very lack of logic is precisely that which gives it power. An idea which in a unique kind of way is eminently logical as a methodology of overcoming all objections to that which is inherently nonsensical but not without meaning.

Faith is the belief in the unbelievable and reconciler of contradictions based on the best arguments that can be made to justify it. But ultimately it rests on absurdity as the main doctrine for its existence. The doctrine being that its very lack of logic is precisely that which gives it power. An idea which in a unique kind of way is eminently logical as a methodology of overcoming all objections to that which is inherently nonsensical but not without meaning. — Tliusin

I'm not being critical but obviously you are unaware of the difference between faith IN Christ and the Faith OF Christ. Yet people attack Christianity and faith unaware of this essential distinction.

Faith?

I understand (religious) "faith" as follows:

n. A dogma consisting in 'mysteries, magic or fairytales' (i.e. just-so Woo-of-the-Gaps stories) the questioning of which more often than not triggers cognitive dissonance & increased anxiety in its adherents (i.e. 'true believers').
.
v. To trust - hope for - mysteries (e.g. miracles, prophesies) or magic (e.g. spells, curses) or fairytales (e.g. exposing conspiracies) are true in spite of contrary, or without any, evidence, and usually to the degree trusting is (psychologically) easier than distrusting said mysteries, etc.

@OP -

"Faith of" suggests having trust like another, or, as in the NT context, 'like Jesus'. "Faith in", on the other hand, denotes trusting some 'entity' itself (e.g. Jesus).

Just my two shekels.

Faith?

I understand (religious) "faith" as follows:

n. A dogma consisting in mysteries, magic or fairytales (i.e. just-so Woo-of-the-Gaps stories) the questioning of which triggers cognitive dissonance & increased anxiety usually in its adherents (i.e. 'true believers').
.
v. To trust - hope for - mysteries or magic or fairytales (e.g. exposing conspiracies) in spite of, or without any, doubts, and usually to the degree trusting is (psychologically) easier than distrusting mysteries, etc.

@OP -

"Faith of" suggests having trust like another, or, as in the NT context, 'like Jesus'. "Faith in" denotes trusting some 'entity' itself (e.g. Jesus). Just my two shekels. — 180 Proof

You are describing faith IN Christ. But what of the faith OF Christ or the quality the Apostles didn't have but wanted to become capable of.

I find it not so hard to understand the difference between in and of. There is the faith OF Christ as possessed and revealed by him culminating in his Resurrection and the faith IN Christ which Paul internalized and carried forth as his mission to proclaim the means by which man is justified compared to the external world of Law devoid of any such justification. Note what it states in your quote...even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ.

Paul couldn't have proceeded without that prior incarnation of faith manifested in Christ.

Since you proclaim it as an essential distinction, you must already have some idea as to what that is and not merely proclaim as some mystery one must ponder. Actually the biblical quote is quite clear in its meaning. If there is a mystery, it is the mystery of faith itself.

I find it not so hard to understand the difference between in and of. There is the faith OF Christ as possessed and revealed by him culminating in his Resurrection and the faith IN Christ which Paul internalized and carried forth as his mission to proclaim the means by which man is justified compared to the external world of Law devoid of any such justification. Note what it states in your quote...even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ.

Paul couldn't have proceeded without that prior incarnation of faith manifested in Christ.

Since you proclaim it as an essential distinction, you must already have some idea as to what that is and not merely proclaim as some mystery one must ponder. Actually the biblical quote is quite clear in its meaning. If there is a mystery, it is the mystery of faith itself. — Tliusin

Why did Jesus say the faith of the centurion was such great faith? Many people have faith in Christ but why is the faith of the Centurion so exceptional? If no one explains it, I'll explain what I believe to be the the difference tomorrow.

Matthew 8:5-13

The Faith of the Centurion
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.

You quoted my "faith of" (i.e. like Jesus ... or "Christ-like") so you have my answer.

faith IN Christ and the faith OF Christ — Nikolas

Faith OF Christ: His faith in god
Faith IN Christ: Our faith in Christ

The intriguing mystery that needs a solving:

Our faith in Christ was/is/probably will be based on a certain set of miracles Christ performed - feeding five thousand with nothing but a loaf of bread, walking on water, restoring sight to a blind man, and resurrecting from the dead, etc. A good mix of miracles in my humble opinion but it needs mentioning that they wouldn't have convinced a modern person who's got just that right amount of scientific knowledge under faer belt to prevent or delay an inference of divinity.

Add to this the late Christopher Hitchens' assertion that miracles, in and on themselves, don't imply anything divine and Hitchens makes complete sense: imagine yourself, with a couple of hi-tech gadgets, wandering in the Amazon jungle and meeting one of the tribes whose most advanced tech is poison-tipped arrows. I'm willing to bet a considerable sum of money, not that I have any, that you'd be treated as a god when the truth is you aren't.

In essence, and I just realized this, the notion of our faith in Christ doesn't make sense. Miracles = Evidence or at least they were meant to be. It appears that I, probably others too, was/were mistaken all this while. Christianity isn't about faith as I thought; evidence of God was produced in the form of miracles. That's that!

As for Christ's faith in god, I suppose the miracles he performed convinced him too of his own divine nature. In other words, Christ himself was given miraculous evidence of god's existence and faer interest in the affairs of humanity.

In short, faith seems a totally inappropriate concept to attach to Christ, Christians, or Christianity. :chin:

Our faith in Christ was/is/probably will be based on a certain set of miracles Christ performed — TheMadFool

I find it not so hard to understand the difference between in and of. There is the faith OF Christ as possessed and revealed by him culminating in his Resurrection and the faith IN Christ which Paul internalized — Tliusin

I agree.
The epistles attributed to Paul never or hardly ever mention any miracle. At least, they do not mention the spectacular miracles of which the Gospels are full. Paul's faith seems to be centered on a personal call from the Christ. And that is enough to believe the absurdities of a religion that reason rejects, according him. Therefore, there seems to be a faith based on an overabundance of miracles and a faith based on inner persuasion. Are they the same faith? That would have to be discussed, but it does not seem to be the issue now. They are the same in that they are beliefs inspired by anti-reason.

Therefore, my definition is clear in the traditional philosophical sense: a belief that is unjustified or even contrary to reason.
To say that faith is trust in something is confusing, because no one would call trust in natural laws 'faith'. Unless it is said metaphorically, by partial similarity.

Faith is what one does, not what one thinks.

Some people faithfully go to every match of the local team. The faith that moves mountains consists of arising, taking up one's pick and shovel, and making a start.

Faith OF Christ: His faith in god
Faith IN Christ: Our faith in Christ — TheMadFool

Succinct. :up:

Pauline Christanity - 'our faith in Christ's faith' ... :roll: (just as "the bible" is a bronze age anthology of secondary, tertiary, etc hearsay oral-to-written accounts of "divinely revealed" messages (i.e. miracles)).

Faith is what one does, not what one thinks. — unenlightened

Like trusting ... obeying ... submitting ...

our faith in Christ's faith — 180 Proof

Excellent! It's turtles all the way down :grin:

Faith IN Christ as I understand it is emotional faith. However the faith OF Christ is conscious faith leading to freedom. When we create something to have blind faith in emotionally. It can be anything and that is why it is slavery. There is no reason to it. It is partial truths governed by imagination

I'm more of a Christian Platonist so the ideas I've learned from Plato and Plotinus also permeate Christianity. Rather than man made Christianity or what Kierkegaard described as Christendom, its origin is top down so must be remembered.

Plato described the human organism as a tripartite soul made up of three distinct parts: appetites or animal needs, spirit, and reason. When they are in balance, a person becomes capable of balanced understanding which my lead to noesis or intuition.

The faith OF Christ is our conscious potential to balance these three parts of ourselves rather than living in opposition where these parts oppose one another and we turn in circles. Plato's chariot describes the efforts of the balanced Man. Of course we don't have this quality of consciousness that can sustain balance. We may have it for a moment and a person gives us a nasty look and we lose it to automatic reactions. Ye human conscious evolution requires a person to become capable of conscious faith. The apostles asked Jesus to increase our faith. Even thou they had faith in Jesus they lacked the quality of consciousness necessary for conscious faith

The faith of the Centurion was considered so high because he was master of himself. His appetites were slave to reason giving their power to act by spiritual energy. The lower parts of his tripartite soul were sick. Jesus gave him the quality of energy necessary to heal and retain balance. Efforts towards Conscious faith provides the means to awaken from being captive to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave or the darkness of the World in Christianity.

Well, you do read your Bible. But in reading your Bible so closely you collide with the fact that you are not reading the Bible at all. You're reading a translation. And that is the problem.

And If you're going to read the Bible so closely, you shall have to learn to read in Greek. (And that is actually surprisingly doable!) The phrase in Galatians reads, "διὰ πίστεωσ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" (dia pisteoos Jesus Christ). Literally, then, "through faith Jesus Christ."

The "dia" is a preposition that here means "through." It means through in this instance because of the the genitive endings "ou," and which in English is translated "of." (With different endings it means something else.) In short, then, the Greek does not have your problem; your problem is an artifact of translation into English.

And there are a lot of such problems because the square peg of Greek often does not fit the English round hole. In addition, there are just plain wrong translations, those some of translators/editors apparently feeling the Bible benefits from tweaking here and there.

Two lessons. First, trouble to obtain a good translation. Second, read for sense, letting your own sense absorb the shock and ride over small issues that may likely just be matters of translation. Third, learn Greek, PM me if you want to discuss that more.

Like trusting ... obeying ... submitting ... — 180 Proof

That's one religion... my religion is more pick and shovel.

↪Nikolas Well, you do read your Bible. But in reading your Bible so closely you collide with the fact that you are not reading the Bible at all. You're reading a translation. And that is the problem.

And If you're going to read the Bible so closely, you shall have to learn to read in Greek. (And that is actually surprisingly doable!) The phrase in Galatians reads, "διὰ πίστεωσ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" (dia pisteoos Jesus Christ). Literally, then, "through faith Jesus Christ."

The "dia" is a preposition that here means "through." It means through in this instance because of the the genitive endings "ou," and which in English is translated "of." (With different endings it means something else.) In short, then, the Greek does not have your problem; your problem is an artifact of translation into English.

And there are a lot of such problems because the square peg of Greek often does not fit the English round hole. In addition, there are just plain wrong translations, those some of translators/editors apparently feeling the Bible benefits from tweaking here and there.

Two lessons. First, trouble to obtain a good translation. Second, read for sense, letting your own sense absorb the shock and ride over small issues that may likely just be matters of translation. Third, learn Greek, PM me if you want to discuss that more. — tim wood

IYO what does the excerpt from Galatians I posted mean to you? Do you see IN and BY as the same?

Do you see IN and BY as the same? — Nikolas

What does "in" and "by" have to do with anything? These are English words that do not occur in the original. (And in English, obviously, they are not the same.)

Here's a pretty good literal translation of Gal. 2:16

Knowing and that not is righteous a man out of working of law if not through belief Jesus Christ, and we into Christ Jesus believed, in order that we be righteous out of belief Christ and not out of working of law, that out of working of law not will be righteous all flesh.

Do you see IN and BY as the same?
— Nikolas
What does "in" and "by" have to do with anything? These are English words that do not occur in the original. (And in English, obviously, they are not the same.)

Here's a pretty good literal translation of Gal. 2:16

Knowing and that not is righteous a man out of working of law if not through belief Jesus Christ, and we into Christ Jesus believed, in order that we be righteous out of belief Christ and not out of working of law, that out of working of law not will be righteous all flesh. — tim wood

I'm a little unusual. My great great grand uncle was an archbishop in the Armenian church and as I understand it, was friendly with Madam Blavtsky so is easy for me to gravitate towards Platonic Christianity. It ansers my questions. I am not the only one as seen in this link.

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm.

Rebirth or being born again is only possible from being born from above. Jesus said he brings a sword. Obviously the great struggle of the human condition is being born from below and born from above. Instead of the lower ruling the higher normal for fallen Man, a person must allow the higher to rule the lower and not be a slave to appetites. This is very difficult since the habits of the lower are very strong.

Even when I read the literal translation it is unclear.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/2-16.htm

Through faith Christ or by faith. How can we understand what through means?

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

A superficial understanding believes through refers to blind belief the body of Jesus. Yet Jesus is referring to the great chain of being in which the level of the being of Man is below the level of the Christ which is between the Christ and the Father. The Christ is the conscious quality between God and Man. The way to the Father is through the level of the Son.

believes through refers — Nikolas

I suggest you immediately give up and refrain forever from trying to read Greek meaning from English translation. You will never be correct and you may be very, very wrong. If you wish to understand the Bible, or really any other book, you have to first find out what it says - not as straightforward as it sounds. In translation you can get reasonably close, but not as close as you would like to get. Wasting perspiration on deconstructing English prepositions is a ultimately a foolish game. Certainly the authors/editors weren't planting mysteries there.

When read word for word in the OP there really is no IN and OF Christ mentioned. Paul merely juxtaposes justification by faith as opposed to law announcing it a dead end. The irony is that this so-called justification by faith became law later on. Can't quite catch on to what Justification is supposed to mean in either case. What justifies man if not the fact that he's here. What would justify his disappearance if not another act of god or himself being the cause. For anything to be justified requires an overt reason and not just a single word abstraction which denotes nothing but can connote anything.

When read word for word in the OP there really is no IN and OF Christ mentioned. Paul merely juxtaposes justification by faith as opposed to law announcing it a dead end. The irony is that this so-called justification by faith became law later on. Can't quite catch on to what Justification is supposed to mean in either case. What justifies man if not the fact that he's here. What would justify his disappearance if not another act of god or himself being the cause. For anything to be justified requires an overt reason and not just a single word abstraction which denotes nothing but can connote anything. — Tliusin

But explain to me why if all a person needs to be a Christian is to have faith in Christ yet the Apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith. Obviously faith is a profound concept the truth of which is beyond superficial understanding

The Bible isn't a historic document but a psychological one. We have to open to the psychology of faith and the difference between emotional and conscious faith

I suggest you immediately give up and refrain forever from trying to read Greek meaning from English translation. You will never be correct and you may be very, very wrong. If you wish to understand the Bible, or really any other book, you have to first find out what it says - not as straightforward as it sounds. In translation you can get reasonably close, but not as close as you would like to get. Wasting perspiration on deconstructing English prepositions is a ultimately a foolish game. Certainly the authors/editors weren't planting mysteries there. — tim wood

I agree that details can be misunderstood but the New Testament has an essential message that a person can grow to understand by pondering it. The essential message is re-birth: becoming the New Man. It isn't about morality but re-birth. Acquiring the ability to sustain conscious attention which makes conscious faith possible is a beginning.

Well, you do read your Bible. But in reading your Bible so closely you collide with the fact that you are not reading the Bible at all. You're reading a translation. And that is the problem. — tim wood

Even if you are reading the original Greek, you must be an expert in the popular Greek of the time (Koine) to understand certain passages that translators interpret in different ways. That is, even if you are an expert in the language of the Gospels, you must be confronted with different versions in different manuscripts and other experts who translate the same passage in different ways. Sometimes these are important for understanding the message.

The least you can think of is that God chose a very strange way to publish His message. It is as if I were writing this in Aramaic. I think you would have every right to protest or doubt my honesty or intelligence. Since none of them can be doubted in the case of God, all that remains is to manifest, once again, that the Lord's designs are absolutely inscrutable. And to move on to another subject that is intelligible.

Of course, a believer will tell us that he solves the riddle with faith, but he can only explain the solution to those who have the same faith. My option continues to be to greet the believer attentively and move on to another subject. As long as the belief in the believer does not attack me in any way, of course.

Faith is what one does, not what one thinks — unenlightened

Casting my vote here.

Faith is what one does, not what one thinks. — unenlightened

Casting my vote here. — Hippyhead

It is usually said that faith is the motive why people believe and do certain things. However, I can't find any way for people to do things if they don't believe something. For example, they go to church on Sundays because they believe that God commands it. You kill infidels because you think God commands it. Etc.Behind acts that are not reflexes there is always a belief. Specially in the field of religion.

Conscious faith is freedom while emotional faith is slavery. Does anyone here agree?

Conscious faith is freedom while emotional faith is slavery. — Nikolas

It depends on what you mean by "conscious faith". Can you consciously choose slavery? Is it rational to choose irrationality intentionally? Where does this lead? To the same abyss, I'm afraid.

I think your choice would be understandable as long as it moves in the realm of banality or inevitable choices. But I don't think the choice between believing in God and not believing is inevitable. Nor is it banal.

Can you consciously choose slavery? — David Mo

Sure. People often move away from freedom, let other people decide things for them. Cults work like this. But more mundanely how many people allow media and marketing to determine what they choose to wear. People dislike anxiety, and I do feel empathy for that, and its not just fascist leaders who offer to make decisions for us.

It is usually said that faith is the motive why people believe and do certain things. However, I can't find any way for people to do things if they don't believe something. For example, they go to church on Sundays because they believe that God commands it. You kill infidels because you think God commands it. Etc.Behind acts that are not reflexes there is always a belief. Specially in the field of religion. — David Mo

That is a very materialist view. I put my faith in truth and justice without having to believe they exist or prevail. If I lay down my life for my friends without believing it will profit me in the afterlife, that is why it is called the greatest love of man. It is exactly when one's god has forsaken one, that the faithful Jesus is distinguished from his treacherous followers.

Actually, I think rather few church goers believe that God commands that they go. So they make no fuss when governments command that churches be shut for health reasons.

People often move away from freedom, let other people decide things for them. — Coben

My questions follow:

Is it rational to choose irrationality intentionally? Where does this lead? — David Mo