Ah, the fun of epistemology
You believe it, which is different kettle of fish entirely.
I disagree. What people know is what they learn, see, or hear. I've learned and or heard it. Believing it is entirely different from having learned and or heard. I don't know any other description for know, other than, "I've thorougly researched this in triplicate and compared all the facts" and very very few people do that with anything or everything.
So if I tell you that up is down and the moon is made of green cheese, then you have heard that and by your definition now know that up is down and the moon is made of green cheese?
I think not!
As for your description of what "very very few people do", in fact it is what I have done on many things, and would likely do with everything had I infinite time to do it.
Obviously there are different levels of certainty. But generally I won't grant that you know something until you have a pretty good idea why you think it, how to check it, and have enough knowledge to be able to answer common questions on it.
For example, I KNOW the sky is blue. I don't know why it looks blue, but the evidence shows me it is blue. I know regular pianos have 88 keys, not because I've counted them, but because I've been told.
Yes. And you know why you think it is blue. Furthermore if I came back with questions, you'd be able to make a reasonable attempt to answer them. For instance if I said, "If it is blue then why does it look at black at night?" you'd know about the role of the Sun. Also if I said, "But there's lots of grey and white up there" you'd know about clouds.
As for pianos, if I challenged you on that, you'd know how to go to a piano and check for yourself how many keys it has. You might have trouble if I said, "Well I know that some pianos have 97 keys." But you'd guess that there are different models of pianos, even if you don't know that it is a Bosendorfer that can have that many keys. (I didn't know a second ago either until I checked Google.)
So in this case, I know what I've learned, and I stated it. If it is incorrect knowledge, then that's different, I still know it as what I learned.
How well do you know it? When boxley talked about Paul's role, you certainly didn't know what he was talking about well enough to recognize that he was talking about the same thing. That was even obvious to me - and I've never been inclined to Christianity nor have I ever studied the Bible!
Nor, as you've admitted elsewhere, do you know the topic well enough to read the Bible and verify what you think it says.
And you believe it, not because you have examined your beliefs or the relevant text, but because your pastor keeps on telling you that that's what was meant. Maybe your pastor is right. Maybe your pastor is wrong. Maybe you'd agree if you looked into it for yourself. Maybe you'd disagree.
I examined my beliefs long ago, and was happy in my original church. Since then, my faith was shaken, and I've been struggling with that ever since, so I am still re-finding my faith and my God.
And I don't disagree. FuManChu gave you the scripture and said Jesus declared it, and that is what I said I knew.
If you read what FuManChu said in full, he went on to say that Paul wrote the end user documentation. What he means by that is that the majority of detail that people cite about what the New Covenant is and isn't comes from what Paul wrote. Which comes from a combination of Paul's understanding of what Jesus said and the particular situations that Paul was addressing.
As FuManChu partially clarified, if you read what Jesus wrote and understand it in the same way that Paul did, you'll find that what Paul said logically flows from what Jesus said. However I think that FuManChu will agree that it is possible to read everything that Jesus said but not understand it like Paul did, in which case you'd think that Paul introduced stuff. FuManChu might go on to express his opinion that your understanding in this case would be a misunderstanding on your part. But deciding for yourself whether you agree with that further assertion would take learning a lot more about the Bible.
But you know the answers to none of those questions because you've never attempted to apply critical thought to your own beliefs. You don't have to - lots of people don't. But I'd appreciate it if you could keep from confusing unexamined beliefs with actual knowledge.
How am I supposed to do that when I don't even know the difference? Like I said, knowledge is what I learn, see, or hear... it's not always correct. Some people analyze their religion, other people accept it. I don't analyze it, I believe in the basics, that God sent His son to die for us and take our sin away if we accept Him. That's the most important part to me, anyway.
You could eliminate this issue by learning the difference.
As I've said before... I don't normally get into religion discussions, and I've pretty much made my point where this one was concerned, thanks.
Understood.
Ben