"Now faith is the [hypostasis] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Can you relate these two statements? I don't mean to be contentious. I'm interested.
"Now faith is the [hypostasis] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
"Can you relate these two statements?
The first statement is a definition of faith and is a universal and objective definition of the word that that applies in any and all rational beings. ie. persons. It is belief based on the trust held for the particular person(s) presenting the thing to be believed. Trust is a decision the person makes based on the particulars of some set of evidence held by the believer, regarding the honesty and integrity of the claimant. Notice that the evidence does not apply to the claim to be believed, because that evidence is almost always not available. This definition applies universally, not only to all persons, but to any and all rational intelligent machines.
The second statement is Hebrews, as given in Douay Rheims, or King James 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."
The statement refers to the beliefs themselves, which are the things hoped for and believed without evidence. Paul says that the beliefs themselves function as "evidence". In a rational system, that can been understood as beliefs being priors, or prior knowledge, but never factual evidence. Faith based beliefs can not be factual evidence, by their very nature. Knowledge is the entirety of a set of beliefs held in general, without regard to the nature of acquisition, or justifications for including an item in that set.
Hebrews 11:1 is not a precise definition of faith, which in order to be precise must include the characteristics of acquisition and the nature of the justifications for believing.