Christians - what is "Christian"?

[sojourner]

i was looking over this article tonight, and got thinking...

it seems that hisorically there have been two ways of saying "Christian". something can be Christian becaue it is believed or practiced by people or churches identifying with Jesus Christ, or something can be Christian as in "Biblically Christ-taught or demonstrated".

for example, the veneration of saints / pious Chistians. if "Christian" is taken to mean something Biblically taught or demonstated by Jesus of Nazareth, than the adoration of saints / especially pious Christians is not Christian, as Jesus prays only to the Father, and being One with God Himself recieves prayer and worship from others. but if "Christian" simply means what is historically practiced or believed by Christians, that the practice of saint veneration is certainly Christian, as it is widespread and historical.

for a Christian, where to draw the line between the traditions of men, and the ways of God? can one be a disciple of Christ Jesus while doing / believing things not Biblically taught or mentioned by Him?[/quote]

Traditionally, Christians haven't drawn a line between the "traditions of men, and the ways of God." The gospels all began as oral stories, told through tradition. The pastorals are pseudonym writings, passed off as "what Paul wrote." Indeed, the whole Bible, as we have it, is a product of "traditions of men," because, after all, it didn't fall out of the sky.

I'd say it's a pretty safe guess that the traditions of the faithful are what determines what is "christian."

 

[ayani]

Sojourner ~

i'd disagree overall, though i can see what you're saying.

the Gospel narratives were written with the help of oral narratives from disciples and eye-witnesses, and Paul's letters stemmed from his own experiences, perspective, and apostolic travels.

yet there's also the issue of Scriptural inspiration to consider. do we believe that the Gospel narratives contain true, accurate, and reliable narratives of Jesus' life, words, ministry, and import? from the Gospels, we learn about the Jesus who walked, preached, ate, prayed, died, and rose again.

the Gospels and the NT were penned by men, certainly. yet as Christians it's a specific Someone we follow, and as we believe Him to be the Son of God, Messiah, and Savior, it would reason that we want to follow Him and imitate Him as best we're able, with God's help. discipleship means exactly being like the Master.

many traditions say various things about Him, S. Islamic traditions says many nice and complimentary things about Him, yet robs Him of His Sonship, crucifixion, and resurrection. tradition, if it distracts from or contradicts the Son of God we come to know through the Gospel narratives, is detrimental rather than helpful to Christian faith.

 

[edward]

delete

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner ~

i'd disagree overall, though i can see what you're saying.

the Gospel narratives were written with the help of oral narratives from disciples and eye-witnesses, and Paul's letters stemmed from his own experiences, perspective, and apostolic travels.

yet there's also the issue of Scriptural inspiration to consider. do we believe that the Gospel narratives contain true, accurate, and reliable narratives of Jesus' life, words, ministry, and import? from the Gospels, we learn about the Jesus who walked, preached, ate, prayed, died, and rose again.

the Gospels and the NT were penned by men, certainly. yet as Christians it's a specific Someone we follow, and as we believe Him to be the Son of God, Messiah, and Savior, it would reason that we want to follow Him and imitate Him as best we're able, with God's help. discipleship means exactly being like the Master.

many traditions say various things about Him, S. Islamic traditions says many nice and complimentary things about Him, yet robs Him of His Sonship, crucifixion, and resurrection. tradition, if it distracts from or contradicts the Son of God we come to know through the Gospel narratives, is detrimental rather than helpful to Christian faith.

What exactly do we learn from the gospels, as we have them? I believe that the written narratives are a record of what the authors thought was important to relate about Jesus. Are they inspired? Certainly, or they would never have been written down and preserved. Are they factual? Not in whole. as stories (or narratives), they are "accurate" in that they do well what narratives do: tell stories with plots and characters. As stories, they are not "accurate," in that they are not unbiased "news articles" or history "textbooks." They're stories. From the gospels, we learn about a Jesus, as he is conceived and revered by the writers -- probably not as he actually appeared in history.

That's why, in determining what is "Christian," the Tradition weighs in so heavily. In actuality, it's all tradition. That's all we have. Even the Bible is part and parcel of human Tradition. Even the eyewitness testimony is part of human tradition. The Bible does not -- cannot stand apart from human testimony.