Did common early Christians know much of the gospel narratives?

[Jagd]

I was going over my notes on what non-Christians say about early Christians and it appears that the common Christian cared most about eternal life, with the death of Christ as an element to that, but there doesn't appear to be much indication that they knew more.

Did the common Christian know a lot about the gospel narrative? The gospels (as we have them now) appear to be reformatted to fit the "sunday sermon" structure, where there are groups and subgroups of stories to tell in one sitting. But it appears that a common Christian could be such without knowing much of anything at all about the story of Christ.

It makes me think of the movie Silence, where you have fervent peasant Christians dying for their beliefs but with massive misunderstandings of core Christian orthodoxy. The prospect of eternal life and the name Jesus Christ may have been enough for these people, and maybe many ancient ones as well.

[GakuseiDon]

Which is more important for Christians today?

1. Knowing about the life and sayings of Jesus, or
2. Believing that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected?

I'd say (2), and I'd say it was the same for early Christians as well based on the literature.

[Jagd]

Which is more important for Christians today?

1. Knowing about the life and sayings of Jesus, or
2. Believing that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected?

I'd say (2), and I'd say it was the same for early Christians as well based on the literature.

Extremely succinct answer, thank you. Now that I think about it, most Christians (almost all of them, including the earliest ones and the European converts) probably has no idea what/where Judea was, or even who the Israelites were. Those (historical?) details seem so unessential.

[schillingklaus]

It is completely irrelevant what is more important for Christians in the age of the social media.

For the illiterate mob, the most important was his role in the assemblies of the eucharist, not an alleged life or death of whoever.

[neilgodfrey]

I was going over my notes on what non-Christians say about early Christians and it appears that the common Christian cared most about eternal life, with the death of Christ as an element to that, but there doesn't appear to be much indication that they knew more.

Did the common Christian know a lot about the gospel narrative? The gospels (as we have them now) appear to be reformatted to fit the "sunday sermon" structure, where there are groups and subgroups of stories to tell in one sitting. But it appears that a common Christian could be such without knowing much of anything at all about the story of Christ.

It makes me think of the movie Silence, where you have fervent peasant Christians dying for their beliefs but with massive misunderstandings of core Christian orthodoxy. The prospect of eternal life and the name Jesus Christ may have been enough for these people, and maybe many ancient ones as well.

Any answer depends upon what you have decided are reliable "notes on what non-Christians say". Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny are all suspect, as we know. So who follows?

[mlinssen]

Which is more important for Christians today?

1. Knowing about the life and sayings of Jesus, or
2. Believing that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected?

I'd say (2), and I'd say it was the same for early Christians as well based on the literature.

Extremely succinct answer, thank you. Now that I think about it, most Christians (almost all of them, including the earliest ones and the European converts) probably has no idea what/where Judea was, or even who the Israelites were. Those (historical?) details seem so unessential.

Seconded; all we do is for reasons of gain, and (2) provides for peace of mind - if combined with original sin. Shit happens because we're doomed from the start yet Jesus took the blame for that so we don't have to.
That, and only that, is the sole reason for believing in Christianity. I'm not usually very interested in background stories and I remember being an altar boy and being told the background story to the death of Jesus - and then I was told about original sin for the first time. I left it all behind a little while after, it was too convoluted a story and a highly offensive one at that

But I liked the stories about Jesus, that's what attracted me in the first place - and I think that the bait is hard to take without first having sympathy for the alleged Jesus. But that's just me

[GakuseiDon]

It makes me think of the movie Silence, where you have fervent peasant Christians dying for their beliefs but with massive misunderstandings of core Christian orthodoxy. The prospect of eternal life and the name Jesus Christ may have been enough for these people, and maybe many ancient ones as well.

A great movie, one which combines my love for earlier Christian beliefs and Japanese culture! If it had included Australian Rules Football, it would have been perfect! The one point in the movie that struck me was Liam Neesom's character saying that the Japanese Christians' idea of God was so different to Western Christianity's, that it wasn't like the same religion in the first place. From memory, he explained that Christian missionaries had to teach Christian beliefs in non-orthodox ways in order to make converts, implying that it was a numbers game rather than a belief-based one. Tens of thousands of Japanese converted to Christianity simply because their Daimyo (feudal lord) had converted. I doubt they knew anything about Christianity. It was about showing loyalty to their lord.

[lsayre]

Which is more important for Christians today?

1. Knowing about the life and sayings of Jesus, or
2. Believing that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected?

I'd say (2), and I'd say it was the same for early Christians as well based on the literature.

Markus Vinzent argues for the exact opposite of this in his book titled "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament". He wonders why when you take Paul out of the picture no other early Christian writings seem to care much at all about the efficacy of resurrection until the third century.

[Irish1975]

Which is more important for Christians today?

1. Knowing about the life and sayings of Jesus, or
2. Believing that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected?

I'd say (2), and I'd say it was the same for early Christians as well based on the literature.

Markus Vinzent argues for the exact opposite of this in his book titled "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament". He wonders why when you take Paul out of the picture no other early Christian writings seem to care much at all about the efficacy of resurrection until the third century.

My recollection of Vinzent’s book is that he is talking specifically about the narrative(s) of Jesus’ resurrection, w/ appearances to disciples. (I am not quite sure what you mean by “efficacy of resurrection” but that could mean a lot of things.)

[andrewcriddle]

The answer would vary with different Christian groups.
Generally IMHO the early Christians cared about the birth death and resurrection of Christ and the teachings of Christ. I don't think they cared as much about the stories of Jesus' life between birth and death.

Andrew Criddle