What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Brian37]

OP: add to the list

An ability to pick and choose from the bible (you picked NT), then deny, ignore or down play the rest when it does not fit the agenda.
An ability to justify cognitive dissonance.
An ability to rationalize fantasy and magic.

And the theist falsely thinks we are singling their club out. Nope, I at least have the same challenge to every religion, expand your sample rate and be willing to plug the club or god claim of another into your same argument, that would be a real test to see if one is really neutral, or merely fishing for excuses to protect their own confirmation bias.

If a claim is universal it will work no matter whom is trying to prove it and the claimant should not be afraid of others kicking the tires to see if they come to the same conclusions. If one is not willing to subject their own arguments to plugging the claims of others into the same argument, then they are not neutral, period.

[Pat Mustard]

Well considering that calling a book inerrant is the exact same as saying every detail in it is correct (inerrant=no errors, after all), I cannot see how you can take the bible to be inerrant and not be a literalist.

That just shows that you don't even understand what it is you argue about. 

That's your whole schtick when coming up against reasoned argument, isn't it? Cover your ears and shout "No, you're wrong!" without giving anything to support your assertions.

Glad I'm not that thick.

---

If the New Testament Christians are doing it correctly, we will be able to tell because:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.


Maybe the government could set up testing centers ??

And guess what, the apostles (the people he was talking to) were able to do those things . Read Acts.

Evidence needed. You cannot cite the claim to prove the claim.

[SteveII]

They only need to be in lockstep about things they're claim they are consistent on. If you say cellular biologists agree on X and X isn't settled at all, then you can't really say that agreeing on X is a characteristic of cellular biologists, can you? In fact, there are very few things 90% of Christians agree on, and that's fine, until you start saying things like 'true Christians do or believe X' and it knocks out a significant portion of people who are counted as Christians on the census. It's reasonable to question how representative that 'Christians do this' statement is.

Someone up thread said something to the effect that Christianity is the Bible. That isn't actually the case. Like every other religion, Christianity is the people its composed of. Christians determine what Christianity is, and if they have a big change of heart about something concerning their religion en masse, Christianity changes with them.

I don't think that any of this is the case. The NT is the only source to define what a Christian is. No group of people can get together and decide differently--they would simply be defining a new group. If a group of people want to get together and organize around certain doctrinal differences, practices, cultures, or emphasis that are not otherwise part of the definition, that is reasonable and acceptable. None of these groups claim the others are not Christian until they depart from the basics. 

What are the basic? Well that was a question very early on. The Apostle's Creed was written in the first half of the second century. 

Regarding your last sentence, do you have any examples of that?

[Brian37]

That just shows that you don't even understand what it is you argue about. 

That's your whole schtick when coming up against reasoned argument, isn't it? Cover your ears and shout "No, you're wrong!" without giving anything to support your assertions.

Glad I'm not that thick.

---

And guess what, the apostles (the people he was talking to) were able to do those things . Read Acts.

Evidence needed. You cannot cite the claim to prove the claim.

Quoting a book to prove the book is what all religions do. Circular reasoning doesn't prove anything. But for the atheist it can be entertaining like Russian bears peddling tricycles in a circle under a circus tent.

The Bible says so because it says so.
The Koran says so because it says so.
Yahweh said so because he said  so.
Buddha said so because he said so.
The Hindu Baghavad Gitas/Vedas say so because they say so.

Cant you hear the circus music playing?

[vorlon13]

Jesus, BTW, did not have a New Testament.

He was steeped in Judaism, His religion. New Testament Christianity is a religion ABOUT Jesus, it is not the religion OF Jesus.

[Harry Nevis]

If the New Testament Christians are doing it correctly, we will be able to tell because:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.


Maybe the government could set up testing centers ??

And guess what, the apostles (the people he was talking to) were able to do those things . Read Acts.

Because it said so in a book?  Guess what...?

---

Other christians have said it means everything until the second coming.  Wish you guys could get your stories straight.

So according to you people are allowed to express different opinions about everything from cellular biology to the the next day's weather but when it comes to religion 2.2 billion people must be in lock-step agreement about the meaning of one particularly difficult prophecy. If that is your objection to the Christian faith then I would invite you to reexamine your expectations and reflect on your motivations for applying this double standard.

Anyway, that passage, which comes from Luke, is in the context of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the center of Jewish ritual worship, which as Jesus predicted in that passage was indeed destroyed during the generation to whom He was speaking. Elsewhere Christ specifically referred to Himself as the new Temple which was to become the center of worship.

If you are interested in doing a quick topical study, you might want to grab your concordance and take note of how people used the word, 'word', in various places across the entire canon. You will come to see that it very often refers to the authority or promise of the speaker, like when people give their 'word'. Or as in "In the "Beginning was the Word" because God's promise and authority are eternal. So when Jesus says "my words will not pass away" He is also referring to His divine authority and the promise of salvation in Him, the imperishable Temple.

I would also point out that none of this exegesis contradicts that to which SteveII linked. Scripture is rich and profoundly satisfying on multiple levels. There is something that speaks to the common reader and many rewards for deep study. Bobby Fischer once said that the game of Chess was greater than any player. How much more so for the Word of God!

Oh, please.  All this blather is just trying to find internal consistency because the books are so vague as to mean almost anything.  Comparing fairy tales to science is ludicrous.  Disagree on cellular biology?  Big deal.  Let the science speak for itself.  Disagreeing with so-called scripture?  Got you killed not so many years ago. Word of god?! Then god is a shitty writer.  Don't blame us for pointing it out.

[Crunchy]

You, like every other apologist, are redacting the bible in your mind and expecting that to "prove" your version is the correct version.

See the parts I put in bold. "All the things that took place" were foretold of Jesus and "fulfilled" when He "accomplished" it on the Cross. Chew on that for a while.

Just like I said, you are looking only at the parts you want and ignoring the rest. You read it the way you want it to come out and expect that settles it. It doesn't. See the parts I put in bold and chew on that for awhile.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

[Brian37]

Jesus, BTW, did not have a New Testament.

He was steeped in Judaism, His religion.  New Testament Christianity is a religion ABOUT Jesus, it is not the religion OF Jesus.

Yes, but the reality really is the NT was written as an afterthought to be attached to a movement of splinter Jews. It still would not regardless make magic babies with super powers real nor would it mean a human could survive the death myth as the bible would have one believe. 

Not even the Jewish God Yahweh is original to the Hebrews, the character was stolen from prior Canaanite polytheism where he was a lesser god as part of a divine family under the head god El.

The New Testament writers saw a new movement creeping up that was gaining appeal of more people so they wrote the NT to compete to be part of it. They were not basing it on real people, only real legends. They added real places and real leaders after the fact to give it the look of credibility.

Just like the movie Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer uses a real historical figure does not make vampires real.

[Neo-Scholastic]

They only need to be in lockstep about things they're claim they are consistent on. If you say cellular biologists agree on X and X isn't settled at all, then you can't really say that agreeing on X is a characteristic of cellular biologists, can you? In fact, there are very few things 90% of Christians agree on, and that's fine, until you start saying things like 'true Christians do or believe X' and it knocks out a significant portion of people who are counted as Christians on the census. It's reasonable to question how representative that 'Christians do this' statement is.

Someone up thread said something to the effect that Christianity is the Bible. That isn't actually the case. Like every other religion, Christianity is the people its composed of. Christians determine what Christianity is, and if they have a big change of heart about something concerning their religion en masse, Christianity changes with them.

And here I think you are nit-picking. The only place I hear people talking about True Christian is AF. It's a kind of boogeyman you've invented around internecine debates over secondary doctrines. While it is true that some groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves Christian, no one else outside their numbers accept them as such. If you look at the 3 main divisions - Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestants - not one of these groups considers the other two non-Christian. And within Protestantism, the biggest divisions, it seems, are over things like infant- versus believer-baptism. I don't know any significant group that claims those on opposite sides of that debate are not Christians.

I grew up in a UCC congregation that was so small we had to share a minister with the local Methodists. Half of the year he or she preached in our building while the other half of the year he or she preached in the Methodist's building. We had one youth group and one Sunday school and they were both mixed. It was never a problem. There's barely any difference between the vast majority of denominations. You're making a mountain over a mole hill.

[Harry Nevis]

They only need to be in lockstep about things they're claim they are consistent on. If you say cellular biologists agree on X and X isn't settled at all, then you can't really say that agreeing on X is a characteristic of cellular biologists, can you? In fact, there are very few things 90% of Christians agree on, and that's fine, until you start saying things like 'true Christians do or believe X' and it knocks out a significant portion of people who are counted as Christians on the census. It's reasonable to question how representative that 'Christians do this' statement is.

Someone up thread said something to the effect that Christianity is the Bible. That isn't actually the case. Like every other religion, Christianity is the people its composed of. Christians determine what Christianity is, and if they have a big change of heart about something concerning their religion en masse, Christianity changes with them.

And here I think you are nit-picking. The only place I hear people talking about True Christian is AF. It's a kind of boogeyman you've invented around internecine debates over secondary doctrines. While it is true that some groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves Christian, no one else outside their numbers accept them as such. If you look at the 3 main divisions - Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestants -  not one of these groups considers the other two non-Christian. And within Protestantism, the biggest divisions, it seems, are over things like infant- versus believer-baptism. I don't know any significant group that claims those on opposite sides of that debate are not Christians.

I grew up in a UCC congregation that was so small we had to share a minister with the local Methodists. Half of the year he or she preached in our building while the other half of the year he or she preached in the Methodist's building. We had one youth group and one Sunday school and they were both mixed. It was never a problem. There's barely any difference between the vast majority of denominations. You're making a mountain over a mole hill.

Are the "mainline" protestants the ones who don't think that Catholics are not following god's word?  Because there are a shitload who do feel that way.  But I'm sure they call each other christians in order to keep their numbers higher so they can cite how many believers there are.

I hardly think that pointing out the difference of opinion there is in the revealed word of your almighty god is nit-picking.  It shows just how obviously it is all concocted by Man.