What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Pat Mustard]

Type out a list of theologians (not historians, as those arguing for the historical validity of the bible are sadly lacking in both historical knowledge and expertise) who disagree with him through a good grounding of the facts. I'll guarantee your list will be very short.

Short? How about we start with people much closer to the source than Ehrman (who is 20 centuries after the fact):

Didache
Barnabas
Clement of Rome
The Shepherd of Hermas
Ignatius of Antioch
Polycarp
Quadratus of Athens
Fragments of Papias
Quadratus of Athens
Aristides
Justin Martyr
Claudius Apollinaris
Minucius Felix
Melito of Sardis
Hegesippus
Dionysius of Corinth
Athenagoras of Athens
Irenaeus of Lyons
Rhodon
Theophilus of Caesarea
Theophilus of Antioch
Maximus of Jerusalem
Polycrates of Ephesus
Pantaenus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Serapion of Antioch
Apollonius
Caius
Hippolytus of Rome
Origen

This is just the list from the the first two centuries (of 20)!

And not one of them managed to satisfy my condition of having a factual basis.

[Amarok]

Short? How about we start with people much closer to the source than Ehrman (who is 20 centuries after the fact):

Didache
Barnabas
Clement of Rome
The Shepherd of Hermas
Ignatius of Antioch
Polycarp
Quadratus of Athens
Fragments of Papias
Quadratus of Athens
Aristides
Justin Martyr
Claudius Apollinaris
Minucius Felix
Melito of Sardis
Hegesippus
Dionysius of Corinth
Athenagoras of Athens
Irenaeus of Lyons
Rhodon
Theophilus of Caesarea
Theophilus of Antioch
Maximus of Jerusalem
Polycrates of Ephesus
Pantaenus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Serapion of Antioch
Apollonius
Caius
Hippolytus of Rome
Origen

This is just the list from the the first two centuries (of 20)!

And not one of them managed to satisfy my condition of having a factual basis.

Indeed listing off some people who believe in something doesn't the belief has a factual basis other then hearsay or folklore nor does it refute Barts MODREN findings

[Cyberman]

That's about as vapid as saying that all opinions are equally valid. It's surprising how many atheists appeal to classical foundationalism when asking "evidence" then appeal to the principles of postmodern critical theory when doing comparative analysis.

I have noticed the same (albeit with not the same robust vocabulary).   I think there is a reason.

And what might that reason be?

[RoadRunner79]

I have noticed the same (albeit with not the same robust vocabulary).   I think there is a reason.

And what might that reason be?

Pseudoskepticsm is one of the possibilities. What do you think?

[Cyberman]

It's your opinion, not mine. I wasn't thinking anything.

[vorlon13]

And not one of them managed to satisfy my condition of having a factual basis.

Indeed listing off some people who believe in something doesn't the belief has a factual basis other then hearsay or folklore nor does it refute Barts MODREN findings

Ehrman used THEIR paper trail.  The similarity of Ehrman and his work to the Tanners and what they were able to reveal about the astonishing perfidy of the Latter Day Saints is fucking incredible!!

Imagine how much 'better' Mormonism could have been if only Joe Smith had Ehrman's work available to avoid all the mistakes the Christians had made in gestating their false religion!!

And, of course, the biggest fail Joe Smith made was that GODDAMN paper trail, if only he had realized the Christers had made the same blunder !!

[Catholic_Lady]

I'd say believing that Jesus is who He says He is, and striving to live by the teachings of Christ as depicted in the bible. 

And there goes most of the Christian population again. 'Striving to live by the teachings of Christ' would be a gross exaggeration of the effort most American Christians put into actually trying to live by the teachings of Jesus as depicted in the Bible.

I think you could start by knocking off all the ones who aren't welcoming to foreigners, are pro-war, or unsympathetic to poor people or convicts. The ones who haven't taken the time to actually read an entire Bible. Most of the ones who show up to church once a month or less.

It's a pretty long list, and that's only for 'striving', not succeeding. Most of those folks aren't even trying. They're putting in the least effort they think they can get away with to avoid hell and the anger of their neighbors, and keeping the opinions that suit them personally whenever possible, which seems to be almost always.

See, that's the thing though. You say most Christians hate foreigners, like war, and don't have compassion for poor people/imprisoned people. I simply don't see that. What you describe above seems like really shitty people, and that has simply not been my experience. I mean, sure, there are bad seeds everywhere and we are no exception, but it has definitely not been my experience that most Christian people, or even many of them, are like that at all. I can't say I even know any Christian people being that way (not saying they don't exist though).   

I mean, my family and I were foreigners. We moved to the US from South America when I was 7 years old, and while we have become citizens since then, both my parents still have really heavy accents. No one was unwelcoming to us when we got here. I started off here at a Catholic school (2nd grade) and knew absolutely 0 English. None of those Catholic teachers/students/parents were ever mean to me or my family.  

I don't see anyone liking war, either. Or not having compassion for the poor. There are a TON of Christian charities. My church was always advertising volunteer opportunities and running fund raisers for the less fortunate.

I'm not saying we're all saints. Far from it. But I do think the majority of us are just normal human beings who really do try to follow the basic teachings of Christ. Again, I have lived in several places, but never lived in the deep south like you have, so maybe that's where our different experiences come to play.

---

This is a famous comedy skit, but it does demonstrate how Christians twist what is a horrific act into some Disney movie. 

To clarify, we definitely don't think the crucifiction was anything other than a horrific, evil act. What we think is beautiful was the love and sacrifice Jesus made for us by having gone through it when He could have saved Himself. But the act itself of crucifying people (especially an innocent man like Jesus) is pure evil. The day that we remember the death of Jesus on the cross (Good Friday) is a somber day of prayer and reflection, not celebration. It's definitely not a Disney Movie.

[Pat Mustard]

And what might that reason be?

Pseudoskepticsm is one of the possibilities.  What do you think?

Just because you're butt hurt over not having any good arguments for your position, don't commit ad homs on the rest of us.

We are rightly sceptical of Jesus claims for the simple fact that there is no evidence at all supporting them. There is the claim, and that's it.

[vorlon13]

Pseudoskepticsm is one of the possibilities.  What do you think?

Just because you're butt hurt over not having any good arguments for your position, don't commit ad homs on the rest of us.

We are rightly sceptical of Jesus claims for the simple fact that there is no evidence at all supporting them. There is the claim, and that's it.

Well, let's exclude Jesus being crucified twice, once on what we call Maundy Thursday, and again on Good Friday.  I think atheists the world over can come together and accept the Biblical truth of that specific claim.  There is absolutely no need to be skeptical of Jesus dying TWICE for our sins.

[Brian37]

Pseudoskepticsm is one of the possibilities.  What do you think?

Just because you're butt hurt over not having any good arguments for your position, don't commit ad homs on the rest of us.

We are rightly sceptical of Jesus claims for the simple fact that there is no evidence at all supporting them. There is the claim, and that's it.

I cant speak for other atheists, but for me, I really could give a shit less about terms like "ad homs" you just said what is at the core, no evidence. When they get butthurt they need every distraction in the world to play victim, I am not going to give them that. They damned will know we are not going to have them arrested or eat their babies. They simply don't like the fact that Toto pulled back the curtain and destroyed their illusion exposing the man was all there was, "man", as in our human kind's ability to falsely imagine things that are really not there.

They are grasping at straws mentally and lashing out is what a child does when you tell them Santa isn't real, but merely your parents.