What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[SteveII]

With 9 out of 10 people in the world today believing in some variation of the supernatural, I don't think that the time in history (first century) has any bearing on the truthfulness of the claims. [1]Like I said, cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life. [2]When these events happened, they had an effect. I cannot think of one advancement in any of the things you mentioned above that would change the perception of the events.

Yes, sir.  I've noticed that you have stated this twice now in your replies to me.  To humanity's collective knowledge, these things just don't happen.  The aim of my questions was to try and understand that if people were more knowledgeable back during the time of Christ (before centuries of these reinforced beliefs were passed on and conditioned into practitioners of this faith), then would they have been more inclined to point out [1].  For the people who actually claimed to have seen these events, what were the conditions surrounding their experiences: were they under a lot of stress; were they fatigued, especially from great amounts of ritualistic worship? Did the instances in [1] actually occur in reality and beyond any one person's perceptions, or did the people who claimed to have experienced them honestly think and believe that these events happened? {A}

Now, the majority of people who have bought into the Christian faith have not personally witnessed these events, so how do they justify the events in [1].  Are beliefs that are obtained via the accounts and experiences of others actually stronger, more persuasive, and harder to modify than those obtained via direct experience and observation? {B}

Also, if I've understood correctly, I've noticed that you take a rational approach toward establishing the existence of a god.  However, I have not seen how one would rationally establish that this god is the Christian god.  How does one rationally make this conclusion? Can this be done via logic and reason alone, or is faith also necessary to reach this conclusion? Can faith alone be used to reach this conclusion and is that actually a more sensible approach (both in establishing the existence of a deity and linking it to a particular deity)? {C}

Thanks for you time and attention, SteveII.

{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.  I have never heard a coherent theory that would explain the widespread belief that we have evidence for following the death and resurrection of Jesus. 
{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling? It makes sense, it answers many questions, it provides details on living a fulfilling life, and provides a way to have a relationship with God. Also do not underestimate the role of personal experience (changed lives, attitudes, etc.) of the person and of other Christians that adds to the evidence.
{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity? The NT. I think it delivers the most complete systematic theology of any religion by far.

[LastPoet]

To be technical, I believe baptism seals the person as a Christian forever.

Lel. How are you sister?

Naaaaah, but its ok for you to believe that. Nothing of much harm is done splashing a baby forehead with so called holy water, if the water is properly treated.

Don't remember a thing.

[vorlon13]

I think not just the baptism, the Niacin Creed is involved somehow too . . .

[Harry Nevis]

Yes, sir.  I've noticed that you have stated this twice now in your replies to me.  To humanity's collective knowledge, these things just don't happen.  The aim of my questions was to try and understand that if people were more knowledgeable back during the time of Christ (before centuries of these reinforced beliefs were passed on and conditioned into practitioners of this faith), then would they have been more inclined to point out [1].  For the people who actually claimed to have seen these events, what were the conditions surrounding their experiences: were they under a lot of stress; were they fatigued, especially from great amounts of ritualistic worship? Did the instances in [1] actually occur in reality and beyond any one person's perceptions, or did the people who claimed to have experienced them honestly think and believe that these events happened? {A}

Now, the majority of people who have bought into the Christian faith have not personally witnessed these events, so how do they justify the events in [1].  Are beliefs that are obtained via the accounts and experiences of others actually stronger, more persuasive, and harder to modify than those obtained via direct experience and observation? {B}

Also, if I've understood correctly, I've noticed that you take a rational approach toward establishing the existence of a god.  However, I have not seen how one would rationally establish that this god is the Christian god.  How does one rationally make this conclusion? Can this be done via logic and reason alone, or is faith also necessary to reach this conclusion? Can faith alone be used to reach this conclusion and is that actually a more sensible approach (both in establishing the existence of a deity and linking it to a particular deity)? {C}

Thanks for you time and attention, SteveII.

{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.  I have never heard a coherent theory that would explain the widespread belief that we have evidence for following the death and resurrection of Jesus. 
{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling? It makes sense, it answers many questions, it provides details on living a fulfilling life, and provides a way to have a relationship with God. Also do not underestimate the role of personal experience (changed lives, attitudes, etc.) of the person and of other Christians that adds to the evidence.
{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity? The NT. I think it delivers the most complete systematic theology of any religion by far.

A.  So Islam and Buddhism have incoherently spread?  Maybe you better find out why you can't conceive of such self-evidenced happenings.
B. Once you decide to believe, you have to try to make sense of it.  If it doesn't make sense to you, you'd have to admit that your god is a poor communicator. You're starting from the wrong end.
C. Of course, you decide this after you decided to believe. Conformation bias.

[Brian37]

Yes, sir.  I've noticed that you have stated this twice now in your replies to me.  To humanity's collective knowledge, these things just don't happen.  The aim of my questions was to try and understand that if people were more knowledgeable back during the time of Christ (before centuries of these reinforced beliefs were passed on and conditioned into practitioners of this faith), then would they have been more inclined to point out [1].  For the people who actually claimed to have seen these events, what were the conditions surrounding their experiences: were they under a lot of stress; were they fatigued, especially from great amounts of ritualistic worship? Did the instances in [1] actually occur in reality and beyond any one person's perceptions, or did the people who claimed to have experienced them honestly think and believe that these events happened? {A}

Now, the majority of people who have bought into the Christian faith have not personally witnessed these events, so how do they justify the events in [1].  Are beliefs that are obtained via the accounts and experiences of others actually stronger, more persuasive, and harder to modify than those obtained via direct experience and observation? {B}

Also, if I've understood correctly, I've noticed that you take a rational approach toward establishing the existence of a god.  However, I have not seen how one would rationally establish that this god is the Christian god.  How does one rationally make this conclusion? Can this be done via logic and reason alone, or is faith also necessary to reach this conclusion? Can faith alone be used to reach this conclusion and is that actually a more sensible approach (both in establishing the existence of a deity and linking it to a particular deity)? {C}

Thanks for you time and attention, SteveII.

{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.  I have never heard a coherent theory that would explain the widespread belief that we have evidence for following the death and resurrection of Jesus. 
{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling? It makes sense, it answers many questions, it provides details on living a fulfilling life, and provides a way to have a relationship with God. Also do not underestimate the role of personal experience (changed lives, attitudes, etc.) of the person and of other Christians that adds to the evidence.
{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity? The NT. I think it delivers the most complete systematic theology of any religion by far.

"I think" doesn't count. Others also "think" their club is the right club.
"Personal experience" also doesn't count. Other people with other clubs also like to point out their "experiences".

There is no such thing as Buddhist or Hindu "reincarnation", their societies also like to claim holy writings, "miracles" too. If you commit the death story in real life on a real person as the bible would have you believe, THEY DIE AND STAY DEAD.

Ascension myths rising into heaven also exist in prior polytheism. No not the same details, but the same rise to heaven. Horus was the savior deity the son of Isis and Osiris. He rose into heaven to sit at the right hand of Osiris under the head God Ra in judgment of the dead. 

Even the idea of humans having wings is older than Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

The Jesus thorn crown is actually a stolen idea from the ancient Egyptians where the sun would be behind the head of the esteemed or revered deity. In later Christian artwork the prior Egyptian "sun disk" is also behind the images of Mary and Jesus.

The idea of girls being bartered between families was WORLDWIDE even in polytheism, and back then they were bartered between families and expected to not be "spoiled" or already used. Purity motifs also existed in polytheism. Even the first Buddha earliest mythology has him avoiding the vagina of his queen Mother Maya.

Your religion is borrowed from Jews, and surrounding north African and European MOTIFS of prior polytheism. Even the first Hebrews got their head god  character name from the prior Canaanite polytheism. 

Religion never pops out of nothing. Upstarts simply take ideas and motifs from what they see prior and surrounding, change the names and details. 


The much older Dionysus was also thought of as the cycle of life in the grapevine as to which wine symbolized the "living god" in which its "dismemberment" was the "sacrament". Funny how a much older society associated wine with blood sacrifice. Like "The body and blood of Christ."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysian_Mysteries

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.  I have never heard a coherent theory that would explain the widespread belief that we have evidence for following the death and resurrection of Jesus. 
{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling? It makes sense, it answers many questions, it provides details on living a fulfilling life, and provides a way to have a relationship with God. Also do not underestimate the role of personal experience (changed lives, attitudes, etc.) of the person and of other Christians that adds to the evidence.
{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity? The NT. I think it delivers the most complete systematic theology of any religion by far.

Thank you for your response, SteveII.  If you're interested, I'm still unsure about how one can prove the truth of your religion via a purely rational approach.  Can the truth of your religion be proven outside of the NT?  For example, when proving a math theorem, it would be incorrect to prove its truth via the claim/conclusion of the theorem itself: in order to prove it, outside definitions (exact and precise) and the results of other theorems, lemmas, corollaries, etc., must be logically connected in order to clearly establish the truth of each premise , so that the conclusion is reached via a logical flow of evidence and facts.  Hence, like a math proof, could the truth of your religion be proven in a similar fashion?

[SteveII]

{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.  I have never heard a coherent theory that would explain the widespread belief that we have evidence for following the death and resurrection of Jesus. 
{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling? It makes sense, it answers many questions, it provides details on living a fulfilling life, and provides a way to have a relationship with God. Also do not underestimate the role of personal experience (changed lives, attitudes, etc.) of the person and of other Christians that adds to the evidence.
{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity? The NT. I think it delivers the most complete systematic theology of any religion by far.

Thank you for your response, SteveII.  If you're interested, I'm still unsure about how one can prove the truth of your religion via a purely rational approach.  Can the truth of your religion be proven outside of the NT?  For example, when proving a math theorem, it would be incorrect to prove its truth via the claim/conclusion of the theorem itself: in order to prove it, outside definitions (exact and precise) and the results of other theorems, lemmas, corollaries, etc., must be logically connected in order to clearly establish the truth of each premise , so that the conclusion is reached via a logical flow of evidence and facts.  Hence, like a math proof, could the truth of your religion be proven in a similar fashion?

Analyzing historical events is nothing like a math proof. You look at all the evidence and decide if the you think the events happened as portrayed. I have never heard a feasible alternate explanation as to why we have (in chronological order): 1) the existence of many churches throughout the empire prior to 50AD, 2) the letters of Paul writing to these churches (and his journeys to visit them)--who already believed the core of Christianity, and 3) the gospels and Acts. 

So, since I have no problem believing in the supernatural, have evidence that the events of the NT happened, and have no compelling counter-evidence or feasible scenario to explain the evidence we do have, I am rationally justified in believing that Christianity and its claims are true.

[Brian37]

Thank you for your response, SteveII.  If you're interested, I'm still unsure about how one can prove the truth of your religion via a purely rational approach.  Can the truth of your religion be proven outside of the NT?  For example, when proving a math theorem, it would be incorrect to prove its truth via the claim/conclusion of the theorem itself: in order to prove it, outside definitions (exact and precise) and the results of other theorems, lemmas, corollaries, etc., must be logically connected in order to clearly establish the truth of each premise , so that the conclusion is reached via a logical flow of evidence and facts.  Hence, like a math proof, could the truth of your religion be proven in a similar fashion?

Analyzing historical events is nothing like a math proof. You look at all the evidence and decide if the you think the events happened as portrayed. I have never heard a feasible alternate explanation as to why we have (in chronological order): 1) the existence of many churches throughout the empire prior to 50AD, 2) the letters of Paul writing to these churches (and his journeys to visit them)--who already believed the core of Christianity, and 3) the gospels and Acts. 

So, since I have no problem believing in the supernatural, have evidence that the events of the NT happened, and have no compelling counter-evidence or feasible scenario to explain the evidence we do have, I am rationally justified in believing that Christianity and its claims are true.

A history of repeating claims and handing those claims down to the next generation IS NOT evidence for anything but a history of making those claims.

Hindus are far older than Christianity. Buddhists and Hindus have their history of claims too. 

We have a real proven history that George Washington existing sure, but don't tell me you would buy it if I kept repeating year after year decade after decade, "George Washington had the magic super power ability to fart a real full sized Lamborghini out of his ass".

Christianity has a history? NO SHIT. So do Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims. Get in line, take a number.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Thank you for your response, SteveII.  If you're interested, I'm still unsure about how one can prove the truth of your religion via a purely rational approach.  Can the truth of your religion be proven outside of the NT?  For example, when proving a math theorem, it would be incorrect to prove its truth via the claim/conclusion of the theorem itself: in order to prove it, outside definitions (exact and precise) and the results of other theorems, lemmas, corollaries, etc., must be logically connected in order to clearly establish the truth of each premise , so that the conclusion is reached via a logical flow of evidence and facts.  Hence, like a math proof, could the truth of your religion be proven in a similar fashion?

Analyzing historical events is nothing like a math proof. You look at all the evidence and decide if the you think the events happened as portrayed. I have never heard a feasible alternate explanation as to why we have (in chronological order): 1) the existence of many churches throughout the empire prior to 50AD, 2) the letters of Paul writing to these churches (and his journeys to visit them)--who already believed the core of Christianity, and 3) the gospels and Acts. 

So, since I have no problem believing in the supernatural, have evidence that the events of the NT happened, and have no compelling counter-evidence or feasible scenario to explain the evidence we do have, I am rationally justified in believing that Christianity and its claims are true.

I appreciate your response, SteveII.  From my vantage point (forgive me if I’m being dense), it seems like the only way to be convinced by the truth of Christianity is to ultimately have faith that it is true and to subscribe to that particular way of thinking.  Is this accurate? If not, could you help me understand?
 
Also, out of curiosity, if one genuinely believes in the supernatural, especially a supernatural god, then why is it necessary to establish its existence via scientific and rational methods; does this approach even make sense?  Does it make more sense to have faith in the supernatural rather than trying to rationally understand something that is beyond reason? With all due respect, if one tries to understand the  supernatural via reason, then is "supernatural"  just a way of describing  a lack of understanding about how reality works?

[Harry Nevis]

Thank you for your response, SteveII.  If you're interested, I'm still unsure about how one can prove the truth of your religion via a purely rational approach.  Can the truth of your religion be proven outside of the NT?  For example, when proving a math theorem, it would be incorrect to prove its truth via the claim/conclusion of the theorem itself: in order to prove it, outside definitions (exact and precise) and the results of other theorems, lemmas, corollaries, etc., must be logically connected in order to clearly establish the truth of each premise , so that the conclusion is reached via a logical flow of evidence and facts.  Hence, like a math proof, could the truth of your religion be proven in a similar fashion?

Analyzing historical events is nothing like a math proof. You look at all the evidence and decide if the you think the events happened as portrayed. I have never heard a feasible alternate explanation as to why we have (in chronological order): 1) the existence of many churches throughout the empire prior to 50AD, 2) the letters of Paul writing to these churches (and his journeys to visit them)--who already believed the core of Christianity, and 3) the gospels and Acts. 

So, since I have no problem believing in the supernatural, have evidence that the events of the NT happened, and have no compelling counter-evidence or feasible scenario to explain the evidence we do have, I am rationally justified in believing that Christianity and its claims are true.

Confirmation bias.  Nothing else can be feasible once you made up your mind.