What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Pat Mustard]

1 What evidence? You only have the bible to point to and as I have discussed before, that is the claim, not the evidence.
2 As wikipedia would say [citation needed]. Seriously show me any evidence of this claim by an independent third party, and I'll grant it to you.
3 There are not 27 authenticated writings, of the four Gospels three are a either Matthew a tract written not before 70CE (with the whole of the resurrection sequence not appearing until after 325CE) and cribs from Matthew, and the fourth is John a tract adapting that of Matthew to the views of a hardcore anti-semite written not before 125CE. The eight by "Paul" were written by at least four different people, not one of whom can be traced back to Saul of Tarsus, and describe places which either didn't exist at the time they were supposed to be written, or like Corinth, were much smaller than as described. Then we've got the multiple massive alterations made to the bible first by the orthodox church, then the catholic church then the various lutheran, calvinist and anglican sects right down to the time King James VI & I mandated a new version of the bible be written in order to shore up his shaky position as Kings of England and Scotland (by the way which KJV are you adhering to?). The bible as it currently stands cannot be described as 27 independent authenticated documents which accurately describe happenings in the near east during the reigns of Octavian and Tiberius. For one thing they have been massively changed over the period since they were first collated in 325CE, for another they bear no resemblance to any other account written during that period or near contemporary to that period. They are faked histories.
4 That may be true, but I cannot say until you provide me with even one single scrap of evidence.
5 Give me independent documentation which shows he existed.
6 Not people of the time in which he was reputed to exist. We do not see a christian church which believed a man named Yeshua to be divine until the 2nd century CE, we do not see a single book attesting to his life until the 3rd century (yes there are earlier writigns purported to be gospels but they are tiny fragments of single pages with only word or sentence fragments preserved, not actual documents) and no unified religious structure until the church was hijacked by Flavius Constantinus in the 4th century to shore up his grip on the Roman Imperium.

7 Steve what it boils down to is that I reject your unevidenced assertions, and you believe a whiny retort of "the bible is true because Jeeeeeeeeebus!" is sufficient to prove your assertions. We will never reconcile because I am not willing to concede a single point to you without evidence and you are unwilling to provide evidence.

1. You would be wrong. As I just posted to Mr. Agenda, your problems is with definitions: 

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

2. The letters (and trips) of Paul started in the 50s AD. They were addressed to churches throughout the empire who already believed the basics of Christianity. 

3. You found some fringe theories that better fits your bias. I'm going to go with common consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Origin

4. See 1

5. If you are going with Jesus never existed, I'm done. I don't have time for stupidity and whack-jobs. 

6. That's simply wrong. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

7. I don't need to prove anything to you. You said there was no evidence and that is obviously not the case--so I supported my assertion--there is evidence.

As I said you are unwilling to provide evidence aside from "the bible is true because god said so. God is real because the bible said so". It is pointless continuing the debate with you until you man up and provide evidence.