What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Harry Nevis]

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 think it is interesting that you mention ad hominem's here.  My comment was based on observation, and I gave one reason (although I'm open to others) for why we see this incoherence.  This post however seems to be mostly about discrediting and poisoning the well; about the person.   I would also say that this is an apt example of an often occurring response when the deficiencies of a modernist philosophy are brought up in these conversations.   That is to attack the person and redirect attention.
Now to the second part.   I think this is fitting, what often follows is an example of the classic foundationalism that was brought up.  That an extreme and untenable position is taken, in order to keep even the consideration of the conclusion from being made.   I think that you will find yourself quite impoverished intellectually, if we followed it consistently.  Which is why this philosophy has fallen out of popularity for most thinkers.
This is mostly out of context to the OP, but I wanted to clarify my intentions with some comments.  I'm not meaning to disparage others, but hope to shine a light on what is bad thinking.   I don't really keep track of; nor hold this against people.  But perhaps bringing it up will help you to see when it is occurring.  And I have often found, that extreme examples of bad thinking help me to notice the more subtle versions within my own thinking. I may also find it more often than I realized that it was occurring.    It's not against the man, but against the idea and method.  I'm not assuming anyone motivation, and holding it against them and their arguments.  It's a tentative conclusion based on what is seen.

And, after all of your babble, there is STILL no evidence for your god.

---

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, except for the evidence we do have (which I will repeat as often as you make your silly, juvenile claim): 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.

You may not like the evidence, but there is large amounts of evidence that points to the fact that Jesus not only walked the earth, but people genuinely believed he was the Son of God that came to make possible a relationship with God.

That points to no "fact" except that there were a lot of people willing to believe something.  And there is no "large amount of evidence" that Jesus was real. Nothing outside the bible.

---

---

Except that is not evidence of what you want it to be evidence of. No one disputes that Christianity caught on. So what? So did Islam (and it's catching up despite Christianity's 800 year head start). No one disputes that Christians believed Jesus was the Son of God...that's what being a Christian means.

But none of that is evidence that Jesus was actually the demigod miracle-worker he needs to be for your religious beliefs to actually be true. The same evidence doesn't work for Krishna being an incarnation of Vishnu or Mohammed taking dictation from the archangel Gabriel. Having a standard of evidence means you have to apply it equally, without favor, to all similar claims. If you accept an argument from 'lots of people believed it', then you have to accept similar claims from other religions.

Christianity really existed and still does, and Christians believe Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate. That's not at all what is under contention here.

The problem is with defining words.

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.

Again, it's only evidence that people BELIEVED that someone named Jesus did these things.

Authenticated writings?! What a joke.

---

No, it isn't. Not if the same kind of evidence doesn't work for the supernatural claims for Krishna, Mohammed, and Buddha. Evidence has to point to a specific conclusions. The only thing people believing in supernatural events has ever successfully pointed to is that people are prone to believe supernatural events occur. When there's no strong direct evidence of such events, ever, there's no good reason to suppose that for some particular story, this time the supernatural stuff is real.

Why do you keep bringing up other religions? The far east religions didn't write anything down for centuries (if not longer). No one every claimed to be an eyewitness or know an eyewitness. There are no pieces of evidence to accumulate to even pass judgement on. Mohammed wrote his own stuff mostly about revelations directly to him, so that is only a claim and not evidence of actual events happening. 

You are only offering one possible explanation to the evidence we have. There are other possible explanations--including the one that the people themselves claim--that the hundreds of separate events and teachings sessions really did happen.

But of these hundreds of separate events and teaching sessions, nothing outside the bible.  You are also offering only one explanation.  A supernatural explanation.  Supernatural being something we have no evidence for either.