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.