What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[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?