What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[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?

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of). 

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments. 

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments. 

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

---

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.

You're wrong. The answer was in response to why I thought my religion was true. I could have arrived at any number of religions. So, no confirmation bias.