What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Pat Mustard]

Not debating with Steve here (as it is pointless, he has his unevidenced assertions and he's sticking to them), just simply pointing out what is wrong with his beliefs:

{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.

Which is completely wrong. For one thing, we know both from historical records and archaeology that there was no Jewish kingdom until the Hasmonean dynasty in the 2nd century BCE. Before that we either had a land sparsely populated by semi nomadic groups who none of the the regional powers were bothered with, or a land ruled directly by the regional powers. For example when Moses was supposed to have brought the jews out of Egypt and established the biblical kingdom of Israel the land was in reality ruled directly by the Egyptian pharaohate. I could also talk about things like how badly the new testament messed up Levantine geography, how badly modern theologists have to twist the timeline to get Yeshua and Pontius Pilate into the same place at the same time and so on. It should be obvious given the level of scholarship put into history of the area that the only people claiming the bible has any historical accuracy are those trying to maintain the imaginary life of Yeshua bar Yosef.

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.

Here's one: For the best part of the last thousand and a half years Europe (and the lands it later colonised) had a very powerful religious organisation in control of many aspects of society, not least education. It has spent most of this time propogandising a mostly false history of its beginnings in order to perpetuate its own power. Even after this organisation split, violently, five hundred years ago, the splinters have continued with the propoganda for the most part, the only variations making it more unreal and extreme.

Not alone is this a coherent theory, when we look at the (quite extensive) evidence we have  we can see that it is largely true. The history of the bible is largely a church construct, with many details of what was actually going on either obscured or destroyed and many of the elements created in their place have by now definitively proven to be faked.

{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling?

The new testament is compelling to people like Steve for one simple reason; they believe. Because they fervently hope and want the stories therein to be true, they ignore the inconsistencies, the fabrications, the bad geography and history, and the outright lies. They don't see the problems with the book because to acknowledge the problems is simply to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are without basis in reality.

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.

But only because people like Steve already believe. More questions are answered through an honest and sceptical questioning of what we see and hear around us. A more fulfilling life is gained from a thorough search of our own inner selves and our surroundings. And a relationship with the christian god is simply a relationship with oneself, once a dispassionate inquiry into its nature is realised.

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.

Anecdote is not evidence, otherwise we'd have to accept that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged chariot, that Zeus/Jupiter controls thunder, that the trickster god Loki is out to get us, and all those other religious beliefs that are out there.

{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity?

None, they are all fairy stories told by the credulous and ill-informed to explain a world that they don't understand and are unwilling to try.