What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Pat Mustard]

What did those people believe? Not events, they took one person's word for something. What witness testimony of what event? You couldn't possibly believe the evidence for Islam is better than the NT. 

I don't think that either have the weight of evidence on their side, but as far as quality of work and pedigree the muslims had that one pegged out from the start.  They had the benefit of having witnessed the christian shitshow....and learning from christian orthodoxy's mistakes.  It;'s a mistake to ask me what those people believed, as you continuously attempt to alter your failed criteria.  They believed in the proto islamic kernel.  The same as early christians.  There was disagreement, as there was with early christians (though decidedly less so in the case of muslims, as mentioned, islamic orthodoxy was more proactive with regard to schism and heterodoxy),

Well the main reason why islamic orthodoxy was more proactive than christian orthodoxy was that the religion of islam was contained within a single controlling political body. Christianity had escaped the geograpical bounds of the Roman Empire even before Constantine decided that it would be one of the main bases of his new order, islam on the other hand was more a creation of the Arab expansion of the 7th century CE (there are documentary sources from Jerusalem and the other Roman cities captured which show the Arabs worshipping as jews and following toranic law, and the earliest qu'ran that has ever been shown to the public is from the 9th century {there are earlier ones, but very few people have been allowed read them by the islamic religious leaders, and what few glimpses we have of the earliest copies seem to indicate that the qu'ran went through as much change as the bible did since Marcion invented it and Constantine codified it}).

The fact that after the first caliphate (centered on Madinah) collapsed, islam managed to spiral off schisms at a rate almost quicker than early christianity is testament to this reality.

---

YES He got lots of science correct, but he also postulated alchemy for a while which was garbage.

It would be better to say that he got some science approximately correct. For example his inverse square equation for gravity has been much improved upon by Einstein's equations, but is still correct enough that it can be used for most calcuations involving gravitic effects. And much of the reasoning behind his scientific discoveries has since been proven to be wrong (as in all probability, if we last long enough, will most of Einstein's): His concept of the universe being fixed and eternal has been shown to be 100% wrong.