What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[RoadRunner79]

Bart Ehrman is a NT skeptic with an important-to-note bias--he does not believe in God.  Am is supposed to type out a list of scholars who disagree with him? That would be an appeal to authority. 

God forbid anybody be skeptical of the supernatural.  The fact that he does not believe gives him more credibility than the scholars/apologists that do believe.

Why is that (not believing gives him more credibility)?  Is this a principle, that can be applied elsewhere?

For me, it depends on the reasons, not the position.  I may even agree with someones conclusions, but not with their reasons or method, I don't think that makes them more credible.

[Mister Agenda]

Acceptance of divorce has done a 180 among the majority of American Christians in my lifetime.

Do you think that has changed anything about what it means to be a Christian for the past 2000 years?

It's not the same impact as turning against slavery and burning witches, I suppose. I doubt you think those changed anything about what it means to be a Christian either, but I regard them as vast improvements. Decade by decade, the arc of Christianity very gradually bends towards humanism.

[hopey]

[Mister Agenda]

I agree, many protestants do not think that Catholics are Christians.

YMMV. In my personal experience, I have never met a Protestant who said Roman Catholics were not Christian, no matter how strongly they disagreed theologically.

Try living in a state like South Carolina.

"Those poor Catholics think they're Christians, but they're idolaters who worship Mary and a bunch of Saints! Clearly, they're polytheists."

And I won't even get into the slanderous conspiracy claims about ongoing Catholic atrocities.

[Harry Nevis]

God forbid anybody be skeptical of the supernatural.  The fact that he does not believe gives him more credibility than the scholars/apologists that do believe.

Why is that (not believing gives him more credibility)?  Is this a principle, that can be applied elsewhere?

For me, it depends on the reasons, not the position.  I may even agree with someones conclusions, but not with their reasons or method, I don't think that makes them more credible.

To me it depends on the reasoning.  If you're a believer, you're emotionally involved and invested.

[SteveII]

Bart Ehrman is a NT skeptic with an important-to-note bias--he does not believe in God.  Am is supposed to type out a list of scholars who disagree with him? That would be an appeal to authority. 

God forbid anybody be skeptical of the supernatural.  The fact that he does not believe gives him more credibility than the scholars/apologists that do believe.

The irony of your first sentence is amusing. A bias so central to the topic produces a product that only those who hold that bias find compelling. It's not credible, it's circular.

[Mister Agenda]

I guess the problem is that a lot of the members here seem to know pretty much only the types of Christian people who are extremely ignorant, deny science, and hate gays (or perhaps those are simply the only ones who stick out in their mind?).

When I look at the long-time theists on AF, I see only very well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors who are remarkably patient despite all the insults they endure. I also think in the US there are regional differences that get confused with religious ones. For example the South truly gets a bad rap. Not for a second do I think people below the Mason-Dixon line are anything like their detractors say. They just do things a little differently.

Well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors like Little Rik, Drich, and MysticKnight; for instance.

Then you have neither CL or Neo have ever read a chick tract because they villainize Catholics all the time 

For a long time I collected Chick comics just because they were so appalling. I don't believe they are representative of what the vast majority of Christians believe.

And unless it's believed by a vast majority, you can pretend it inconsequential and we're being irrational for not ignoring it, eh? Like the vast majority of white people aren't members of the KKK, so it's unreasonable to spend time criticizing the KKK. I mean, why bring them up when most white people aren't like that?

[hopey]

Well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors like Little Rik, Drich, and MysticKnight; for instance.

Taking about the MysticKnight .... it is getting a bit late here I am soon off to bed.

[SteveII]

Do you think that has changed anything about what it means to be a Christian for the past 2000 years?

It's not the same impact as turning against slavery and burning witches, I suppose. I doubt you think those changed anything about what it means to be a Christian either, but I regard them as vast improvements. Decade by decade, the arc of Christianity very gradually bends towards humanism.

I would say that all these "add-on" issues that we later see more clearly are a result of the culture and times each of those issues developed in. While I agree that the culture has improved, I think the development of the "add-on" issue did not originate from NT teachings so cannot be characterized as a change in Christianity--but rather of society.

[Mister Agenda]

Why is that (not believing gives him more credibility)?  Is this a principle, that can be applied elsewhere?

For me, it depends on the reasons, not the position.  I may even agree with someones conclusions, but not with their reasons or method, I don't think that makes them more credible.

Yes, a position of rational skepticism is more credible, in any investigation or research. It means you have a standard of evidence that must be satisfied before you'll accept something as true. It means you try not to go in with the intention of proving the issue in question to be true. Lack of skepticism is not associated with resistance to error.

If Ehrman was convinced that the Biblical account of Jesus were true, many Christians would be quick to tout his skepticism as an indication that the evidence must be particularly persuasive. That's why skeptics are more credible.