What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Jackie]

There, Fixed That For You

That is real power for you. And quick explanation without thousands of pages of nonsense.

[vorlon13]

There, Fixed That For You

That is real power for you. And quick explanation without thousands of pages of nonsense or weird sex stuff . . .

TFTFY

[Pat Mustard]

Just because you're butt hurt over not having any good arguments for your position, don't commit ad homs on the rest of us.

We are rightly sceptical of Jesus claims for the simple fact that there is no evidence at all supporting them. There is the claim, and that's it.

Well, except for the evidence (1)we do have (which I will repeat as often as you make your silly, juvenile claim): The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years(2) of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings (3), and ancillary works and references throughout the first century.

You may not like the evidence(4), but there is large amounts of evidence that points to the fact that Jesus not only walked the earth(5), but people genuinely believed he was the Son of God that came to make possible a relationship with God(6).

1 What evidence? You only have the bible to point to and as I have discussed before, that is the claim, not the evidence.
2 As wikipedia would say [citation needed]. Seriously show me any evidence of this claim by an independent third party, and I'll grant it to you.
3 There are not 27 authenticated writings, of the four Gospels three are a either Matthew a tract written not before 70CE (with the whole of the resurrection sequence not appearing until after 325CE) and cribs from Matthew, and the fourth is John a tract adapting that of Matthew to the views of a hardcore anti-semite written not before 125CE. The eight by "Paul" were written by at least four different people, not one of whom can be traced back to Saul of Tarsus, and describe places which either didn't exist at the time they were supposed to be written, or like Corinth, were much smaller than as described. Then we've got the multiple massive alterations made to the bible first by the orthodox church, then the catholic church then the various lutheran, calvinist and anglican sects right down to the time King James VI & I mandated a new version of the bible be written in order to shore up his shaky position as Kings of England and Scotland (by the way which KJV are you adhering to?). The bible as it currently stands cannot be described as 27 independent authenticated documents which accurately describe happenings in the near east during the reigns of Octavian and Tiberius. For one thing they have been massively changed over the period since they were first collated in 325CE, for another they bear no resemblance to any other account written during that period or near contemporary to that period. They are faked histories.
4 That may be true, but I cannot say until you provide me with even one single scrap of evidence.
5 Give me independent documentation which shows he existed.
6 Not people of the time in which he was reputed to exist. We do not see a christian church which believed a man named Yeshua to be divine until the 2nd century CE, we do not see a single book attesting to his life until the 3rd century (yes there are earlier writigns purported to be gospels but they are tiny fragments of single pages with only word or sentence fragments preserved, not actual documents) and no unified religious structure until the church was hijacked by Flavius Constantinus in the 4th century to shore up his grip on the Roman Imperium.

Steve what it boils down to is that I reject your unevidenced assertions, and you believe a whiny retort of "the bible is true because Jeeeeeeeeebus!" is sufficient to prove your assertions. We will never reconcile because I am not willing to concede a single point to you without evidence and you are unwilling to provide evidence.

[Catholic_Lady]

[SteveII]

No, it isn't. Not if the same kind of evidence doesn't work for the supernatural claims for Krishna, Mohammed, and Buddha. Evidence has to point to a specific conclusions. The only thing people believing in supernatural events has ever successfully pointed to is that people are prone to believe supernatural events occur. When there's no strong direct evidence of such events, ever, there's no good reason to suppose that for some particular story, this time the supernatural stuff is real.

Why do you keep bringing up other religions? The far east religions didn't write anything down for centuries (if not longer). No one every claimed to be an eyewitness or know an eyewitness. There are no pieces of evidence to accumulate to even pass judgement on. Mohammed wrote his own stuff mostly about revelations directly to him, so that is only a claim and not evidence of actual events happening. 

You are only offering one possible explanation to the evidence we have. There are other possible explanations--including the one that the people themselves claim--that the hundreds of separate events and teachings sessions really did happen.

[Jackie]

[SteveII]

[brewer]

Evidence, but not convincing evidence, at least not for me and many others. 

If jesus was god (that whole trinity thing) and god can do anything (that whole omnipotent thing) then it should not be a problem for god to show up and put an end to the lack of convincing evidence. Evidence any anyone holding any belief would be able to say "that is god, I'm convinced". 


So SteveII, why doesn't this happen?

[Minimalist]

SteveII Wrote:

Well, except for the evidence (1)we do have (which I will repeat as often as you make your silly, juvenile claim):

The only evidence you have is the fucking bible which is worthless for a variety of reasons namely having to do with the fact that no one knows who wrote it or when or what sources were used.  Pointing to your fucking bible to prove your fucking bible is a rather pointless exercise.  I can point to the line in Star Wars when Luke blows up the Death Star but that does not make it true.

If you had the nerve you'd read some scholarly work written by non-jesus freak scholars.  But I'm sure you don't have that level of risk.

No Jew worth his salt would have converted when being told that he was
guilty of killing the messiah. No Greek would have been persuaded by
the dismal logic of the argumentation of the sermons. The scene would
not have made sense as h istory to anyone during the first century with
first-hand knowledge of Christians. Jews, and the date of the temple in
Jerusalem. So what do we have on our hands? An imaginary reconstruction
in the interest of aggrandizing an amalgam view of Christianity
early in the second century. Luke did this by painting over the messy
history of conflictual movements throughout the first century and in his
own time. He cleverly depicted Peter and Paul as preachers of an identical
gospel. . . . That is myth making in the genre of epic. There is not the
slightest reason to take it seriously as history. 16


--Burton Mack, 'Many Movements, Many Myths; Redescribing the Attractions of Ear\y Christianities.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something.

The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

Regarding the establishment of truth, from a theistic perspective, how does one ensure that he or she isn't subjectively interpreting the evidence in order to reinforce preconceived notions of truth?