What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Brian37]

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]

See, that's the thing though. You say most Christians hate foreigners, like war, and don't have compassion for poor people/imprisoned people. I simply don't see that. What you describe above seems like really shitty people, and that has simply not been my experience. I mean, sure, there are bad seeds everywhere and we are no exception, but it has definitely not been my experience that most Christian people, or even many of them, are like that at all. I can't say I even know any Christian people being that way (not saying they don't exist though).   

I mean, my family and I were foreigners. We moved to the US from South America when I was 7 years old, and while we have become citizens since then, both my parents still have really heavy accents. No one was unwelcoming to us when we got here. I started off here at a Catholic school (2nd grade) and knew absolutely 0 English. None of those Catholic teachers/students/parents were ever mean to me or my family.  

I don't see anyone liking war, either. Or not having compassion for the poor. There are a TON of Christian charities. My church was always advertising volunteer opportunities and running fund raisers for the less fortunate.

I'm not saying we're all saints. Far from it. But I do think the majority of us are just normal human beings who really do try to follow the basic teachings of Christ. Again, I have lived in several places, but never lived in the deep south like you have, so maybe that's where our different experiences come to play.

I didn't actually say that most Christians hate foreigners, or anything that could be considered reasonably close to that. One, 'not welcoming' is not a synonym for 'hate'. Two, I was listing subgroups that would constitute a majority of Christians if added together, no claim that any single subgroup constitutes a majority by itself. I try to be careful about what I claim, please read my posts going forward as if you understand that. That said, 53% of Americans want to keep Syrian refugees out of our country, but 11% would make an exception for Christian refugees. Since 75% of Americans and a very high percentage of Trump voters were Christians (he got 52% of the Catholic vote and 80% of the Evangelical vote), I infer a very strong level of support by American Christians for keeping out refugees, especially if they're not Christians.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic...settlement

Fair enough, my apologies for the misunderstanding. 

As for being against Syrian refugees coming in, I wouldn't go as far as classifying that as being "unwelcoming to foreigners" in such a broad sense. Personally I think the right thing to do would be to let them come in, regardless of the risks. But many who disagree do so out of fear of bringing terrorists in, and some out of concern that we just don't have the resources to take on so many of these people... not out of any sort of dislike or prejudice against foreign people.  

Nonetheless, I think on that regard, there can be room for different opinions of what Jesus would think is acceptable. I've specifically heard the argument "Jesus never said we have a moral obligation to compromise ours and our children's safety/well being for a cause like this." I'd argue that indirectly you can see that His will would be for us to take these people in regardless of the risk, but I can't claim that someone is acting unchristian if they disagree with me on that. It isn't like someone saying they hate gays, or someone who cheats on their spouse, or someone who goes around hurting people or is just an overall greedy person... because on those things He was very clear. And on those basic things, I can definitely say "you are not acting like how Christ called us to act."
     

However, if you're saying that most Christians are just average morally, no better or worse than non-Christians, I tend to agree. I thought with that 'striving to follow the teachings of Jesus' stuff you were holding them to a higher standard than most of them can actually meet, but you seem to be okay with the ones who are  just 'Team Jesus' average Americans who are not particularly devout being counted as 'true Christians'. It seems like a disconnect to me. Either you accept people who say that they are Christians but can't reasonably be described as 'striving to follow the teachings of Jesus', or you hold them to that standard and call out the ones who aren't actually striving to follow Jesus as 'not true Christians'. 

strive
verb
gerund or present participle: striving

make great efforts to achieve or obtain something.
"national movements were striving for independence"

•struggle or fight vigorously.
"scholars must strive against bias"

I don't know if they are more moral than the general, unchristian population. I wasn't saying that. All I was saying is that from my experience, I don't see these bigoted/crazy/hypocritical Christians that are so often talked about here. I see people who are mostly kind, normal, and who do try to live by the words of Christ. Whether that makes them more moral as a whole than others, I don't know. There are many people who are not Christian but who still live a life that would be in accordance to the values of Christ - being generous, humble, loving, etc.   

I don't subscribe to the "true Christian" or "not true Christian" labels. All I can do is see the beliefs/actions of a person and say whether they are directly contradictory to basic, fundamental Christian principles.  For example, to the Westboro Baptists who picket funerals with nasty posters about God hating people and saying we should celebrate death, even death of children, I would say "you are not acting according to the teachings of Christ. As He made it specifically clear that we are called to love, not to hate. He expressed sadness at people's misfortune and healed many people, even bringing some of them back from the dead. He condemned the pharisees for being overly judgmental of people."

[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.

[Brian37]

I didn't actually say that most Christians hate foreigners, or anything that could be considered reasonably close to that. One, 'not welcoming' is not a synonym for 'hate'. Two, I was listing subgroups that would constitute a majority of Christians if added together, no claim that any single subgroup constitutes a majority by itself. I try to be careful about what I claim, please read my posts going forward as if you understand that. That said, 53% of Americans want to keep Syrian refugees out of our country, but 11% would make an exception for Christian refugees. Since 75% of Americans and a very high percentage of Trump voters were Christians (he got 52% of the Catholic vote and 80% of the Evangelical vote), I infer a very strong level of support by American Christians for keeping out refugees, especially if they're not Christians.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic...settlement

Fair enough, my apologies for the misunderstanding. 

As for being against Syrian refugees coming in, I wouldn't go as far as classifying that as being "unwelcoming to foreigners" in such a broad sense. Personally I think the right thing to do would be to let them come in, regardless of the risks. But many who disagree do so out of fear of bringing terrorists in, and some out of concern that we just don't have the resources to take on so many of these people... not out of any sort of dislike or prejudice against foreign people.  

Nonetheless, I think on that regard, there can be room for different opinions of what Jesus would think is acceptable. I've specifically heard the argument "Jesus never said we have a moral obligation to compromise ours and our children's safety/well being for a cause like this." I'd argue that indirectly you can see that His will would be for us to take these people in regardless of the risk, but I can't claim that someone is acting unchristian if they disagree with me on that. It isn't like someone saying they hate gays, or someone who cheats on their spouse, or someone who goes around hurting people or is just an overall greedy person... because on those things He was very clear. And on those basic things, I can definitely say "you are not acting like how Christ called us to act."
     

However, if you're saying that most Christians are just average morally, no better or worse than non-Christians, I tend to agree. I thought with that 'striving to follow the teachings of Jesus' stuff you were holding them to a higher standard than most of them can actually meet, but you seem to be okay with the ones who are  just 'Team Jesus' average Americans who are not particularly devout being counted as 'true Christians'. It seems like a disconnect to me. Either you accept people who say that they are Christians but can't reasonably be described as 'striving to follow the teachings of Jesus', or you hold them to that standard and call out the ones who aren't actually striving to follow Jesus as 'not true Christians'. 

strive
verb
gerund or present participle: striving

make great efforts to achieve or obtain something.
"national movements were striving for independence"

•struggle or fight vigorously.
"scholars must strive against bias"

I don't know if they are more moral than the general, unchristian population. I wasn't saying that. All I was saying is that from my experience, I don't see these bigoted/crazy/hypocritical Christians that are so often talked about here. I see people who are mostly kind, normal, and who do try to live by the words of Christ. Whether that makes them more moral as a whole than others, I don't know. There are many people who are not Christian but who still live a life that would be in accordance to the values of Christ - being generous, humble, loving, etc.   

I don't subscribe to the "true Christian" or "not true Christian" labels. All I can do is see the beliefs/actions of a person and say whether they are directly contradictory to basic, fundamental Christian principles.  For example, to the Westboro Baptists who picket funerals with nasty posters about God hating people and saying we should celebrate death, even death of children, I would say "you are not acting according to the teachings of Christ. As He made it specifically clear that we are called to love, not to hate. He expressed sadness at people's misfortune and healed many people, even bringing some of them back from the dead. He condemned the pharisees for being overly judgmental of people."

Hanging out with like minded people who hold the same position you do does not constitute "evidence". Dont equate personal experience as being the same as evidence. You found some nice people and empathetic people who hold the same positions you do, but evidence based on facts don't care what clubs we belong to or even what we "think we see".

All you are arguing is you found a club you like. And while I may agree that Westboro are a bunch of bigoted nuts, they still share the same central cast characters of God and Jesus and still read the same bible you do. You not liking their behaviors or interpretations does not change what they believe, it only means you don't like their behaviors.

I don't have to agree with all atheists or like their actions, but if they say "I don't believe in God/god/s/super natural" it doesn't matter how I wish they would act we still share the same "off" position.

[SteveII]

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.

7 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.

1. You would be wrong. As I just posted to Mr. Agenda, your problems is with definitions: 

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

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.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

2. The letters (and trips) of Paul started in the 50s AD. They were addressed to churches throughout the empire who already believed the basics of Christianity. 

3. You found some fringe theories that better fits your bias. I'm going to go with common consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Origin

4. See 1

5. If you are going with Jesus never existed, I'm done. I don't have time for stupidity and whack-jobs. 

6. That's simply wrong. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

7. I don't need to prove anything to you. You said there was no evidence and that is obviously not the case--so I supported my assertion--there is evidence.

[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?