What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Amarok]

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.

seriously does this idiot even read our responses this was already dealt with

[Pat Mustard]

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.

As I said you are unwilling to provide evidence aside from "the bible is true because god said so. God is real because the bible said so". It is pointless continuing the debate with you until you man up and provide evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

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?

Kudos, because this isn't seen very often. Whether you are convinced or not is subjective, but the position that acts like all theist are believing without reason, I believe is just intellectually dishonest.

[SteveII]

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?

Jesus being the son of God (his claim), dying on a cross to make it possible to to have a relationship with God, and rising again is not possible to interpret subjectively. In addition, the majority of NT teachings are not all that easy to interpret differently either (love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.).

[Brian37]

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?

Jesus being the son of God (his claim), dying on a cross to make it possible to to have a relationship with God, and rising again is not possible to interpret subjectively. In addition, the majority of NT teachings are not all that easy to interpret differently either (love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.).

We don't care who you claimed claimed it. Nope sorry, still a claim in the bible. You like that claim so you repeat it. "He said" is still YOU repeating something you like and got out of and old book of myth. And you should know by now that quoting a holy book to prove a holy book is called "Circular reasoning".

The bible is easy to cherry pick, but so is any holy writing of any religion. Still does not make virgin births real and nobody survives the death myth story as the bible would have you believe.

[Harry Nevis]

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.

I think it is interesting that you mention ad hominem's here.  My comment was based on observation, and I gave one reason (although I'm open to others) for why we see this incoherence.  This post however seems to be mostly about discrediting and poisoning the well; about the person.   I would also say that this is an apt example of an often occurring response when the deficiencies of a modernist philosophy are brought up in these conversations.   That is to attack the person and redirect attention.
Now to the second part.   I think this is fitting, what often follows is an example of the classic foundationalism that was brought up.  That an extreme and untenable position is taken, in order to keep even the consideration of the conclusion from being made.   I think that you will find yourself quite impoverished intellectually, if we followed it consistently.  Which is why this philosophy has fallen out of popularity for most thinkers.
This is mostly out of context to the OP, but I wanted to clarify my intentions with some comments.  I'm not meaning to disparage others, but hope to shine a light on what is bad thinking.   I don't really keep track of; nor hold this against people.  But perhaps bringing it up will help you to see when it is occurring.  And I have often found, that extreme examples of bad thinking help me to notice the more subtle versions within my own thinking. I may also find it more often than I realized that it was occurring.    It's not against the man, but against the idea and method.  I'm not assuming anyone motivation, and holding it against them and their arguments.  It's a tentative conclusion based on what is seen.

And, after all of your babble, there is STILL no evidence for your god.

---

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 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 of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century.

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

That points to no "fact" except that there were a lot of people willing to believe something.  And there is no "large amount of evidence" that Jesus was real. Nothing outside the bible.

---

---

Except that is not evidence of what you want it to be evidence of. No one disputes that Christianity caught on. So what? So did Islam (and it's catching up despite Christianity's 800 year head start). No one disputes that Christians believed Jesus was the Son of God...that's what being a Christian means.

But none of that is evidence that Jesus was actually the demigod miracle-worker he needs to be for your religious beliefs to actually be true. The same evidence doesn't work for Krishna being an incarnation of Vishnu or Mohammed taking dictation from the archangel Gabriel. Having a standard of evidence means you have to apply it equally, without favor, to all similar claims. If you accept an argument from 'lots of people believed it', then you have to accept similar claims from other religions.

Christianity really existed and still does, and Christians believe Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate. That's not at all what is under contention here.

The problem is with defining words.

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.

Again, it's only evidence that people BELIEVED that someone named Jesus did these things.

Authenticated writings?! What a joke.

---

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.

But of these hundreds of separate events and teaching sessions, nothing outside the bible.  You are also offering only one explanation.  A supernatural explanation.  Supernatural being something we have no evidence for either.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

What is the exact number of years after the claimed events are supposed to have occurred that something is written about it should be accepted as factual? Would you switch to a different religion if its miracle worker's feats were recorded three years after they were supposed to have happened? If not, you're not talking about evidence, you're just shoring up the beliefs you already hold.

Yes, that events happened as reported is one possible explanation: just one, requiring the upending of everything we've learned about nature in order to be true, but I don't rule that explanation out completely. Just because it seems impossible doesn't mean it is impossible. But a ruling of 'unlikely' is entirely reasonable.

It's the same standard I apply to ESP, ghosts, Nessie, and alien abductions. People believe all kinds of crap. Some of the crap is mutually exclusive in that both pieces of crap can't possibly be true. They can however, both be crap. People believing things is evidence of people believing things. 'Lot's of people believe something' simply isn't evidence that what they believe is true. This is extremely basic stuff.

[Brian37]

I think it is interesting that you mention ad hominem's here.  My comment was based on observation, and I gave one reason (although I'm open to others) for why we see this incoherence.  This post however seems to be mostly about discrediting and poisoning the well; about the person.   I would also say that this is an apt example of an often occurring response when the deficiencies of a modernist philosophy are brought up in these conversations.   That is to attack the person and redirect attention.
Now to the second part.   I think this is fitting, what often follows is an example of the classic foundationalism that was brought up.  That an extreme and untenable position is taken, in order to keep even the consideration of the conclusion from being made.   I think that you will find yourself quite impoverished intellectually, if we followed it consistently.  Which is why this philosophy has fallen out of popularity for most thinkers.
This is mostly out of context to the OP, but I wanted to clarify my intentions with some comments.  I'm not meaning to disparage others, but hope to shine a light on what is bad thinking.   I don't really keep track of; nor hold this against people.  But perhaps bringing it up will help you to see when it is occurring.  And I have often found, that extreme examples of bad thinking help me to notice the more subtle versions within my own thinking. I may also find it more often than I realized that it was occurring.    It's not against the man, but against the idea and method.  I'm not assuming anyone motivation, and holding it against them and their arguments.  It's a tentative conclusion based on what is seen.

And, after all of your babble, there is STILL no evidence for your god.

---

Well, except for the evidence 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 of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century.

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

That points to no "fact" except that there were a lot of people willing to believe something.  And there is no "large amount of evidence" that Jesus was real. Nothing outside the bible.

---

The problem is with defining words.

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.

Again, it's only evidence that people BELIEVED that someone named Jesus did these things.

Authenticated writings?! What a joke.

No shit. No full names, no physical addresses of the writers, nadda, just a bunch of first names. I love how they think the writers are "authenticated".

i can prove Stephen King is a real writer, but no, cars don't haunt people and your pet won't become a zombie. 

We can prove someone wrote the Koran too, so what. We can prove someone wrote the Baghavad Gitas and Vedas too. 

It still amounts to if you really want to believe in sky wizards you will.

[Harry Nevis]

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?

Kudos, because this isn't seen very often. Whether you are convinced or not is subjective, but the position that acts like all theist are believing without reason, I believe is just intellectually dishonest.

I'm pretty sure of the myriad of "reasons" people give for believing.  And, by not acknowledging that there are many besides knowing it is the truth, it's you who is intellectually dishonest.

---

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?

Jesus being the son of God (his claim), dying on a cross to make it possible to to have a relationship with God, and rising again is not possible to interpret subjectively. In addition, the majority of NT teachings are not all that easy to interpret differently either (love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.).

And it's not possible to claim it actually happened without lying.

---

And, after all of your babble, there is STILL no evidence for your god.

---

That points to no "fact" except that there were a lot of people willing to believe something.  And there is no "large amount of evidence" that Jesus was real. Nothing outside the bible.

---

Again, it's only evidence that people BELIEVED that someone named Jesus did these things.

Authenticated writings?! What a joke.

No shit. No full names, no physical addresses of the writers, nadda, just a bunch of first names. I love how they think the writers are "authenticated".

i can prove Stephen King is a real writer, but no, cars don't haunt people and your pet won't become a zombie. 

We can prove someone wrote the Koran too, so what. We can prove someone wrote the Baghavad Gitas and Vedas too. 

It still amounts to if you really want to believe in sky wizards you will.

Have you read the Authenticated Stephen King?  Sooooo much scarier.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

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?

Jesus being the son of God (his claim), dying on a cross to make it possible to to have a relationship with God, and rising again is not possible to interpret subjectively. In addition, the majority of NT teachings are not all that easy to interpret differently either (love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.).

Thank you for your response, SteveII.  With all due respect, out of curiosity, suppose the people back then possessed humanity's current level of knowledge and understanding.  Do you think that the information quoted above in your post would've been as convincing to them as it was when they didn't possess that knowledge?

Also, do today's current practitioners of Christianity take humanity's current knowledge and understanding and try to make sense of it via a 2,000 year old mindset (for example, the writings in the NT)? Has the Christian mindset evolved with advancements in human knowledge and understanding? Would today's Christian practitioners be seen as foreign to the Christian practitioners around the time of Christ?  Thanks SteveII.