What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[SteveII]

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?

1. Most people do not start with "there is no God". We are wired to believe in the supernatural--and most humans do. That is why a reading of the NT and the genuine changing power of a conversion in a persons life (other people's testimony) is compelling to many people every day  (there are millions of adult conversions every year). 
2. Whether or not you are aware of the formal natural theology arguments, most people can understand deep down that the universe calls out for an explanation. Conscienceless calls out for an explanation. Morality calls out for an explanation. You have to develop alternate explanations to support atheism--I don't think they are intuitive.  
3. Regarding what God could have done a better job convincing, a few points:
  a. It is not clear that ongoing flashing, crowd-convincing miracles would not be coercive to free will. I believe that minor miracles happen every day and many Christians are convinced of the same. 
  b. God is not concerned if you believe he exists. He is only interested in having a relationship with you. If your heart is searching, there is more than enough evidence that he exists.

---

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.

What current level of understanding do you think we have that would have made the people interpret things differently? Cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life. 

I don't think Christian understanding has changed in 2000 years. Do you have something specifically that might have changed (some important feature)?

---

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.

You are spouting an objection from your atheist quick list--but it does not apply to my answer. Try to keep up.

[Mister Agenda]

We're wired to infer agency, not God. It took a long time to get from animism to monotheism.

There are millions of adult deconversions every year too. Being consistent with your argument, what does that indicate?

[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?

1. Most people do not start with "there is no God". We are wired to believe in the supernatural--and most humans do. That is why a reading of the NT and the genuine changing power of a conversion in a persons life (other people's testimony) is compelling to many people every day  (there are millions of adult conversions every year). 
2. Whether or not you are aware of the formal natural theology arguments, most people can understand deep down that the universe calls out for an explanation. Conscienceless calls out for an explanation. Morality calls out for an explanation. You have to develop alternate explanations to support atheism--I don't think they are intuitive.  
3. Regarding what God could have done a better job convincing, a few points:
  a. It is not clear that ongoing flashing, crowd-convincing miracles would not be coercive to free will. I believe that minor miracles happen every day and many Christians are convinced of the same. 
  b. God is not concerned if you believe he exists. He is only interested in having a relationship with you. If your heart is searching, there is more than enough evidence that he exists.

1. Wired, maybe. But then quite a few grow up mentally and recognize fantasy for what it is, fantasy. Millions of conversions, maybe. Is that because a fantasy savior/protector/golden ticket holder allows then to deal with life/death easier, probably. Fantasy escapism can be very powerful for some people. How many adults per year raised christian reject christianity? Check our Pew research. Is it because society as a whole is out growing the need for a fantasy?
2. The people that require a made up explanation for every little thing are simply insecure. Most want to search for explanations, that's part of the human condition. However, when an explanation is not immediately forthcoming there is no need to make up and believe in a fantasy, unless you're insecure with "we don't know yet". 
3. I didn't ask for a miracle, I asked for god to show up. And it would not be coercive, it would allow me to make a decision on the reality vs fantasy of god. I think your "minor miracles" are yet another example of fantasy, attaching god to whatever suits the fantasy. And I think that if your version of a god is real based on it's book, then it is very concerned that I believe. Otherwise it would have not made it's first 4 commandments addressing that very issue. And my mind searches (not heart) but finds very little satisfaction in a fantasy god.

[Brian37]

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?

1. Most people do not start with "there is no God". We are wired to believe in the supernatural--and most humans do. That is why a reading of the NT and the genuine changing power of a conversion in a persons life (other people's testimony) is compelling to many people every day  (there are millions of adult conversions every year). 
2. Whether or not you are aware of the formal natural theology arguments, most people can understand deep down that the universe calls out for an explanation. Conscienceless calls out for an explanation. Morality calls out for an explanation. You have to develop alternate explanations to support atheism--I don't think they are intuitive.  
3. Regarding what God could have done a better job convincing, a few points:
  a. It is not clear that ongoing flashing, crowd-convincing miracles would not be coercive to free will. I believe that minor miracles happen every day and many Christians are convinced of the same. 
  b. God is not concerned if you believe he exists. He is only interested in having a relationship with you. If your heart is searching, there is more than enough evidence that he exists.

---

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.

What current level of understanding do you think we have that would have made the people interpret things differently? Cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life. 

I don't think Christian understanding has changed in 2000 years. Do you have something specifically that might have changed (some important feature)?

---

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.

You are spouting an objection from your atheist quick list--but it does not apply to my answer. Try to keep up.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  You, "Try to keep up" ..... That's rich.

We have evolution that explains the process of life we don't need old mythology claiming men magically popped out of dirt. You are simply getting pissed nobody is buying your old bronze age comic book. 

When God goes on Maury Povich and proves his paternity with a DNA sample we'll consider your findings, but let me clue you in, IT IS A MYTH. That was then, this is now. 

You want us to buy an old book with scientifically absurd claims written by humans who had no clue of modern science. Ok, but please don't lecture us about who is up to date.

---

Steve, "Why wont you buy my magic man story?"

Me, "Because humans wrote those bad claims when they didn't know any better".

Can't dumb it down any further for you Steve. Someone sold you some elaborate tripe. Not our fault the writers had no damned clue at the time.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

What current level of understanding do you think we have that would have made the people interpret things differently?

Cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life.

Thanks for your question, SteveII.  Specifically, I’m referring to humanity’s latest, most up to date knowledge and understanding about the various sciences (physics, medicine, biology, chemistry etc.), social/behavioral sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.), mathematics, philosophy, literature/story-telling, etc.  If humanity possessed this knowledge during the time of Christ, especially the people who accepted the truthfulness of the occurrences quoted above in your post via the accounts of others, then would they have been more skeptical?

Also, is it possible that people accepted the truthfulness of these claims because they needed something new and hopeful to believe in at that time?
 

I don't think Christian understanding has changed in 2000 years. Do you have something specifically that might have changed (some important feature)?

I am simply curious about your thoughts on this matter and was asking a question.

[SteveII]

What current level of understanding do you think we have that would have made the people interpret things differently?

Cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life.

Thanks for your question, SteveII.  Specifically, I’m referring to humanity’s latest, most up to date knowledge and understanding about the various sciences (physics, medicine, biology, chemistry etc.), social/behavioral sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.), mathematics, philosophy, literature/story-telling, etc.  If humanity possessed this knowledge during the time of Christ, especially the people who accepted the truthfulness of the occurrences quoted above in your post via the accounts of others, then would they have been more skeptical?

Also, is it possible that people accepted the truthfulness of these claims because they needed something new and hopeful to believe in at that time?
 

I don't think Christian understanding has changed in 2000 years. Do you have something specifically that might have changed (some important feature)?

I am simply curious about your thoughts on this matter and was asking a question.

With 9 out of 10 people in the world today believing in some variation of the supernatural, I don't think that the time in history (first century) has any bearing on the truthfulness of the claims. Like I said, cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life. When these events happened, they had an effect. I cannot think of one advancement in any of the things you mentioned above that would change the perception of the events.

---

1. Most people do not start with "there is no God". We are wired to believe in the supernatural--and most humans do. That is why a reading of the NT and the genuine changing power of a conversion in a persons life (other people's testimony) is compelling to many people every day  (there are millions of adult conversions every year). 
2. Whether or not you are aware of the formal natural theology arguments, most people can understand deep down that the universe calls out for an explanation. Conscienceless calls out for an explanation. Morality calls out for an explanation. You have to develop alternate explanations to support atheism--I don't think they are intuitive.  
3. Regarding what God could have done a better job convincing, a few points:
  a. It is not clear that ongoing flashing, crowd-convincing miracles would not be coercive to free will. I believe that minor miracles happen every day and many Christians are convinced of the same. 
  b. God is not concerned if you believe he exists. He is only interested in having a relationship with you. If your heart is searching, there is more than enough evidence that he exists.

1. Wired, maybe. But then quite a few grow up mentally and recognize fantasy for what it is, fantasy. Millions of conversions, maybe. Is that because a fantasy savior/protector/golden ticket holder allows then to deal with life/death easier, probably. Fantasy escapism can be very powerful for some people. How many adults per year raised christian reject christianity? Check our Pew research. Is it because society as a whole is out growing the need for a fantasy?
2. The people that require a made up explanation for every little thing are simply insecure. Most want to search for explanations, that's part of the human condition. However, when an explanation is not immediately forthcoming there is no need to make up and believe in a fantasy, unless you're insecure with "we don't know yet". 
3. I didn't ask for a miracle, I asked for god to show up. And it would not be coercive, it would allow me to make a decision on the reality vs fantasy of god. I think your "minor miracles" are yet another example of fantasy, attaching god to whatever suits the fantasy. And I think that if your version of a god is real based on it's book, then it is very concerned that I believe. Otherwise it would have not made it's first 4 commandments addressing that very issue. And my mind searches (not heart) but finds very little satisfaction in a fantasy god.

1. Less than 1 in 10 believe there is no God. Your message is not getting out and you certainly are not anywhere near the mark in your comment about 'outgrowing the need'. Since you mentioned Pew, your message is so uncompelling, it can't even keep up with your projected lower birth rate (a net move of people from any other column to your own):  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...opulation/
2. "we don't know yet"? How do you imaging that more time will give us more insight into these metaphysical questions? Science certainly will not. 
3. Perhaps God will bring about circumstances in your life that will meet your criteria.

[brewer]

1. Less than 1 in 10 believe there is no God. Your message is not getting out and you certainly are not anywhere near the mark in your comment about 'outgrowing the need'. Since you mentioned Pew, your message is so uncompelling, it can't even keep up with your projected lower birth rate (a net move of people from any other column to your own):  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...opulation/
2. "we don't know yet"? How do you imaging that more time will give us more insight into these metaphysical questions? Science certainly will not. 
3. Perhaps God will bring about circumstances in your life that will meet your criteria.

1. And your point, that I'm not on the global band wagon? I'm OK with that. If 9 out of ten jumped off a bridge would you? I'm not messaging anyone (that seems to be a religious function), just living my life and telling you why I can't believe yours. I said nothing about need, I said mentally grow up. An easy example is peek-a-boo. The child's mind is fascinated for a while until it learns object permanence and that the magic disappearing act is just fantasy. Pew?: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/relig...rcent/all/. Look at the percents for US vs World or first world vs third world through the years. You'll see that the percent of unaffiliated increases in first world countries and decreases in third world countries. Why is that? Simply birth rate in un/under educated parts of the globe. That's something you should take into account, religion succeeds when education/wealth/resources lags. I'm not sure that is something that you should be proud of or take solace in. Or, maybe you'll move. 
2. More time removed flat earth and earth centric solar system, brought about physics, medicine, ........ I care little for metaphysical questions. (from google: abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality) Oh no, did you just imply that god is not based in reality. 
3. Or more than likely not. Fantasy is for imagination, entertainment and escape (and your particular version includes manipulation), but for me, it's not a way of life.

[Pat Mustard]

We're wired to infer agency, not God. It took a long time to get from animism to monotheism.

There are millions of adult deconversions every year too. Being consistent with your argument, what does that indicate?

And most of the conversions Steve is talking about are from one sect of a religion to another, for example pretty much every conversion to evangelism in Brazil comes straight from catholicism, and in the US from mainline protestantism or catholicism.

Most of the "growth" in relugious numbers these days is from counting children too young to understand and from double or even triple counting people moving from one version of religion to another (for example, the rcc counts every person ever baptised by a priest as catholic for life. Hence Rome still considers me catholic).

[Brian37]

Thanks for your question, SteveII.  Specifically, I’m referring to humanity’s latest, most up to date knowledge and understanding about the various sciences (physics, medicine, biology, chemistry etc.), social/behavioral sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.), mathematics, philosophy, literature/story-telling, etc.  If humanity possessed this knowledge during the time of Christ, especially the people who accepted the truthfulness of the occurrences quoted above in your post via the accounts of others, then would they have been more skeptical?

Also, is it possible that people accepted the truthfulness of these claims because they needed something new and hopeful to believe in at that time?
 

I am simply curious about your thoughts on this matter and was asking a question.

With 9 out of 10 people in the world today believing in some variation of the supernatural, I don't think that the time in history (first century) has any bearing on the truthfulness of the claims. Like I said, cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life. When these events happened, they had an effect. I cannot think of one advancement in any of the things you mentioned above that would change the perception of the events.

---

1. Wired, maybe. But then quite a few grow up mentally and recognize fantasy for what it is, fantasy. Millions of conversions, maybe. Is that because a fantasy savior/protector/golden ticket holder allows then to deal with life/death easier, probably. Fantasy escapism can be very powerful for some people. How many adults per year raised christian reject christianity? Check our Pew research. Is it because society as a whole is out growing the need for a fantasy?
2. The people that require a made up explanation for every little thing are simply insecure. Most want to search for explanations, that's part of the human condition. However, when an explanation is not immediately forthcoming there is no need to make up and believe in a fantasy, unless you're insecure with "we don't know yet". 
3. I didn't ask for a miracle, I asked for god to show up. And it would not be coercive, it would allow me to make a decision on the reality vs fantasy of god. I think your "minor miracles" are yet another example of fantasy, attaching god to whatever suits the fantasy. And I think that if your version of a god is real based on it's book, then it is very concerned that I believe. Otherwise it would have not made it's first 4 commandments addressing that very issue. And my mind searches (not heart) but finds very little satisfaction in a fantasy god.

1. Less than 1 in 10 believe there is no God. Your message is not getting out and you certainly are not anywhere near the mark in your comment about 'outgrowing the need'. Since you mentioned Pew, your message is so uncompelling, it can't even keep up with your projected lower birth rate (a net move of people from any other column to your own):  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...opulation/
2. "we don't know yet"? How do you imaging that more time will give us more insight into these metaphysical questions? Science certainly will not. 
3. Perhaps God will bring about circumstances in your life that will meet your criteria.

Most humans once believed the world was flat. Some morons still do. Most humans do have some sort of religious club and? If popularity were an argument you are out numbered because most humans are NOT Christians. Humans once literally believed in the Egyptian God Ra and others once literally believed in Thor, others literally believed in Apollo.

Most humans simply get sold the religions of their parents. Most humans don't like the thought of being finite, so even Buddhists and Hindus cling to superstitions like reincarnation to avoid the fact, like you do avoid, the fact you are finite and our 4 billion year old planet and our 13.8 billion year old universe doesn't have the capability of caring about one species on one planet in a giant cosmos. 

"Most people believe" only means they believe. Humans are quite capable of believing false things, we also have others who believe in vampires and little green men and conspiracy crap like JFK and 9/11. Humans have a history of being gullible, yep. And it is because SKEPTICS dared to question social norms we no longer have sick crap like slavery or oppression of women in the west. Unfortunately we do still have conservatives still trying to turn back the clock.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

With 9 out of 10 people in the world today believing in some variation of the supernatural, I don't think that the time in history (first century) has any bearing on the truthfulness of the claims. [1]Like I said, cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life. [2]When these events happened, they had an effect. I cannot think of one advancement in any of the things you mentioned above that would change the perception of the events.

Yes, sir.  I've noticed that you have stated this twice now in your replies to me.  To humanity's collective knowledge, these things just don't happen.  The aim of my questions was to try and understand that if people were more knowledgeable back during the time of Christ (before centuries of these reinforced beliefs were passed on and conditioned into practitioners of this faith), then would they have been more inclined to point out [1].  For the people who actually claimed to have seen these events, what were the conditions surrounding their experiences: were they under a lot of stress; were they fatigued, especially from great amounts of ritualistic worship? Did the instances in [1] actually occur in reality and beyond any one person's perceptions, or did the people who claimed to have experienced them honestly think and believe that these events happened?

Now, the majority of people who have bought into the Christian faith have not personally witnessed these events, so how do they justify the events in [1].  Are beliefs that are obtained via the accounts and experiences of others actually stronger, more persuasive, and harder to modify than those obtained via direct experience and observation?

Also, if I've understood correctly, I've noticed that you take a rational approach toward establishing the existence of a god.  However, I have not seen how one would rationally establish that this god is the Christian god.  How does one rationally make this conclusion? Can this be done via logic and reason alone, or is faith also necessary to reach this conclusion? Can faith alone be used to reach this conclusion and is that actually a more sensible approach (both in establishing the existence of a deity and linking it to a particular deity)?

Thanks for you time and attention, SteveII.