Lógos Sokratikós

All I can say is: that is some fine rhetoric you're using. But I'll leave it here. This is obviously a dead end in the discussion. Unless we do away with the -ahem- fine rhetoric.

Lógos Sokratikós

My view exactly. That is, if we want to view it with 20th and 21st century epistemological standards, which, of course, includes naturalism.

The striking feature about the NT stories is their candidness, as it portrays the baseness and blunders of the characters, such as the traitorous aspects of one of their leaders, Peter, who is also called ignorant in Acts, Paul is a genocidal murderer before conversion and has some blunders in his ministry in Greek-speaking lands, has to handle shameful glossolalia issues in some congregations, Christ is featured as horridly scared just before the moment he's been waiting for and hoping (saving humankind), the Jesus character has a distinct personality (hard to think it was "just" made up), Paul too, Peter too, John, etc, plus this Jesus character had an anti-establishment discourse, etc, etc.

The leaders didn't do much of an effort to look "holier than thou". The only wowee features would be the miracles (like the shadow of Peter stuff).

There's gotta be something legit about it.

Toto

You appear to be using the criterion of embarrassment, based on the assumption that the early Christians would only have written nice things unless they were true.

But if you explore some of the other threads here, you will see that there are alternative explanations. The disciples are portrayed as morally deficient in Mark - perhaps for a theological reason, or a literary reason.

You see blunders in Paul's ministry, others have seen plot devices in Acts to keep the readers' interest up.

And I don't find the Jesus character to be especially realistic. He lacks feeling for his family, he lacks a sexual side of his character (virtually unheard of among charismatic preachers).

I do find the character of Paul in his epistles (not in Acts) to ring true. He sounds like a real person, with real emotions and real flaws.

Diogenes the Cynic

There's also no glossalia in Acts. The "gift of tongues" described therein is not the affected gibberish engaged in by modern pentecostal Christians but simply a (mythical) ability given to evangelizing Christians to spread their gospel in languages previously unknown to them. The interpretation that these people were babbling incoherently is a modern imposition onto a text that suggests no such thing.

Incidentally, depicting gods and heroes as having flaws and warts and moments of weakness is completely de rigeur in Greek mythology. Try reading Homer sometime.

Ted Hoffman

A myth is the explanation of a ritual, or the story behind a ritual.

Steven Avery

As an exegesis of the NT this would have difficulty as an explanation in a number of passages, such as Acts 10 (Cornelius household) and Acts 19 (Apollus and others)

Chili

The truth behind myth lies in the metaphor and not in history but may have been shown to be manifest in history. The "Immaculate Conception" is a good example of this manifestation as myth.

Amaleq13

And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,(Acts 10:45-46, KJV)

And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.(Acts 19:6, KJV)

How do either of these passages require or even suggest that gibberish only comprehensible to believers was being spoken as opposed to magical multilinguality?

"For they heard them speak in multiple languages, and magnify God."

"and they spake in multiple languages, and prophesied."

Diogenes the Cynic

Acts 10 and 19 are clearly explained and informed by Acts 2:4-8.

4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
[5] And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
[6] Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
[7] And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
[8] And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

It is made explicit in these verses that they were speaking "other languages" previously unknown to them but completely recognizable human languages nonetheless. The miracle is not that they were jabbering senselessly but that they could spontaneously speak the language of those they were preaching to...a much more useful "gift" than Glossalalia in my opinion.

Chili

Glossolalia is when our [personal] stream of words flows over the adams apple (voice box) where reason is interjected into the stream of words.