So then I would assume that you think the Biblical account of Pentecost is all myth? For example:
Acts 2:1-4 : 1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. ................
Acts 2:31-33 : 31 Seeing what was ahead, he [David] spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. ................
Acts 2:38-39 : 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call."
Is it correct then that you accept the first part of verse 38, but reject the second part? If so, that's pretty selective I think. :) If Paul introduced the Holy Spirit then He surely is not from God, He would be an invention of Paul's. That tells me you don't believe it as the Bible tells it. Hypothetically, if the Bible turned out to be right and it was something like an "alien presence", like you said, may I assume that you would reject this presence since it is alien to you?
I think you are concentrating on the the stories more than on the message behind them.
I just think that when one throws out the history behind the stories the message itself is ruined. Myths can be and are interpreted in a multitude of ways. It's whatever the reader wants it to mean since it never really happened. Inconvenient elements of the story can be dropped without penalty (it's not part of the message) and new elements can be added in to taste. That is faith a la carte, and with all respect that's what I see you doing when you dismiss the God of the OT.
The essence of Christ's teachings is fundamentally different from the angry messages of other Jewish "messiahs," including St. John the Forerunner/Baptist. He was as unlike the Jewish warrior-king as it gets.
Not only did John the Baptist specifically deny being the Messiah, but Jesus Himself said that no finer person (excluding Himself) has ever walked the earth. So, I would assume you might think those passages never happened either? If the message of Jesus was fundamentally different from John the Baptist's would not Jesus have condemned it, at least in His heart?
We believe the Pentecost happened. Certainly the disciples experienced a life-changing event that made them into Apostles. Luke was no eyewitness. Whether there were trumpets or whether this is just the culturally influenced way of narrating things is another matter.
Being filled with the Holy Spirit can be interpreted in many ways. We see it as our spiritual life in Christ, motivated and sustained by His love; not some alien presence inside of us.
Actually I don't agree with the first part at all. Apparently, blessed Luke wasn't aware of the Great Commission (I guess he was getting his information from sources other than Matthew), because we do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. We baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, as the Lord is quoted.
Communication problem? You bet!
So are historical events. What I mean by the irrelevance of the history is that Christ's proclamations are true yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are timeless. They are irrelevant of the geographic location, culture or politics, and, yes, history too. Even factual history.
When the Gospels tell us that we cannot serve God and Mammon (wordily goods), that is the eternally current and true message we need to take home with us.
Inconvenient elements of the story can be dropped without penalty
Certainly that is true of anything. "Be merciful" can be ignored.
Paul didn't invent the Holy Spirit. He invented the term "indwelling Holy Spirit." I could be wrong but my cursory search didn't reveal that phrase before him. The Gospels speak of being "filled" with the Holy Spirit which is different because in the OT sense, the HS is a power of God, a blessing, and not a Divine Person.
God's presence in our hearts is not an alien presence inside of us. When we love someone, we love that person in spirit (in our "hearts") and that person's "presence " is said to be spiritual and not physical.
We are not invaded. When we fall in love with God, He is on our minds and in our consciousness; we are aware of His existence. When we do things with God in our hearts, we act according to what Christ taught us, we remind ourselves of what He said not to do. We do it out of love.
He is our motivator and mover, and when we sin His awareness in our minds helps us come to grips with our error, so we can repent for our ingratitude and ask for forgiveness.
It's not a matter of convenience and I am not dropping the OT God, just the perception the Jewish people had, and some Christian groups have, of Him. Our perception of the OT God is that He is (by necessity) Christ-like and that if He appears not as the Christ of the Gospels then it is not a correct perception of God. It's not a matter of convenience but of what standard we use. In our case, we use Christ. I think that would be the definition of a Christian.
Jesus' movement separated from John the Baptist early on. John's followers to this day maintain that he was the true messiah. The Gospels try to correct this impression without making John an enemy of Christ. After all, John was one of those few people filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.
Blessed John wasn't necessarily wrong, so there is no reason for Christ to condemn him. But, unlike Jesus, John preached angrily and violently. Jesus' message was fundamentally opposite of John's.
A warrior-king who would defeat Rome would not preach peace, loving your enemy, and forgiveness. That is how we perceive things to this day. That's how the Jews perceived thing then too.
Yet, when you think about it, it is the meek Jesus of Nazareth that did defeat Rome: not only did He defeat Rome, but He became the God of the Roman Empire and established His Church in Rome! It just didn't happen as the Jewish people wished it would, and it didn't happen when they wanted it to happen, but in due time, on God's time.