That there are lots of alternative and contradictory religious claims about which collection of writings/stories reveal the truth (bible, Koran, Torah, the vedas etc.) and that which one of these religious beliefs any given individual will claim as the truth is basically an accident of birth (if you had been born and raised in Ancient Greece you’d believe in Zeus, if you had been born on the Middle East you’d likely be arguing that the Koran is the book to follow, in 20th century Canada it happens to be Christianity that is the dominant religion)
That features of the Christian story (virgin birth, resurrection, ascending to heaven etc.) are similarly featured in various preceding myths.
That humans create myths, tell stories, elaborate, exaggerate, lie, adapt previously heard stories to their own ends, self deceive and generally don’t let reality get in the way of a good story.
That dead people don’t come alive again.
All of this we objectively know. So, based on this, I’d say that objectively speaking there is no reason to treat the bible as any more true than the other myths that we all agree are just myths and that the fact you are doing so says more about the prevailing culture you were raised in than the truth of Christ resurrection.
So I don’t agree that it’s all just subjective interpretation of the same facts. I’m pretty sure that my position incorporates far more of what we know objectively than your subjective beliefs do.
You have given an explanation as to why you reject the authenticity of the historical resurrection of Jesus. However, that is still your subjective conclusion. We are still left with the objective knowledge that the NT accounts exist and claim that Jesus was resurrected.
I have given you a list of objective facts that you have to effectively ignore or dismiss in order to sustain your claim that we are all just subjectively interpreting the same evidence.
Everything suggests that Christian mythology is at least in part an adaptation of preceding mythologies. Of course it has its USP built on top. And of course you as a somebody exposed to, and following of, the Christian belief system will firmly believe that this makes it the truest and most enlightened of the religious myths available. Every religious adherent is of the opinion that their particular belief/holy-book is the most accurate.
You special plead Christianity and the bible over those other religions due to an accident of birth. I have had similar discussions with Muslims who make similar arguments about the superiority of the Koran and why that is more revealing of God’s truths than the bible or the Torah.
We have objective evidence about how religions form and grow. Look at Mormonism or Scientology for recent examples. We know that people will convince themselves utterly of the veracity of things that any objective observer will conclude to be clearly fictional.
Looked at as part of the bigger whole, looked at objectively, Christianity is just another example of all of this.
Of course you will claim that your beliefs are different from all those others. Better evidenced, more convincing, whatever. Every believer is convinced of that about their particular religion.
But look at this without the blinkers of Christianity. Try to look at it from the point of view of an alien unfamiliar with any Earthly religion who deals only with the observable facts. What would they conclude? That the resurrection of Jesus is clearly superior to all those other religiious claims? Or that humans have a bewildering habit of really personally committing themselves to the various stories that they collectively create?
On subjective experiences I’d simply ask why ou think they are caused by god(s) rather than undetectable moon rays, psychic badgers or even just plain old mundane psychological and bio-chemical procssses? What is it about these visions and voices that leads you to conclude they are definitely caused by god?
Where I disagree with GDR is this notion that we are all just equally subjectively interpreting the same evidence. It superficially sounds oh-so reasonable but scratch a little deeper and it’s palpable nonsense.
If an alien scientist came to Earth with the intention of objectively studying human history, culture, psychology etc. Collating and collecting all the objective evidence to draw their conclusions, to see what they could learn from us and observe what makes us tick. There is no way that this alien scientist would leave having decided that the resurrection of Christ was superior to all other stories and that Christians must therefore be pursuing a truth that everybody else is missing.
Rather they would look at humanity as a whole and conclude that we are creative story-tellers frequently unhindered by the banality of truth in our myriad of fictions.
And Mormons believe that Joseph Smith’s interactions with God are historical.
And Muslims believe that God revealing the verses of the Quran to Mohammed is historical.
And so on and so forth.
Of course you believe that the resurrection is historical.
But nobody looking all the belief systems of the world, past and present, objectively would have reason to conclude that the resurrection is historical whilst dismissing all those other claimed events as fiction. Instead they would see all these claims in the context of a wider pattern of human myth making and belief.
The Bible was written to chronicle a very important truth in the lives of the people of that day and time. It was written as a message to all of their descendants as well, in my opinion. That includes us today.