Not an interpretation. It's a fact.
These claims are found only in the bible. Written down by believers.
These are just mere claims. Anecdotes.
You can call them "history" all you want. In reality, they are just beliefs / claims that were written down. That's it.
If my children wrote about my history (biography) you would also say "anecdotes" but it would be true.
I don't think I ever said that anecdotes are false by default.
Obviously they could be true. The question is: how would you know?
If Ivanka Trump wrote a biography about The Donald and she writes in it how the election was stolen from him in a giant conspiracy, does that then make it true?
There's a rule of thumb here: the more extra-ordinary the claim, the less you should be relying on the mere words of authors.
Especially if those authors have a bias.
Suppose your children completely hate you for some reason.
Don't you think that would be reflected somehow in the biography they write about you?
Suppose your children have an uncanny adoration for you and consider you an impossible hero.
Don't you think that would be reflected somehow in the biography they write about you as well?
And it isn't one document, aka, the bible, they are letters and historical documents.
Which were carefully edited and hand picked to represent the story they wanted it to reflect. And the ones doing the handpicking did so with an agenda and a bias.
None of these are independent contemporary sources.
All of them are from the hands of biased believers.
All of which provides us with reasons to be extra sceptical.
apples and oranges. We have written documents that were supported by others.
No, you don't.
If there was an accident with witnesses, their testimony would be accepted as independent evidence.
What if there are conflicted testimonies?
What if the testimonies included extra ordinary claims of supernatural stuff?
Do you think it would be just accepted anyway?
In case of accidents, there is going to be forensics involved also. And the testimonies will be corroborated with it.
If a witness for example says that the car was doing at least 100 km/h and yet the forensics investigation tells us it was 50km/h max, do you think the witness will be believed and the forensic evidence rejected?
Lastly, the vast majority of cases where innocent people are convicted anyway, is when there is a lack of independently verifiable evidence and all they have to go on is "eyewitness testimony". That, in and of itself, already tells you everything you need to know about the reliability of "testimony".
The tomb was empty and it was verified as noted by the witnesses.
You are using the claims to validate the claims.
This is called circular reasoning.
It is known that Plato wrote what Socrates said and we accept it. You have a double standard, I don't.
I'm not seeing it. What is the supposed double standard?
Be specific.
You didn't make your case. You just repeated your claim.
They had an irrefutable story
I can give you an infinite amount of "irrefutable" stories.
For example: there's an undetectable dragon following you everywhere you go.
A story being "irrefutable", is not a proper standard for accepting said story as being accurate. You might want to read up on how the burden of proof actually works.
Having said that.... My point remains unaddressed: it is evidence only of their resolve, it is not evidence of their beliefs being accurate.
In the same way, the fact that islamists are willing to sacrifice their lives is only evidence of their resolve - not that their beliefs are accurate.
It is supported by the historical records.
You keep calling them "historical records".
What they are instead are just religious claims of extra-ordinary things, written down and passed on by believers.
Claims that are in need of corroborating evidence in order to merit the label "historical".
Got any such evidence?
You still seem irritated because I believe. Maybe its your conscience?
I'm irritated not because you believe. I'm "irritated" (quotes, because not really, but whatever) because you keep pretending that your beliefs are facts while they are just mere beliefs. Because you insist on pretending that mere claims are somehow facts. Because you insist on pretending that claims are evidence of themselves just because there are people that believe them.
In short: I'm "irritated" by the continued insistence on using circular reasoning.