Truth in a Post-Modern-Milieu

Can we have confidence in the historicity of the Resurrection record?

Philosophers have set this generation up to believe that there is such a thing as my truth and your truth. They have posited that there is such a thing as "real history" (that is the stuff that really happened) and "salvation history" (that is the point of the story of salvation/resurrection that really didn't happen).

The point, they say, is that we learn the reality of the moral truth that is behind the creation of the supposed historical story. That is the thing that really counts, whether or not the event actually took place. Therefore, what is true, is not concerned about the event, but rather about what belief in the story has produced in your heart. Did it move you to a better and more moral life?

With the Bible, that system of critiquing the stories is not a valid option. The fact of the occurrences is given so that we might have more than enough evidence to believe. Our refusal to believe (place our trust in) or even to consider is our own call to be judged for rejecting God's salvation. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18

It is only possible to have a post-modern philosophy of truth, but it can only last until one is confronted with reality. It doesn't make any difference whether you believe in gravity of not...