Imagine the luck you must have, out of all of the homo sapiens who have ever lived, to have been born in a Christian country and exposed to the right type of Christianity at the right time in your life, in the exact way that it is meant to be believed in order to reach that dimension of afterlife.
What a wondrous coincidence that the religious beliefs that you hold, out of the many thousands of options, just happen to be the right ones, especially considering the punishment for NOT believing the right religion.
That's the solipsistic part.
As for the the general historical and archaeological record, we've already established that that's mostly bunk. Even the gospels can't agree on the central defining moment, the Resurrection, as far as who was at the tomb, when they were there, what they found, and where Jesus appeared. Not to mention the gospels were written years after (in some cases decades after) the supposed event, an event that appears nowhere outside of the Christian holy books, and claims an earthquake and a zombie apocalypse that there's no record of.
The Christ myth theory or the historical Jesus; take your pick. There's no evidence that stands up to cursory scrutiny that supports any of the supernatural events of the Bible, and are much more aligned with the myths of the Bronze and Iron Ages.
It’s not self-centered if it’s true because I have no choice in the reality of it.
A solipsist is a person who has made himself the god of his imagined universe, and is in this sense the opposite of a Christian, who has accepted the need to die to self and submit to the one true God.
I hope, probably more than you imagine, that you personally will escape the terrors of hell by letting Christ into your life. I hope the same for all people, including but not limited to Hillary Clinton.
Those who have never had the opportunity to hear or understand the Gospel, such as isolated cultures or young children, are not condemned by their ignorance. Quite the contrary—they’re saved by the blood of Christ shed on the cross.
But hearing the Gospel and rejecting it is a different matter altogether.
The historicity of Christ’s resurrection is well established in higher levels of discussion—that is, in academia.
When people like Bart Ehrman write for a popular audience, they often come to different conclusions regarding questions of historicity compared with what they write for a specialized audience. For this reason I encourage everyone to focus more on the scholarly record than on pop culture versions such as History Channel or books by Ehrman written for a popular audience.
One method used by scholars to determine historicity is this: the testimonies by different individuals regarding the same witnessed event will always differ in the smaller details.
For example a car accident. The only way to get absolute consistency in smaller details, such as the color of the car, the speed it was going, or the direction it came from, and all the other details—is if everyone got together beforehand and conspired to embellish or to lie.
In this way you can see that the discrepancy between various accounts of Christ’s resurrection regarding nonessential details in fact helps confirm the historical reliability of it.