Listen closely to this. When atheists say they need extra, really compelling evidence for the resurrection, they’re tacitly admitting that the evidence we already have would normally be totally sufficient. However, they feel the need to come up with an excuse for why it’s not enough in this **particular**... case. In other words, they’re assuming naturalism is true, so now you have to meet a standard of evidence that overcomes their fundamental assumptions about how reality works. Guess who gets to set that standard? They do. Guess who decides if you’ve met it? They do. This is why when people ask Matt Dillahunty what it would take to convince him, he never answers the question… because that’s the point: nothing will. It’s a rigged game.show more

'We generally accept all history with very little evidence but not Christ' Very flexible standards

It's a rigged game that only the unbeliever loses in the end. Great post brother

Saying we can’t use the Bible to prove the resurrection is like saying we can’t use the works of Plato to prove the existence of Socrates. You’re just ignorant.

Reminds me of this video. How anti-theists explain away the resurrection account of Jesus...🤣😂

I agree. It's obvious no evidence would ever convince them. They can never overcome their pride.

Do you think that the evidence for Vishnu lifting the world from the water with his tusks is compelling?

Do you think of false analogy that only demonstrates your total ignorance of the subject is compelling?

"Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is a profound challenge to naturalism and evolutionary self-interest because it represents an act that defies the very principles of survival and self-preservation. Evolutionary theory suggests that organisms act primarily in ways that ensure their survival and propagate their genes, yet Jesus, while being tortured to death, prayed for the forgiveness of His enemies—a radical act of selfless love that cannot be explained by naturalistic means. This unparalleled act of sacrificial love is evidence of a divine nature that transcends the natural order. However, the ultimate proof of His deity lies in the resurrection, for only God has the authority and power to overcome death itself, transforming the crucifixion into the ultimate victory and demonstrating His sovereignty over life and eternity. And let’s not forget the eyewitnesses—the disciples who claimed to have seen the risen Christ. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we must believe these men willingly faced being fed to lions, crucified upside down, stoned, beaten, and skinned alive for something they knew was a lie. Surely, atheists would do the same, right? They would go to their deaths with smiles, enduring unimaginable torture, for the sake of perpetuating a hoax. Because that’s rational, isn’t it? If the resurrection were false, human nature would have taken over—self-preservation would have kicked in, and they would have admitted the "lie" to save their skin. Yet history shows they didn’t. The only logical conclusion is that they weren’t lying—they were testifying to something they genuinely witnessed: Jesus Christ risen from the grave. Their courage in the face of death is not just evidence of their conviction but of the truth they proclaimed.