Anonymous Christian Thought He Had Proof... Matt Dillahunty Disagreed

[00:00:00]When I ask you what evidence do you have and you immediately go to eyewitnesses and then you can't provide a single statement from any eyewitness. Now I'll ask you again, what evidence do you have for the resurrection?

[00:00:18]>> Well, we have a a number of witnesses to eyewitnesses, right? So, we have a number of different New Testament writings all depicting the same. bunch of stories that claim there were.

[00:00:32]>> Welcome back to Faith and Facts, where we explore faith, history, and the biggest questions about truth with curiosity, respect, and an open mind.

[00:00:42]Can sincere belief ever become evidence for a miracle? Or are those two very different things?

[00:00:49]That's the question at the center of today's debate. The conversation you're about to watch happened a while ago, but the issues it raises are just as important today. In this discussion, Matt Dillahenti and Jimmy Snow are joined by an anonymous Christian caller defending the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus.

[00:01:07]The caller argues that the disciples willingness to proclaim the resurrection combined with the claim that group hallucinations are impossible makes the resurrection the best explanation. Matt pushes back, arguing that sincere conviction, even if it's deeply held, is not the same as independently verifiable evidence.

[00:01:28]What's particularly interesting is that this debate isn't really about whether miracles can happen. It's about what standard of evidence should convince us that one actually did. Should ancient testimony and tradition be enough? Or should extraordinary claims meet a higher standard of proof?

[00:01:44]That's a question that extends far beyond Christianity and touches almost every discussion about history, science, and belief.

[00:01:53]If you enjoy balanced conversations that challenge ideas from every perspective without telling you what to think, be sure to like this video, subscribe to Faith and Facts, and join us as we continue exploring these fascinating questions together.

[00:02:07]Now, let's hear what everyone had to say.

[00:02:11]>> Uh, and but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Just know that I'm on guard because of the way you've identified yourself so far. I already feel like I'm arguing with a Twitter account, but go ahead, anonymous.

[00:02:23]Yeah, it's it's all good. I get it. That just I guess kind of the reason that I didn't want to use my name is just that like I'm not like you know there's a lot of people watching and I'm not a super experienced speaker and you know I do get nervous talking in front of a lot of people.

[00:02:39]>> Sure. I have I have a pseudonym. I go by Xander Crook Shanks anytime. I don't want to go by Jimmy Snow or my legal name.

[00:02:46]>> Xander.

[00:02:47]>> Don't really have any name.

[00:02:49]>> It's all good. It's all good.

[00:02:51]>> Anyway, welcome. How you doing?

[00:02:52]>> Yeah, I'm excited to talk.

[00:02:54]>> I'm doing good. Um, so what what I called to talk about is like the resurrection of Jesus.

[00:03:01]>> Um, >> so I guess I I just get into it. My basic argument would be something along these lines like premise one, Jesus was a real historical individual who died on a cross. Premise two, his f many of his followers thought they had seen him risen from the dead shortly afterward.

[00:03:22]And then premise three would be that as far as I'm aware, group hallucination is impossible. And so the conclusion would be if many people are thinking they saw him rise from the dead and group hallucination can't happen, then the best explanation we're left with is that they really did see him resurrected.

[00:03:41]>> Okay. Um, outside of the gospels, the which is where the claim is, what evidence do you have that many followers saw him rising the dead? And by the way, have you read extraordinary popular delusions in the madness of crow crowds from the 19th century along with the books that came after which demonstrate that first of all group hallucination is is possible and does occur. Um, but outside of the Bible, what do we have that shows that there were followers who believed that they saw him rise from the dead?

[00:04:18]>> Um, well, I guess my answer to the last question would be no, I have not read those particular works. Um, but then, um, outside of the Bible, what do we have that attest the resurrection?

[00:04:30]Um, >> yeah, >> as far as I'm aware, we have very little, if anything. But I think using the New Testament, >> we have nothing. And so what we have are a handful of copies of copies of translations of copies of oral tradition stories that report about people who thought think that he rose from the dead. We have no empirical evidence for it. So you have nothing but unverifiable anonymously authored anecdotal evidence.

[00:05:02]Why? For something as significant as an individual rising from the dead, why should that be considered enough evidence to say it happened?

[00:05:14]>> Well, I think that having like Well, I guess a side point I would make is I would of course not concede that, you know, the gospels are anonymous and and so they are, but who wrote who wrote who wrote who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

[00:05:32]Well, I think either Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are one of their >> No, sir. No, sir. No, sir. No, sir. And no, no, no reasonable modern Christian scholar thinks this at all. As a matter of fact, if you here here, let me open my Bible here. Here's an NIV. Do you have some objection to the NIV?

[00:05:52]>> Um, I don't think so.

[00:05:56]>> Okay, cool. So, I'm going to open this NIV to the cover page um for the book of Matthew right here at the beginning of the synoptic gospels.

[00:06:06]Um a careful comparison of the four gospels reveals that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are noticeably similar while John is quite different. The first three gospels agree extensive in language and the material they include in the order and events.

[00:06:19]This goes through there. Um, I'm normally there's a a section here on the actual authorship which might be Oh, here we go.

[00:06:27]Literally, I'm going to hold this up to the screen. I don't know if you can see the screen.

[00:06:33]>> At the beginning of the cover sheet for the book of Matthew, it says, "Although the gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that uh I'm sorry, it bends here in holding that one of the twel apostles was its author." So, this Bible literally says that the book of Matthew is anonymous. It will say the same thing as long as it's covering the best scholarship for each of the other gospels. So, you have books that aren't in fact written or or we don't know who they were written by. Um, we have no reason to think that they were actually written by uh eyewitnesses. However, let's assume that all four gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Would that be enough to prove that somebody rose from the dead? Four four people claiming to be eyewitnesses to someone rising from the dead. Is that enough?

[00:07:28]>> Yeah. Um >> eyewitnesses claiming that >> someone rose from the dead. I would say no. That's not necessarily enough evidence.

[00:07:38]>> Oh, okay. You said yeah. And I I was like, wow. I'm surp I'm surprised. I think that's enough.

[00:07:44]>> Just an honorary gives me like interpreting your question. So it's like yeah like >> I gotcha. So So now we have we we have four accounts. We don't know who wrote them. We don't know if those people are eyewitnesses. Clearly if four eyewitnesses aren't enough to confirm a resurrection, then four anonymous accounts that may not be by eyewitnesses cannot possibly be enough. So, where's the additional evidence that warrants believing that the resurrection occurred?

[00:08:14]>> And while you're thinking, while you're thinking about that, >> I am not a mythicist, but I have friends who are mythsists.

[00:08:22]There are people who believe that Jesus never existed. Those people while I think they have adopted a burden proof that they can't quite meet do have one very very good point and that is nobody can actually demonstrate that Jesus did in fact exist. And so here here you have a system where supposedly there's a god who as a way to create a loophole for rules that he invented supposedly comes down as part of his character takes human form sacrifices himself to himself to serve as a loophole for rules that he's in charge of is resurrect. corrected a day and a half later, even though they would like to say three, and then determines to judge everyone based on whether or not they believe and accept this account. And the best evidence that they can point to cannot confirm his existence, cannot confirm any single uh unique factor fact about his life. And the resurrection, the single most important aspect of all of this, cannot be confirmed. What sort of idiot god sets up the crux of human salvation on such a flimsy uh epistemologically unsound foundation? How dumb do you have to be to not provide better evidence for the most important fact in in the entirety of human history? if this story were true.

[00:10:11][clears throat] >> So, I guess as you talk, it seems like we've sort of opened up four different paths that a conversation could go down.

[00:10:19]It seems like option A would be um are there eyewitnesses of the gospels, right? Option B would be mythicism.

[00:10:26]Option C would be the theological points that you just raised. And then option D would be the historical question. Even if I can see that the gospels weren't written by witnesses, obviously you know we couldn't talk about all of them. Do you have like a preference for like which one of those four points you raised you would rather read?

[00:10:44]>> Pick whichever one you think you can most easily resolve because to me >> uh any one of them is absolutely damning to the notion. I mean you call in because you you think the resurrection is historical and historically reliable.

[00:11:02]Um, so set aside whether or not it makes sense from a theological perspective.

[00:11:06]Set aside whether or not um it any of those things. You've already said that the only accounts that we have of the resurrection aren't sufficient to conclude that a resurrection occurred. So what else have you got? What is it that convinces you if those accounts aren't enough?

[00:11:26]So I think that what makes the gospels more convincing than just like a typical ancient source would be something that you've heard a million times from other Christians. But just the idea that like the Christians are persecuted and liars make poor martyrs. And so when you take this context and and in tandem with the New Testament records we have I think all of a sudden okay we do have a stronger case for the resurrection. So, so what you're saying >> So, what you're saying is that these anonymous unverifiable accounts which aren't sufficient to warrant a belief in the resurrection are more believable because those same anonymous unverifiable accounts lead to someone being martyed or claiming that they were martyed.

[00:12:15]>> Excuse me, I have to go rejoin. People have died for their beliefs who aren't Christians.

[00:12:20]>> Yeah.

[00:12:22]>> Many.

[00:12:23]>> Yeah. And so why does why does someone because why does someone who believes in anonymous unverifiable account that shows their their willingness to die for their belief shows how strongly they believe it. But the truth is not impacted any way by the number of people believe it or how strongly they believe it or their willingness to die for it.

[00:12:46]And so, how can someone being martyed make the anonymous gospel more believable?

[00:12:58]>> Yeah. So, um I think that I would agree with with most of what you're saying. I I wouldn't claim that, you know, well, the gospel authors had um sorry, I wouldn't say that the gospel authors were um like, oh, you know, they're being threatened, so they're not going to lie. Rather, I think that the point where the threat of martyrdom is more relevant is in the characters that they're depicting. Because even if the gospels are in general unreliable, when you have a number of different accounts all sort of kind of agreeing that um there was a group of people claiming that something happened, that's pretty good evidence that at least there was a group of people claiming that something happened. So whatever you say about >> No, it's I I specifically asked you whether or not these things make the anonymous gospels more believable and then you said you said no and then you talked yourself in a circle to coming back and saying yes. The answer is no.

[00:14:09]>> Right. I think I'm trying to distinguish between the characters in the Gospels versus the authors of the Gospels. I think you're trying to appeal to a standard of evidence that isn't a good standard of evidence, my guy. Like everything you just described, if it happened on video, still wouldn't make the the resurrection of Jesus Christ a historical event because that's creating a a an ethereal thing that's never been shown to even be capable of happening.

[00:14:35]And if I can take you to Las Vegas this weekend and show you 10 different people who are really good at dying and resurrecting the your and your standard of evidence is far from this was on video. My goodness.

[00:14:48]I wish I had the name to say I'm just going to call you Tom. Tom Tom. My goodness. What what's really strange to me is that you you just said that you weren't talking about the authors of the gospels but of the characters in them.

[00:15:02]Except that have you read the gospels?

[00:15:08]>> I have.

[00:15:10]>> Okay. Um, how many martyrs are listed in the gospels?

[00:15:16]>> As in how many people are martyed in the gospels or how many people in the gospels end up being >> murdered? Correct. Within within the gospels, how many people are martyed?

[00:15:25]>> Um, only one.

[00:15:28]>> Who?

[00:15:31]Uh well, I guess I'm lumping in at Acts with the Gospels. But Stephen, >> yeah. Yeah, you are. And so here I am talking about the Gospels, which is the only place where there's any sort of resurrection. And all of them end right after that. And what happens is these accounts which were spread around managed to evidently convince some people who were then martyed. But that doesn't make the gospels any more reliable. That is about whether or not they were convincing to people and and how convincing something is has no bearing on whether that's true. Was Was the 2020 election stolen from Donald Trump?

[00:16:10]>> I I don't think so.

[00:16:12]>> I don't either. And yet thousands, if not tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions of people believe that's the case because that's the story that got told. What you're basically arguing here is that the January 6 insurrectionists, their willingness to rush the Capitol and do violence lends credence to the claims that were made that the election was stolen. That is the exact same line of argument that you're using with the Gospels.

[00:16:43]What other what evidence do you have?

[00:16:45]What evidence do you have specifically for a resurrection?

[00:16:53]I think that what's relevant is that a witness that has motive to tell the truth isn't necessarily necessarily perfect. But a witness who has the means to tell the truth also.

[00:17:04]>> You don't have any witnesses.

[00:17:07]You do not have See, here's the thing. I just asked you what evidence you had for a resurrection and you start talking about witnesses. Demonstrate that you can point to any witness at all.

[00:17:20]Well, even if I concede that the gospels aren't eyewitness testimony, I can still point to Paul. I can still point to >> Paul wasn't a witness. Paul was not a witness. No, Sar. No, sir. Paul was not a witness to any of this. Paul persecuted Christians by his own. Do you even know the Bible that you're talking about? A Damascus road experience is not a witness of the resurrection.

[00:17:47]Sure.

[00:17:51]I think well I don't think any of them witnessed Jesus go from death to life. I think that they we're rather seeing Jesus after his death now risen. So I guess >> so you don't get to so when I ask you what evidence do you have and you immediately go to eyewitnesses and then you can't provide a single statement from any eyewitness. Now I'll ask you again. What evidence do you have for the resurrection?

[00:18:22]>> Well, we have a number of witnesses to eyewitnesses, right? So, we have a number of different New Testament writings all depicting the same.

[00:18:33]>> You have a bunch of stories that claim there were eyewitnesses. That's hearsay upon hearsay. point to a statement from a witness and how we can verify its accuracy.

[00:18:48]>> I think that what you're doing is a little bit special pleading because >> No, sir. I think that what you're doing is dishonest as [ __ ] If I told you that somebody stole a bicycle from down the street, but I couldn't produce any witnesses, I couldn't produce anything but a story, that wouldn't be enough.

[00:19:06]But suddenly you're calling into a show to claim that there's good reason to believe there's a resurrection. And every single time I exercise an ounce of skepticism to ask you to demonstrate the truth of it, you duck and dodge and twist and turn. You are not being honest with yourself on this subject. And now you're trying to claim that I'm engaging in special pleading. Please define the special pleading fallacy and show where I've made it or you will be done for today.

[00:19:33]>> You don't get to accuse me. You don't get to accuse me of arguing faciously when I've sat here patiently and pointed out that you have not [ __ ] one leg to stand on demonstrate the special pleading fallacy that I just engaged with.

[00:19:50]>> Yeah. So I think that the special pleading fallacy as I saw it was that if of course this is assuming that you accept um you know ancient historical facts more broadly but the evidence for like four different you know secondhand witnesses like that is a lot stronger than the evidence for a lot of other ancient historical events and so assuming that >> you sir are dishonest and I want you to listen very carefully you just engaged in what aboutism which I never even did.

[00:20:21]You just said the evidence from four second head witness is stronger than we have for other things. I don't give a [ __ ] if your evidence for Jesus resurrecting is stronger than some other religions [ __ ] claim. Where did I engage in special pleading, sir? Or retract it.

[00:20:37]>> Um, okay. I will retract it if you agree that >> No, we're not playing you're going to retract it if I agree. How about you?

[00:20:45]You retract it or you prove it, you retract it or I [ __ ] drop you from this calling show.

[00:20:52]>> Yeah. I think that the special pleading is if I assume that you grant things that are >> Goodbye.

[00:20:59]>> Goodbye.

[00:21:00]>> If I assume that I know you better than you know you, it's obvious special pleading.

[00:21:05]>> If I assume that you said what I think you said, goodbye, you dishonest [ __ ] >> Yeah. Anonymous.

[00:21:10]>> I'm so sorry. the the one thing you did say at the beginning that was very honest I do appreciate and that's that you're new to it and you sort of implied you're not very good at it. That all turned out to be very true. Um >> I sat here patiently >> Yeah.

[00:21:28]>> leading you to this wonderful cool well of water and instead of drinking you [ __ ] and puked in it.

[00:21:35]>> Yeah. Yep. What makes this conversation so interesting isn't simply that two sides disagreed about the resurrection.

[00:21:42]It's that they were operating with two completely different ideas of what counts as knowledge in the first place.

[00:21:48]And until we recognize that, debates like this often feel as though the participants are talking past each other rather than to each other. Matt Dillahanti approaches the question from an evidential framework. His position is that extraordinary claims require evidence that is capable of being independently examined, challenged, and verified. If someone claims that a man literally returned from the dead, then historical testimony alone, especially if its origins are uncertain, isn't enough. That's not necessarily a rejection of the supernatural. It's a demand that the standard of evidence should rise with the extraordinariness of the claim. From that perspective, sincerity is admirable. But sincerity has never guaranteed accuracy. History is filled with people who genuinely believed things that later proved to be false. The caller, however, is reasoning from a different place. He's trying to build a cumulative historical case rather than prove the resurrection through a single piece of evidence. His argument is that multiple traditions, the persistence of early Christian belief, and the willingness of believers to suffer together make the resurrection the most reasonable explanation.

[00:23:04]Whether or not someone agrees with that conclusion, it's important to understand that many religious arguments are based on inference rather than laboratory style proof. They're asking what best explains the available historical record, not what can be reproduced in an experiment.

[00:23:21]Perhaps the most revealing moment came when the discussion shifted from the resurrection itself to the question of anonymous authorship, eyewitness testimony, and martyrdom.

[00:23:31]That transition exposed a deeper philosophical issue. How much uncertainty are we willing to accept before we conclude that we simply don't know?

[00:23:41]For some people, incomplete historical evidence still allows for a reasonable belief. For others, uncertainty means withholding belief altogether. Neither response is irrational by definition.

[00:23:53]They simply reflect different thresholds for confidence.

[00:23:58]This is also why the analogy involving people sincerely believing the outcome of the 2020 US election resonated with many viewers. The point wasn't that the events are morally or historically equivalent.

[00:24:11]It was to illustrate a broader principle. People can act courageously, passionately, and even sacrificially because they sincerely believe something, but the intensity of that belief doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true. That's a principle that applies across politics, religion, science, and even everyday life.

[00:24:33]At the same time, the conversation also reminds us that faith traditions have never rested solely on historical documents. For many believers, Christianity is supported by philosophy, personal experience, community, theology, and centuries of reflection, not just by whether every historical question can be answered conclusively.

[00:24:55]Skeptics may argue those sources aren't sufficient to establish objective truth.

[00:24:59]While believers may respond that not every meaningful human conviction can be reduced to empirical measurement, that tension has existed for centuries and it's unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

[00:25:12]Because this is an older conversation, it's worth remembering that the broader debate has continued. Historians, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, and skeptics still disagree over the dating of the New Testament, the reliability of oral tradition, the authorship of the Gospels, and what historical methods can legitimately tell us about extraordinary events. The discussion has evolved, but the underlying question remains remarkably consistent.

[00:25:42]Ultimately, the most valuable takeaway isn't deciding who won the debate. It's recognizing how easily people can arrive at different conclusions because they begin with different assumptions about evidence, history, and the limits of human knowledge.

[00:25:57]Before we argue about whether a miracle happened, we often need to ask a more fundamental question. What kind of evidence would convince us that any miracle had happened at all? Our answer to that question will shape almost every conclusion that follows. If today's discussion challenged your thinking, whether you lean toward faith, skepticism, or somewhere in between, consider subscribing to faith and facts.

[00:26:22]Our goal isn't to tell you what to believe, but to explore difficult questions with intellectual honesty, respect for differing perspectives, and a commitment to keeping an open mind.

[00:26:34]Because the pursuit of truth begins not with certainty, but with the willingness to examine our own assumptions as carefully as we examine everyone else.