Now, Dr. Akin says, I know of no evidence that the resurrection did take place. But there are actually three established facts recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today, which I believe are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus. Really, you believe the idea that a man rose from the dead is the best explanation for something? Alright, what are these facts? Let's hear them. Fact number one. On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by a group of his women followers. Okay, so you could explain that by saying that somebody removed the body from the tomb, or you could explain it by saying that somebody rose from the dead. And you think the idea that a man rose from the dead is the better of those two explanations? Do I even need to make an argument for why that's retarded? Fact number two. On separate occasions, different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the prominent New Testament critic of Vanderbilt University, Galt Lutiman, it may be taken as historically certain that the disciples had experiences after Jesus death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ. These appearances were witnessed not only by believers, but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies. So you could explain that by saying, A, all of these people had no losery or delusional experience, or B, a man rose from the dead, and B is seriously the explanation that you find to be more convincing. Fact number three. The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, says, some sort of powerful, transformative experiences required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was. So again, what do you find more convincing? The idea that these people, despite their biases, were swayed by very effective rhetoric and propaganda, or that a man rose from the fucking dead.