Elise Makia

Tunisia

I can’t believe I actually have to explain this, but, “I just find it impossible to accept that the accounts we have of the apostles would exist unless they really did behave exactly as described on the basis of having witnessed a resurrection” is trivially defeated by, “well, I find it impossible to accept that there was a resurrection, mate.” You are creating a case of, “which is more likely” and, “a guy rose from the dead” is definitely the less likely of the two possibilities, from a purely scientific and secular worldview, even if the other thing is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really improbable. Even if we grant that the accounts that we have today of their behavior are perfectly accurate, that nothing has been left out, that no mistakes were made, that literally everything occurred exactly as described, and even if we therefore grant that they went to their deaths genuinely believing they had firsthand evidence of a resurrection, one would still have to say, I think, that some other explanation for their behavior, no matter how unlikely or improbable, is still more likely than that a guy genuinely rose from the dead. If your acceptance of Christianity is based on arguments like this one, then I think it will always be flimsy. These just aren’t very good arguments. That is to say, at the very least, these arguments are not going to be convincing to most smart, scientifically-minded people. I would just simply resist the urge to try to compare probabilities in this way. Most smart, rational people see these two options and think that resurrection is the dramatically least likely of all available explanations. ”But without the resurrection, these accounts of the disciples make no sense!” just simply cannot overcome the improbability of a literal resurrection (again, from a purely secular, scientific worldview). I think it is a mistake to base your Christianity on these kinds of arguments. I think you will find that these kinds of arguments are not very convincing to most educated people. And I think also that the reason for this is that it is in fact not a very convincing argument. We cannot hope to construct Christianity on logic in this way. If one believes, as I do, that Christ was in fact resurrected, as I proclaim in my recitation of the Nicene Creed every Sunday, then one must have the courage to accept that this must somehow be possible absent the intuition described above.

It’s genuinely mind boggling to me that we literally have the shroud JESUS CHRIST himself was wrapped in when he was put in the tomb for three days, that has his whole body and even blood engraved on it for all to see… And most Christian’s don’t even know it exists.

“Who gets back up three days later after he gets murdered in public? Who gets back up under his own power? Buddha didn't do that shit.”

This is what I mean when I say that a lot of Christian apologetics are embarrassingly bad. “The resurrection must be true, because the apostles were willing to die for it and nobody dies for a lie” is an argument that’s beneath thinking people.

These are the Twitter/X accounts with the most engagement so far in 2026. I suppose I had some intuition for how bad it was, but jeez, this is what you get when the ecosystem is broken.