Arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus rely very heavily on testimonial evidence. Defenders of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection typically argue that the writings of the New Testament are supposedly reliable first- or second-hand eyewitness testimonies in support of the resurrection, despite arguments to the contrary indicating the scientific impossibility of the event (according to contemporary science), the degree of uncertainty introduced by the antiquity of the writings (they were written about 2000 years ago) and the impossibility to interview the primary sources (the alleged eyewitnesses are all dead by now). Simply put, the evidence for Jesus' resurrection consists of (1) the alleged first/second hand eyewitness testimonies compiled in the NT and (2) the willingness of early Christians to die for what they believed to be true. Many find these two pieces of evidence compelling enough to warrant their belief in the resurrection (although many skeptics do not share this opinion).
To the best of my knowledge, cessationists find no problem in accepting the miracle of Jesus' resurrection on the basis of the line of reasoning presented above.
However, when it comes to contemporary testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit, an implicit double standard appears to be at play on the cessationist side. Testimonial evidence for the current availability of the gifts of the Spirit abounds. Thanks to the blessings of the internet era, our generation enjoys a unique privilege to access a plethora of first-hand eyewitness testimony about healing miracles, words of knowledge, discernment of spirits, tongue speaking (in real human languages by the way, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), miracles on the mission field, spiritual warfare, demonic deliverances and many other supernatural events taking place today. New testimonies are published all the time, from all parts of the world, and all this information is readily available to anyone, if we only endeavor to search. In many cases we can even talk to the actual eyewitnesses of contemporary miracles and interview them, something that is impossible with the eyewitnesses of the resurrection.
Surprisingly, despite the abundancy, recency and accessibility of contemporary first-hand testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit, cessationists usually disregard this evidence altogether, viewing it as unreliable, while at the same time paradoxically accepting the testimonial evidence for Jesus' resurrection as reliable. Isn't this a case of double standard? What kind of logically consistent epistemology can simultaneously regard (1) limited 2000-year-old testimonial evidence as reliable and (2) abundant, recent and accessible testimonial evidence as unreliable?