Sometimes the facts are clear, but their meaning is not.
Imagine finding a broken window, muddy footprints on the floor, and several missing items. Each fact tells us something. But the larger question is what happened.
We naturally begin looking for an explanation that makes sense of all the evidence.
We do the same thing when we study history. We gather what can be known and then ask which explanation best accounts for it.
This will become especially important when we reach the Resurrection. Christians believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. Other explanations have been proposed. Our task is not merely to ask whether an explanation is possible. We should ask how well it explains what we find.
We use this kind of reasoning every day.
If we wake in the morning and see that the streets are wet, we may conclude that it rained during the night. But rain is not the only possible explanation. A street-cleaning truck may have passed. A water main may have broken. We look for more evidence.
The best explanation is usually the one that makes the most sense of what we know without forcing us to invent unnecessary details.
A good explanation should account for more than one convenient fact.
If an explanation accounts for one piece of evidence but leaves several other important facts unexplained, we have reason to keep looking.
This matters when considering Christianity. An explanation of the Resurrection must eventually deal with more than one claim. It must make sense of Jesus' death, what happened afterward, the experiences reported by His followers, the early proclamation that He had risen, and the remarkable growth of that belief among people who were in a position to know how the movement began.
A good explanation should not require us to ignore well-established facts.
For example, an explanation that depends upon Jesus never having been crucified would face an immediate problem. His crucifixion lies at the center of the earliest Christian testimony and is also reported outside the New Testament.
We therefore ask whether an explanation fits the larger historical picture.
Sometimes an explanation can be made to work only by adding one new assumption after another.
Perhaps this happened. Then perhaps something else happened. Then perhaps another unlikely event occurred to make the first two work.
The more unsupported additions an explanation requires, the less convincing it becomes.
A stronger explanation often brings several facts together without needing a long chain of invented events.
This may be the most important question.
Many explanations can account for one part of a story. The harder task is explaining why all the important pieces are there at the same time.
That is why we will not examine the evidence for Christianity as a collection of isolated facts. We will eventually bring the pieces together and ask what explanation makes the best sense of them as a whole.
The first Christians offered an explanation for what happened after the crucifixion of Jesus.
They said that God raised Him from the dead.
That claim was not presented merely as a comforting idea. Peter proclaimed that God had raised Jesus and that the apostles were witnesses (Acts 2:32). Paul passed on the message that Christ died, was buried, was raised, and appeared to His followers (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
Other explanations are possible to suggest. Perhaps the disciples were mistaken. Perhaps the body was moved. Perhaps the appearances were visions. Perhaps the story changed over time.
We should be willing to consider such possibilities.
But proposing an alternative is only the beginning. The real question is whether that alternative explains the evidence better than the claim made by the first Christians themselves.
There is no mechanical formula that can make historical decisions for us.
Two people can examine the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Their earlier beliefs may affect what they consider possible. They may also disagree about which facts are most important or how much weight a particular piece of evidence deserves.
This is especially clear when the subject is the Resurrection.
A person who believes that God does not exist will not consider an act of God to be a reasonable explanation. A Christian begins from a very different understanding of the world.
That is why we should be aware of the assumptions we bring to the investigation.
At the same time, we should not use those assumptions as an excuse to avoid the evidence. Christians should not say, "The Bible says it, so there is nothing to investigate." Skeptics should not say, "Miracles do not happen, so there is nothing to investigate."
Both approaches can end the discussion before it begins.
Instead, we can ask simpler questions. What needs to be explained? What evidence do we actually have? Which explanation accounts for the most important parts? Which explanation requires us to make the fewest unsupported assumptions?
Then we can decide what we find most convincing.
This way of reasoning does not begin with the Resurrection and then force every fact to fit it.
It begins with the evidence.
As our investigation continues, we will examine that evidence piece by piece. Some of it will concern the Gospels. Some will come from archaeology and writers outside the New Testament. Some will concern the preservation of the biblical text. Much of our final investigation will focus on the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, the reported appearances, and the rise of Resurrection belief.
We will also consider explanations other than Resurrection.
Then we can bring the pieces together.
Christianity makes a remarkable claim: Jesus Christ was truly raised from the dead. We should neither accept that claim carelessly nor reject it simply because it is extraordinary.
We should ask whether it makes the best sense of the evidence.
Before we reach that final comparison, however, there is another important lesson. A case does not always rest upon one dramatic piece of proof. Often its strength comes from many different pieces of evidence pointing in the same direction.
That is the subject of our next investigation.
Continue exploring this question through related material already available on A Visit With Jesus.
Examine historical evidence surrounding the Resurrection claim, including Jesus' death, the empty tomb, early Resurrection proclamation, reported appearances, and the beginnings of the Christian movement.
Examine the Resurrection EvidenceExamine proposed alternatives to the Resurrection, including theft, relocation of the body, survival of crucifixion, the wrong tomb, visions, legendary development, Gospel differences, and non-bodily interpretations.
© 2026 AVisitWithJesus
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
