After analyzing 600 pages worth of arguments for and against the historicity of Christ's resurrection, Dr. Michael R. Licona concludes that "a good critical scholar must account for the facts with integrity" even when the facts are "in tension with [our] desired outcome." Then he uses the following example from American history:

Long before John Adams became the second U.S. President, in 1770 he was a respected lawyer in New England, where the Boston massacre had just occurred. No lawyers would defend the British soldiers involved for fear of the American public, which had now grown even stronger in its anti-British sentiments. But Adams believed that everyone was entitled to a fair trial. He took the case, the public turned against him, and he lost more than half of his clients.

In a courtroom that was described as crowded and "electrical," Adams argued that the soldiers were innocent …. He then added, "Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence."

Dr. Licona concludes: "No matter how much one may loathe the idea that Jesus rose from the dead and fantasize about other outcomes, the historical bedrock remains the same …. Jesus' resurrection is the best historical explanation of the relevant historical [evidence]."