Some like to frame the resurrection of Jesus as though it is a theological belief and not a historical event, but even based on the most conservative historical investigation, we must say that the tomb previously housing a doubtlessly dead Jesus was empty, and that people who before knew Him well saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive.  First, the empty tomb and, second, the convincing appearances of Jesus are the two conclusions the historian must draw.  Sure, someone might be cautious—Thomas waited a week before believing what he had been told.  Were it not for the astounding, and worldview challenging claim that is thereby made, based on the evidence alone everyone would long since have concluded that this was the correct historical result.  Christianity exists, buttressed mainly on the resurrection of Jesus.  If some other account would explain its rise, the alternative would be chosen, but other explanations are far less convincing as historical than the one the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him.  Several reasons exist why people may not want, and often refuse, to believe this, but in weighing the possible accounts, to date, none of them have anything like the explanatory power of the simple, but utterly challenging, Christian one.