Resurrection of Jesus and Process of Elimination

One way to argue for the resurrection is to argue against alternative theories. Being polemical in and of itself doesn't make one right, but it is a very necessary part of the defense of a certain idea.

Polemic in certain situations can eliminate all other options, so that only one is left standing. For example, take the evaluation of some testimony you receive. Say for example that my friend Tom tells me that he heard that my other friend (call him Frank), has committed a misdemeanor theft. There are only a few options available for how to interpret his testimony:

1) He is culpably deceiving me
2) He himself is somehow misinformed
3) He is telling the truth

Frank the Thief

We can unpack these into different subcategories of the 3 above.

1. He is deceiving me
1. He is lying to me
2. He is using a metaphor that he knows I will misinterpret
2. He himself is somehow misinformed
1. He is having some kind of incorrect subjective experience which caused him to think he was an eyewitness of Frank's theft
2. Frank pretended to steal and get convicted, when he really didn't 
3. The Frank theft story is a rumor (legend)
3. He is telling the truth. 
1. I understood him. 
2. I misunderstood him. 

Alternatives to the Resurrection Categorized

These have obvious analogy with the resurrection as well. We have a variety of ancient sources that say some things about the crucifixion, about the disciples, what they said they saw, and the whole nine yards. If we want to disbelieve them, we have to impugn the testimony of the source in some way. (This is the way it works with any testimony of any kind, whether day to day, or historical.)

1. The authors of the ancient sources are lying. 
1. The ancient source is intending to deceive me about the whole story.
2. The ancient source is using a metaphor it knows everyone will misinterpret. 
2. The authors of the ancient sources are misinformed. 
1. The ancient source received legends or rumors. 
2. The ancient source is reporting a subjective event that caused the disciples to think they were eyewitnesses when they were not. 
3. The ancient source is misinformed about the resurrection because Jesus faked his resurrection after surviving the crucifixion. 
4. Someone lied to the ancient source. 
3. The ancient source is both deceptive and misinformed. 
4. The authors of the ancient sources are telling the truth. 
1. We understand what they are telling us. 
2. We are misinterpreting what they are telling us. 

Obviously we can break these down even further into more subcategories. 

Process of Elimination 

1. The authors of the ancient sources are lying. 
1. The ancient source is intending to deceive me about the whole story.
1. Refutation
1. motivation for deception absent
2. higher numbers of witnesses make deception less likely
2. The ancient source is using a metaphor it knows everyone will misinterpret. 
1. Refutation
1. see above
2. The authors of the ancient sources are misinformed. 
1. The ancient source received legends or rumors. 
1. Refutation:
1. Many of the ancient sources are closer to the events than other sources reporting in ancient history. Disbelieving these would cause us to disbelieve other sources that report things we all believe in. 
2. Eyewitnesses still alive when source was writing. 
2. The ancient source is reporting information based on someone who was misinformed (aka disciples had hallucinations, then told source). 
1. Refutation 
1. Any psychological explanations hold less and less probability the more people are involved
3. The ancient source is misinformed about the resurrection because Jesus faked his resurrection after surviving the crucifixion. 
1. Refutation
1. No one can survive execution and burial. 
2. Nor does anyone have motivation to fake a resurrection after such a fate. 
4. Someone lied to the ancient source. 
1. Refutation:
1. Source relatively close in time to the events 
2. Little motivation to lie in persecutory situation the church was in
3. The ancient source is both deceptive and misinformed. 
1. (see above)
4. The authors of the ancient sources are telling the truth. 
1. We understand what they are telling us. 
1. Resurrection is true. 
2. We are misinterpreting what they are telling us. 
1. "Resurrection" in that time period means what we take it to mean today.

Sounds complicated, but it's actually very simple:

But I digress! I overcomplicate matters once again....

Every alternative theory is suggesting that the ancient sources used to prove the resurrection are either lies or themselves misinformed. By normal criteria of evidence we can rule out both of these. So process of elimination leaves the "ancient sources are telling the truth" option.