I found the book to be very enlightening. Jim presents evidence on the resurrection the way a lawyer would present a case at a trial. I believe the evidence presented would meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof required in a criminal trial even though the evidence is circumstantial (i.e. we do not have a body, the cross, the actual tomb with certainty, or other artifacts from the crucifixion). But, what we do have is strong evidence that suggests this occurred despite the fact that it would be a miracle (i.e. rising from the dead). For those who refuse to ever consider the that the resurrection may be true will undoubtedly not be persuaded, as they would not be persuaded by anything short of a video with actual footage. By the way, these people would never make a jury in a case like this either because despite any evidence to the contrary, their bias would be so strong that they would never be open to an objective review of the evidence, and a skilled lawyer like Jim Jacob would have them struck for cause. However, for those with an open mind, or even a “Columbo-like” disposition about the issue with a willingness to let the evidence dictate the finding, they will be surprised by the weight of the evidence that the resurrection actually occurred.