Resurrection Skepticism is Apparently a Futile Endeavor?

[POI]

Okay, so we reject the resurrection because it would be impossible, and we reject the idea that the resurrection story was made up because that would be impossible. So then, any thinking person would attempt to move on to another scenario which may be possible and think through what all that would have involved. My friend, you do not even have to do the work here, because the scholars have done the work for you, and there is no known scenario which would be possible. The thing is, you have to know this. Because you see, if any of the scholars had come up with this neat and tidy explanation of the facts we can know which would even be possible, we would all be aware of this scenario. It does not exist, and this does not matter to you because you hold out hope, against all hope that there must and has to be a scenario out there that may be possible. This is exactly what you are doing because you have not come up with any scenario which would be a possibility, and yet you have somehow convinced yourself that there must and has to be another explanation. There is no known explanation of the facts we can know which would not include the extreme extraordinary, which means you have to exchange one extraordinary tale for another, or you have to hope against all hope there is an unknown explanation out there.

For Debate:

1) Apparently, it is impossible for 'the resurrection' storyline to have been made up?

2) Have all the skeptical positions been thoroughly debunked? And even if so, does this then logically render the claim of "the resurrection" a completely valid one - (maybe by mere process of elimination)?

3) What 'facts' do we really have surrounding this Jesus character, and how exactly do we know this?

4) Are any given naturalistic explanations, proposed by skeptics throughout history, anywhere near as 'extraordinary' of a claim as instead concluding Jesus really rose from his grave?

5) And for "the resurrection" skeptics and doubters, care to share your position(s) which has seemingly been thoroughly debunked by scholarship?

[Difflugia]

While we continue to wait for a response from historia, does anyone else claim to have a logical justification for dismissing the naturalistic "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis?

That depends on what you think the goal of his argument is. Is it: (a) simply to articulate a naturalistic hypothesis, or (b) to demonstrate that his hypothesis best explains the available historical evidence.

I don't think it's even one of these, but an attempt to show the failure of Habermas' argument. The bulk of Paulogia's content is to show how bad apologetic arguments are. To that end, he'll often present a hypothesis that is better than whatever's inherent in the apologetics, but often his point is that even a particularly thin naturalistic narrative is better than the supernatural one presented by apologists.

I'm not criticizing the approach and I've certainly gone after such low-hanging fruit myself, but want to point out instead what Paulogia's arguments usually are not, which is an argument for a historical scenario that is likely true. The importance of his arguments is that apologists often paint their own narratives as being more likely than naturalistic alternatives, but do so by handwaving away certain implausible parts of the stories. Paulogia's point is to present his own narrative that is at least as plausible as the apologetic one, given the same set of assumptions.