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?

[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?

To jumpstart, I'll briefly respond to the questions:

1) It's not impossible, but instead maybe less likely or even much more-so improbable. The only impossible conclusion is that Jesus really rose again.

2) I guess it would depend upon who you ask. But I would imagine there is an infinite number of explanation(s), or, a mix of both explored and unexplored explanations. None of which cannot be entirely ruled out, as virtually any naturalistic explanation, (which presumably does not also defy logic), is still technically possible. The only option, which is not possible at all, is the conclusion that Jesus really did rise from the grave -- after rotting for 1 1/2 to 3 days in a protected tomb/grave.

3) Yes, I'm truly curious here, what stated "facts" apply to this Jesus character, and how do we know?

4) No. The claim of a rotting body rising again trumps all other claims, regarding the term 'extraordinary.'

5) I would be willing to (explore/challenge) the Bible's claim that Jesus was placed or buried in a tomb. I doubt this actually happened? And if it didn't, then the rest of the Biblical story, immediately thereafter, has issues. See post 264 from here (viewtopic.php?p=1174346#p1174346).

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

There is a respected skeptic known as Paulogia who defends a naturalistic "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis that has yet to be credibly disproved by the applicable scholars. Whenever scholars disclose their objections to his hypothesis, Paulogia responds with the necessary evidence to demonstrate where those concerns are either invalid or otherwise resolved. The videos that feature the Minimal Witnesses hypothesis, the associated objections from various scholars, and Paulogia's subsequent responses to those concerns are at the link I've provided above. They sufficiently serve to defend themselves better than I could. So, if any theists are compelled to respond with their own objections, they are welcome to directly engage with Paulogia himself. However, they should first review Paulogia's relevant content about this topic to determine if he hasn't already addressed those identical or similar objections.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

There is a respected skeptic known as Paulogia who defends a naturalistic "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis that has yet to be credibly disproved by the applicable scholars. Whenever scholars disclose their objections to his hypothesis, Paulogia responds with the necessary evidence to demonstrate where those concerns are either invalid or otherwise resolved. The videos that feature the Minimal Witnesses hypothesis, the associated objections from various scholars, and Paulogia's subsequent responses to those concerns are at the link I've provided above. They sufficiently serve to defend themselves better than I could. So, if any theists are compelled to respond with their own objections, they are welcome to directly engage with Paulogia himself. However, they should first review Paulogia's relevant content about this topic to determine if he hasn't already addressed those identical or similar objections.

Yes, on more than one occasion, I have asked if the inspiration member of this thread is a 'minimal facts' Christian and he neither confirms or denies my inquiry. It's safe to say that he is, for the most part. Thanks for the video! It seems to be in line with some of my objections, and also adds another layer, in regard to question (3). Aside from RealWorldJack and AquinasForGod, who I suspect are both 'minimal facts' believers, I doubt any other believers will see the provided video as too engaging? Nor, will many even bother to watch it, even though it is only 12 minutes long. But who knows?

The OP inspiration character seems to have hinged his entire belief system virtually of one dude, Paul. This was again explored here (viewtopic.php?p=1174377#p1174377), from posts 13 to 33, if anyone cares or is interested. Anywho, thanks for the vid, as I find it quite relevant to this topic.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to POI in post #4]

Actually, it is a series of videos. The first two videos that pop up at the link are just descriptions of the Minimal Witnesses hypothesis. The other videos describe his defence against various objections from some of the more well-known scholars and Christian apologists. I recommend watching the entire video series.

[1DoubtingThomas]

^^^

[historia]

There is a respected skeptic known as Paulogia who defends a naturalistic "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis that has yet to be credibly disproved by the applicable scholars.

First of all, I suspect most "applicable scholars" have never even heard of, let alone given any serious considerations to, the musings of this particular Youtuber.

And, second, saying an historical hypothesis has "yet to be credibly disproven" is saying very little. Historians judge competing hypotheses based on the ability for that hypothesis to explain the available data, rather than in terms of one or another hypothesis being 'proven' or 'disproven'.

Whenever scholars disclose their objections to his hypothesis, Paulogia responds with the necessary evidence to demonstrate where those concerns are either invalid or otherwise resolved.

If by that you mean, when pressed to give their off-hand opinions on this particular Youtuber's pet theory, one or two conservative scholars have offered up some initial thoughts that said Youtuber then spends quite a bit of time addressing in follow-up videos, then, yes, that seems to have happened.

It seem to me this tells us very little, as well.

[bluegreenearth]

There is a respected skeptic known as Paulogia who defends a naturalistic "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis that has yet to be credibly disproved by the applicable scholars.

First of all, I suspect most "applicable scholars" have never even heard of, let alone given any serious considerations to, the musings of this particular Youtuber.

And, second, saying an historical hypothesis has "yet to be credibly disproven" is saying very little. Historians judge competing hypotheses based on the ability for that hypothesis to explain the available data, rather than in terms of one or another hypothesis being 'proven' or 'disproven'.

Whenever scholars disclose their objections to his hypothesis, Paulogia responds with the necessary evidence to demonstrate where those concerns are either invalid or otherwise resolved.

If by that you mean, when pressed to give their off-hand opinions on this particular Youtuber's pet theory, one or two conservative scholars have offered up some initial thoughts that said Youtuber then spends quite a bit of time addressing in follow-up videos, then, yes, that seems to have happened.

It seem to me this tells us very little, as well.

Your opinion is noted.

[POI]

[Replying to historia in post #7]

Do you have any thoughts on the OP, or just the Youtuber?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to POI in post #9]

You may want to ask for an argument instead of thoughts because all I received was a useless opinion. The least historia could have provided us was a refutation of Pauligia's argument. I suppose historia cannot disprove it. So, instead, all we got was a strawman and an ad hominem.