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]

[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.

I appreciate the suggestion, regarding a change in verbiage, but I doubt it matters.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Since you say you would like to focus upon one topic at the time the first question should be easy.

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

Correct! And it does not take a scholar to figure this one out.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Since you say you would like to focus upon one topic at the time the first question should be easy.

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

Correct! And it does not take a scholar to figure this one out.

What exactly do you mean when you say impossible? Please plant your flag. Do you mean absolutely impossible, or, is this slang/synonym of the term very improbable?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #13]

This is getting ridiculous! It is impossible in that it is not a possibility that the resurrection story was made up.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #13]

This is getting ridiculous! It is impossible in that it is not a possibility that the resurrection story was made up.

No, I need a planted flag. Thanks for planting that flag. Now we can move to the next step. Why is it impossible that this story was made up?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #15]

The facts and evidence we can know does not allow this to be a possibility. As I have said, it does not take a scholar, nor a whole lot of thinking to understand this to be the case.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #15]

The facts and evidence we can know does not allow this to be a possibility. As I have said, it does not take a scholar, nor a whole lot of thinking to understand this to be the case.

Before we explore these 'facts' and 'evidence(s)' which does not allow for this option to even be possible at all, allow me to first play devil's advocate for a moment...

If it is just as impossible for a) the story to have been made up as it is that b) rotting bodies don't rise, this means we MUST logically completely rule these two options of a) and b) out. Right? Assuming you would agree to this, then Christianity is still false, as rotting bodies NEVER rise. Ever. Right?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #17]

Well, let's think on this for a moment. If we know that it is impossible that the disciples made the story up, we do not simply then assume that a resurrection occurred. Rather, we go on using the facts and evidence we have in order to determine if there is another possible scenario which could explain the facts we can know. I have already begun my next response to the 2nd question, and we will get into this there. However, even though it would not be logical to assume the resurrection occurred at this point, it also would not be logical to assume there must and has to be some sort of possible explanation to explain what we can know.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #18]

No RealJack, it's quite simple. And you don't have to be a "scholar" to figure this one out. If a) and b) are both absolutely impossible, then Christianity is still false.

[historia]

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.

A "straw man" would have entailed misrepresenting Paulogia's argument in some way. And an "ad hominem" would have entailed the assertion that Paulogia's argument is false based on some attribute of his person.

I did neither of those things.

What you got in my earlier reply, instead, was a critique of your exaggerated description of his videos.

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

The questions in the OP seem either overly broad or contextually specific to your earlier conversation with Realworldjack -- neither of which seem particularly inviting.

Here's what I've said about this topic several different times in the past:

The historical method can only tell us what most likely or probably happened in the past. Since miracles are, by definition, improbable (if not impossible), they lie beyond historical inquiry.

Therefore, the historian qua historian cannot place the Resurrection on the same level as more mundane historical events. I think the Resurrection is better described as an expression of faith.