Pointing in the direction of scholarship that supports the reliability of the Gospels, which in turn supports the historicity of the Resurrection - support analogous to which Scientology simply does not have - is not handwaving your claim.
False. You’re just ignoring the scholarship that has been referenced by (for example) @jongarvey and myself - which I mentioned in the post you just replied to.
You are calling the resurrection a literal impossibility, but that is only the case if atheism is true. Circular reasoning is also poor thinking.
This article provides exactly that. The contention is that if the Gospels are generally historically reliable in the non-miraculous details that they report about what people said and did, then the posterior probability for the Resurrection is high.
(And then it is an important question whether the Gospels are reliable, and the work of scholars mentioned in this thread - like Wright, Keener, Bauckham, Hurtado, Williams - becomes highly relevant, and it is begging the question to dismiss them. But if you can point out where they go wrong, I’d be happy to hear it…)