Skeptics have always been of the opinion that some claims given their nature appear to be extraordinary. Perhaps, the definition of their extra-ordinariness appear to be linked with its departure from known naturalistic norm and concern. A better way to put that’d be “supernatural claims requires extraordinary evidence‘. That sounds pretty much like word salad. Consequently, the resurrection claims of the new testament falls within this rank. Richard Carrier for instance in his debate with William Craig on Jesus’s resurrection was of the opinion that if Jesus resurrected and wanted to have all men believe he really did, he would not have chosen to reveal himself to selected few. But would’ve revealed himself internationally. That way, we would’ve had all the world literature attesting to how he indeed resurrected.
This sort of hypothesis is however fraught with difficulty.
1) It assumes that an inter cultural revelation could have made all men of that age to believe Jesus resurrected, but there are no good reasons to think they would’ve. If all the first temple Sanhedrin and second century talmudic Rabbis could attribute Jesus’s purported miracles with is “sorcery’, what evidence is there that Jesus’s revelation across the then world would result in many persons believing the resurrection claim. Couldn’t they just have waive it aside as simply “the act of *their* gods(not Yahweh) visiting them in the form of man’.
2) This sort of claim set a benchmark for believe. At the end, it all depends on what reasons/evidence you best deem sufficient and compelling. If you would need an extraordinary reason beyond well attested historical evidence to prove an historical case, then, it wouldn’t be hard to have you called ” a naturalistic devotee’. Only observatory scientism would cure your bias.
3) Extraordinary claims requiring evidence only implies a demand for more evidence. It does by no means refute the evidential cases already presented. And then, after more, evidence, you would need more evidence, and…..ad infinitum.
But, what is the probability that we would have that sort of evidence if the event happened not to be the case: if Jesus had not resurrected, what likelihood there is that his disciples would’ve went on to say he did, despite intense pressure without anyone of them recanting?. Why would they make a ridiculous claim as a dying and resurrecting messiah when they obviously had no visible reward for doing. Why would anyone die for a lie?
Why not start by considering those evidences for yourself. Test them against competing hypothesis. That’d solve your puzzle.