Paul's 500 witnesses.

[Jehanne]

1)  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 

You're not correctly identifying the extraordinary claim and evidence. The extraordinary claim was that Jesus was the messiah. The extraordinary evidence was the resurrection. The means of perceiving the evidence is necessarily ordinary. Consider if you witnessed it yourself - there's nothing extraordinary about eyesight. In the end, perception of any claim is ordinary.

I deny your premise; in fact, modern Biblical scholarship has very conclusively demonstrated that the very early Church (including, Paul) did not view Jesus was being "the Messiah," let alone the "Son of God".  It is almost certainly the case that Paul thought that Jesus was a normal human man whom God made "a son of God" as opposed to "the Son of God".

2)  Paul was lying. 

Maybe, but he dind't have motivation (this also goes to your first point). He was a rising star in the major religion of his area. He had no need to invent another religion and lie for it.

He had motivation, otherwise, why would he be sending out letters?

3)  Paul heard a story. 

Of course he heard the story. "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received..." He received it from others. He wasn't a Christian at the time of the resurrection appearances. He heard about them later from others. He says so himself.

Scholars are not really sure who those "others" were, or for that matter, where they got their information.

4)  The story is an interpolation. 

Where's the evidence? You need older manuscripts that don't include the passage to make this case.

It happened elsewhere for which scholars have irrefutable manuscript evidence.  I am just saying that such is a possibility.

5)  The story is historical but completely natural. 

This is related to extraordinary evidence above. Yes, even if you saw it yourself, there's a chance it wasn't what you thought it was. With multiple witnesses, that chance diminishes, but it's still there. It is called a faith you know.

Fact is I didn't see it, and I haven't seen it.  Ditto for UFOs, elves, fairies, etc., etc.

6)  The story is historical and supernatural.

Yes, God leaves things for us to ponder and discuss. See Prov. 25:2.

If faith is a necessary condition for a relationship with God, then it is a condition that I will lack at least until the physical death of my brain and body.  I would submit that there are an infinite number of things, propositions, ideas, etc., that one may "believe" or have "faith" in.

However, as #6 is an extraordinary claim, it ought to be rejected in favor of more completely plausible naturalistic explanations, at least until evidence provides a clear and convincing case as to why #2 through #5 are fundamentally flawed.

OK, go ahead and reject it if you like. No one's stopping you.

I reject it just like I reject revisionist historical theories, say, the ones which claimed that "Joan of Arc" ("Jehanne la Pucelle") was not burned alive at the stake on May 30, 1431, in the public square in Rouen, France but instead escaped execution, got married, had kids, family, etc.