A claim that the numerically identical return of the nonexistent is impossible requires proof. Likewise, a claim to know its precise manner requires a corresponding argument.
The classical discussion offers several replies because defeating one objection does not automatically establish every feature of a single proposed mechanism.
The central result is that denial of resurrection cannot be founded upon an unproved philosophical premise. Divine power and truthful revelation establish the basic doctrine, while detailed questions about identity, parts, and time should be handled with due attention to the limits of argument.