The following article is a classic one by presuppositionalist Greg Bahnsen. I myself am a presuppositionalist, but I like to sometimes use non-presuppositional arguments [or at least ones that aren't overtly presuppositional]. In this way, my apologetics can sometimes be similar to Steve Hays'
On the Capturing Christianity YouTube channel Cameron Bertuzzi interviews William Lane Craig to comment on Bart Ehrman's interview at Alex O'Connor's Youtube Channel. HERE's the link to the original video of Alex O'Connor interviewing Bart Ehrman.
Below is the video where William Lane Craig is interviewed by Cameron Bertuzzi at Capturing Christianity:
Dr. Lydia McGrew recently discussed whether the 'Maximal Data Case' is better than the 'Minimal Facts Argument' for the Resurrection of Jesus. Paulogia responded in his video titled: Christian Scholar Exposes Minimal Resurrection Facts. The first half of the video was fantastic. The second half of the video...well, Paulogia attempted to critique maximal data and it wasn't good. In this video Erik Manning is joined with Dr. Jonathan McLatchie, Tim McGrew and Lydia McGrew to review Paulogia's criticism.
The weakness of this video is the fact that most scholars agree that both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are almost certainly written by the same person [we'll call him "Luke"]. They are VOLUMES 1 & 2," so to speak. However, when we compare the resurrection appearances of Jesus in GLuke, Luke goes out of his way to emphasize the literal physicality and corporeality of Jesus' body. So much so that Luke records Jesus eating fish [and honeycomb in some textual variants] after showing them His hands and feet. It even says that initially the disciples were frightened and startled because they thought the appearance of Jesus was of a ghost/spirit. Then Jesus contradicts that thought by saying, "For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Again, Luke is emphasizing the genuine corporeality of Jesus' body by recording all these things that way.
If Luke were fabricating and making all this up whole-cloth, then he would make the appearances to the disciples in GLuke and the appearance to Paul in Acts as similar as possible. EITHER by having both of them emphasizing Jesus' corporeality, OR both of them emphasizing the more numinous nature of Christ's appearance . Instead, the author of Acts makes it clear that they are different in nature. In Acts he's presenting Jesus' appearance to Paul as a glorious theophany in the style of the Old Testament [especially to Ezekiel]. Anthony Rogers explains this well 15 minutes into his debate with Carlos Xavier here:https://youtu.be/WhjC0jRmjmU?t=923
That Jesus' appearance to Paul was of a different kind from the other disciples is clear from not only how it differs from the accounts in Luke, but from the appearances of Jesus in Acts chapter 1. Which are also apparently more on the side of the corporeal. Luke could do both WITHOUT CONTRADICTING himself because there's a long tradition in Jewish thought that goes back to the Old Testament that the same heavenly beings can appear either as ordinary humans or as evidently supernatural entities. That's true of angels in general and also of the Angel of the LORD [i.e. the Malak/Angel of Yahweh, who many Christians like myself believe to by the pre-incarnate Christ].
Luke 24:
37But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.
38And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
40And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
41And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
42They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43and he took it and ate before them.
So, I would have to disagree with the statement made at 5:45 where Matthew says, "In other words, when we put all the relevant texts on the table we have very little reason for thinking that Paul's conversion experience was a physical appearance of the risen Jesus like the ones described in the resurrection narratives of Matthew, Luke and John which were all composed decades later."
Moreover, it's not the case that Paul merely makes the claim that the risen Jesus appeared to him in a numinous way [probably multiple times]. Anyone can claim a past private supernatural experience. But Paul backs it up by also claiming to perform miracles ["signs and wonders"] like the other Apostles did. Both in his past ministry and continuing ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 15:19); 1 Cor. 2:4-5). That miracles are still occurring in our modern world in the context of teaching about the Jesus of the New Testament suggests, or is an evidential chip in favor of, the truth of Jesus' resurrection and of the Christian religion.
The quote of Strauss at 6:42 works only if one presupposes that Paul never interviewed the other Apostles and if neither the other Apostles nor he himself [i.e. Paul] were able to perform miracles attesting to the truth of their Gospel message. Yet, in the book of Galatians Paul claims to have met some of the other Apostles and to have compared their message and supernatural experiences with his own. It's not a stretch to think it went in the other direction as well such that the other Apostles compared notes with Paul's message and miraculous thaumaturgical feats.
For the evidence of modern miracles see the following books and YT videos by the following authors:
Read Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts [2011]
Craig Keener's "Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World" [2021]
Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates,
and the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle
Skeptics often claim that the New Testament evidence and extra-Biblical evidence isn't clear enough to conclude that the early Christians were positively claiming Jesus' resurrection body was physical rather than spiritual. William Lane Craig addresses that charge in the following article:
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus by William Lane Craig
