Ok.
Our pal cannot be bothered to watch the viseos and set out the points. It took me 20 minutes.
(1) Jesus died on the cross. Maybe not. The swoon theory actually fits the evidence better than the resurrection.
(2) tomb was sealed - Matthew's tomb guard is actually questionable.
(3)The Jews said the body was stolen. This could be something the Jews made up to refute the claim the Christians were making. In fact Stobel's video suggests this.
(4) the resurrection accounts are not reliable. This is the nub on my case and argument (not the mainstream) that the gospel accounts are not trustworthy.
(5)the success of the early church does not prove it true. None of those who heard the claims knew whether they were true or not. It is plainly a nonsensical argument. Sure, it shows the appeal of Christianity but not the truth of it. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam didn't do so bad in making converts, either.
(6) Strobel's video. Did Jesus die? Probably, and the resurrection stories are demonstrably invented (that's my case) But if it was a swoon (induced) the evidence suggests a plan to save Jesus alive.
(7) actually Josephus records saving a pal from the cross. And Jesus wasn't on the cross for long. There was really no way that he should be dead. John says that the legs had to be broken because they were still alive.
(8) I do not trust Strobel even in his personal claims. He mentions a 'creed' within months of the resurrection but he doesn't explain what this is. 'pure gold' but no explanation? I'd suggest it is a fudged claim based on taking Christian claims as true, not on any real evidence.
(9) empty tomb. Strobel suggests the Jews made up the 'stolen' story to refute the Christian claim. They could hardly know that the resurrection was true or we are talking denial in the face of facts.
(1)claim of confirmation of the resurrection in 9 cases in and out of the Bible. Strobel does not give them. Aside from the dubious Flavian testament they are just the 4 Gospels and Paul (that I know of), and I argue that Paul clearly is not backing up the gospel resurrection with his remarks in the one Corinthian.
The same arguments are made again and again. They are persuasive arguments on the face of it, but (or so I argue) they bank on the accounts being credited as reliable. I also argue that the actual evidence supports a 'swoon' theory better than an actual resurrection. This is NOT a common case, but I think it could be. I think it can be proven, but even if not I assert that it fits better and explains more than the Christian interpretation does.