I need to know what this fallacy is please

This is a phony syllogism in the first place in that it is based on a false premise or an amphiboly at best. The Bible quotes constitute a type of petitio principii and circular reasoning that distract from the logic of the premise with an Ad Verecundiam pleading that may or may not be valid. If we remove the Bible quotes, we are left with nothing but a special pleading, i.e.

"Jesus died for his sheep." Which Jesus? The claim is too vague to consider out of context. There are hundreds and thousands of Jesuses throughout history. The claim is simply too broad to have any merit.

Now, if the premise was "Jesus Christ died for his sheep”, we start to focus on something close to a valid premise. At least, the Greek word Christos means anointed and refers to the Hebrew “Soter" or, Savior. While a Savior may or may not be willing to die for his sheep it would be a part to whole fallacy to assume he would sacrifice his life for ALL sheep, but it is not altogether disjunctive.

If we remove Jesus from the premise, we are left with "So and so died for his sheep. Okay, did they do so willingly, or as a part of their job? Shepherds make their living by herding and protecting sheep, so it’s not particularly unique to assert they would die in the act of doing so. But was Jesus a shepherd? No, not in the literal or biographical sense. Thus the first premise is a metaphor. Metaphors are by definition not logical, but symbolic and figurative. So we can now dismiss the entire question here as a rather silly attempt to syllogize a metaphor --
tantamount to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It may be a valid theological exercise, but as a logical one, it makes even less sense than asserting Little Bo Peep LIVED for her sheep.

I think is a Weak analogy because it intends comparing the first premises to the second one and bother are not similar enough to compare

Thanks for all the answers.

I think if we only use two variables then we can find a clear fallacy type. This works for the inverse fallacy<> (also called denying the antecedent) one.

If P, then Q
Therefore, if not P, then not Q.

If they are the sheep, then Jesus died for them.
Therefore, if they are not the sheep, then Jesus didn't die for them.

This syllogism would be true if maybe there was another premise inside like this:

If they are the sheep, then Jesus died for them.
>>Jesus only died for the sheep<<
Therefore, if they are not the sheep, then Jesus didn't die for them.

But if it's the opposite then the conclusion will be false.

If they are the sheep, then Jesus died for them.
>>Jesus didn't only die for the sheep<<
Therefore, if they are not the sheep, then Jesus didn't die for them.

Thanks be to God though, that Jesus didn't only die for the sheep, or the goats, or Christians, or the Jews, he died for all.

1 Timothy 2:6 (KJB) - Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

John 3:16 (KJB) - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

We can try to use logic to tackle this argument, but it is better to use the text and a method our ministry calls the “SPACE” method. SPACE is an acronym tbat stands for SPeaker, Audience, Context, Explanation. It is important to tackle scripture in that order.

When you do, you see that Jesus is talking to Israel here in John 10, and tbe context is His authenticity and authority as the Messiah. Key point: In typology, His audience is the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:6).

What this means is that this passage is specific to its audience and is not making a general statement about mankind. Jesus does allude to “other sheep,” (v16) but He does not define them in any way that could be viewed as inclusionary or exclusionary — except to say they are not of Israel (“this fold”).

For those interested, we did a 20-minute Bible study on this section of scripture. See Episode 18, “I Am the Door of the Sheep,” @ motk.org/media.php?pageID. . .

This is an erroneous attempt at a logical syllogism. It is erroneous because it draws a conclusion which fails to account for account for all contingencies. To whit:

Jesus died for his sheep"
"Some are not his sheep"
[Therefore Jesus did not die for them.]

Omitted is the possibility that Jesus ALSO died for e.g., his cats, dogs, goats, horses, etc.
In fact, open is the possibility that Jesus died for EVERYONE. Thus, this fails as a logical syllogism.

(While I agree with Bo, this is simply another way of looking at it.)

One point of clarification from your modification of the syllogism:

"If they are the sheep, then Jesus died for them."
" Jesus didn't die only for the sheep. "

In this format, the only conclusion that may reasonably be
drawn is:
If an entity is a 'non-sheep', Jesus MAY have died for it.

Or, maybe, it's simply sarcasm.