Resurrection argument

That Jesus Christ was raised from the dead as a historical fact is central to the Christian faith, some say. What do you think of the following argument?

A. If there is sufficient weight of evidence to believe that Christ was raised from the dead then we should believe that Christ was raised from the dead.

B. There is sufficient weight of evidence to believe that Christ was raised from the dead.

C. Therefore we should believe that Christ was raised from the dead.

The argument form is valid, so you should be assessing the truth of the premises to determine soundness. There's nothing wrong with the first premise, but the second premise is the one you should be contending with. Ask about the weight of evidence suggested to support the account that Jesus was raised from the dead, and if the evidence doesn't exist or is not sufficient enough, you can show the argument to be not sound and reject it.

Hi Colin, just to add to what Abdulazeez wrote, I don't think you will have problems with skeptics (rationalists) and premise #1. People who claim that they have "revealed" knowledge, however, might assert that no evidence would change their mind. Of course, you won't get much push back from the Christians who won't accept evidence over what they believe to be God's word, but you might from Muslims who also claim to have revealed knowledge.

The glaring weaknesses of this claim is in the ambiguous nature of the terms for evidence, resurrection and or being "raised from the dead" while also implying they are the same. While some Christians might hold this as central to their beliefs they may not agree on the quality of that evidence, nor the specific details of what resurrection and /or being raised from the dead involves. Your claim seems to make a sweeping judgment about all Christians and a very loose interpretation of evidence as well as an understated inference that resurrection and being raised from the dead are the same thing. But are they really?

So I would say your claim basically relies on ad populum Appeals to Belief at best. It also relies on a Special pleading and vagary to prove its claim. So while the syllogism might be properly constructed, the claim is just too faulty to be considered logical.

Indeed, there are many devout Christians who do not believe in the resurrection or even the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Most of the arguments and so-called "evidence" offered for Jesus's resurrection are really quite weak. For instance, the Empty tomb claim is considered by Craig and others as evidence. Seriously? In fact, the whole literary invention of a tomb in the first place is refuted by many Jesus scholars because the whole point of Roman crucifixion was to leave the bodies to rot and be picked apart for all to see.

Other so-called arguments/evidence report that Jesus's disappearance was announced by women at the site of the tomb and this is given special credence because Jewish women had no authority at that time. Huh? Why would Gospel writers make it up when women were not considered reliable authorities? Of course, this has been widely refuted by modern scholars, and other scholarly books attesting to the ancient Jewish tradition of "Wailing Widows" attending funerals in those times. So this is hardly evidence, and yet your claim implies there is. Therein is the deception, and now we are in fallacy territory.

In both the Tanakh and The NT there are many instances of people being resurrected or raised from the dead. Elisha, the prophet and Lazarus come to mind. Supposedly hundreds of graves were disinterred releasing hundreds of the walking dead to meet and greet each other in the aftermath of Jesus' alleged ascension. Were they resurrected or raised from the dead? Are you implying they are same thing? So, again this is just too mushy to propose as a claim.

Resurrection in Judaism was believed to be in the hands of Yahweh who would personally and physically rebuild someone from scratch in the afterlife. This was a widely held belief in many varying sects of Christianity as well. Are you implying Jesus was rebuilt personally by Yahweh? Or, as some sects believed (Docetism) Jesus never had a physical body to begin with. So, wherein was the resurrection? Moreover, where is this so-called "historical fact"?

no fallacies, but a weak argument.