What level of historical training would you need to evaluate arguments about the Resurrection?

If a person wants to critically evaluate bricklaying, a good beginning would be talk to a brickworker about what is needed in order to do so. However that doesn't mean anyone can't look at a wall of bricks and have opinions about it. Gary Habermas in the first few minutes talks about what it takes for him to critically evaluate your topic in the following video:

The simple understanding, and faith, of a child.

CN_999 said:

There are several evidential arguments that have been put forward about the historicity of the Resurrection. Speaking very generally, what level of expertise would somebody need to critically evaluate these arguments?

Click to expand...

It depends on who created the arguments and the audience for which they were intended. If this was a PhD-to-PhD discussion, there is likely much jargon in the argument that a novice wouldn't understand or appreciate. You might need a PhD to evaluate the argument. If it's meant for a Sunday morning Bible lesson, you would probably need some undestanding of the theological framework to which the argument speaks, but otherwise you only need lay experience.

According to how I understand the Bible, Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus after He rose from the dead. And then others saw Him. There were the apostles who saw Him, and Paul says he saw Jesus and "over five hundred brethren at once" saw Him > 1 Corinthians 15:6.

I would say you do not need any education, at all, to understand this. And I do not think there is any scholarly way to prove this or disprove that these people saw Jesus after He was resurrected. You might have people who say it is reasonable to accept the reports, for various reasons. But scholarship and reason are not eye-witness, and subject to how humans are imperfect in our ability to do research and investigation. And a court of law might say that repeating what someone else says or thinks is hearsay and not acceptable as evidence.

But God Himself knows if He raised Jesus from the dead. He Himself in us can have us know And God can use reports and reason, if He pleases. But my opinion is that people using logic and reports can be picking and choosing what they present; and they, being imperfect, can in some sort of insecurity be wishfully accepting certain lines of logic and claims about how culture was in Jesus' time, when possibly they have no way of knowing that their sources are trustworthy.

And I myself do not personally know different ones who are making various historical and cultural claims; so no way can I know who is reliable and who isn't. Plus, though, I have read the gospels and epistles, and I simply find that I trust the ones who were used to write these messages.