This should provide a helpful structure to resurrection debate.
Tim passed this argument on to me in the context of a bunch of other material. In the context, he prefaces it with the line "If the Gospels were written by people who were in a position to know what really happened" and expressly says that it is an argument that can come into play "once it is established that the Gospels contain authentic apostolic testimony regarding the resurrection." He is fully aware that, in the context of current debates, these are disputed propositions that require independent argument.
Again, this post is an attempt to provide a structure to the discussion, something that the formal structure of the Kalam Cosmological argument also helps to do. By looking at such a formal structure, you can divide criticisms of the argument into two classes: ones that challenge the causal premise, and ones that challenge the claim that the universe began to exist.
1. If the resurrection of Jesus did not occur, as the apostles said it did, then either they knew that Jesus had not risen, and therefore they were deceivers, or they did not know that Jesus had not risen, and therefore they were deceived.
2. If they were deceivers, they were willing to die for something they knew to be a lie, without any expectation of earthly gain for it.
3. People are not willing to die for something they know to be a lie without any expectation of earthly gain for it.
4. If they were deceived, then they were subjected to massive hallucinations involving multiple people, extended across forty days.
5. Massive hallucinations of this sort do not happen.
6. The apostles were neither deceivers nor deceived.
7. The resurrection of Jesus occurred, as the apostles said it did.