"the majority of people who do not believe in Zeus is larger than the majority of people who do not believe in Yahweh"

You have a potential winning argument here. I'm not sure whether or not Greeks were more numerous than Hebrews during the classical era, so assume you chose Ra or Amon instead of Zeus. I guess even your theologian won't deny that 3000 years ago, Egyptians were many times more numerous than Hebrews,

Point out to your theologian that even if his argument was valid, it would necessarily be within a limited timeframe - since belief in Yahveh only outperformed belief in the ancient Egyptian pantheon less than 2000 years ago.

"I'd be very interested what believers would say to this."

I can imagine it: "It's hard enough for you heathens to admit Jesus rose from the dead once. God knows it would even be harder for you to admit it occurred multiple times. But God loves you sooooo much, He doesn't your path to salvation to be nigh impossible to follow".

Ah, OK, and sorry for misreading you. I remember reading something, a couple years back, on a group of New Age spiritualists who urged people to abandon traditional religion, and, as I remember it, 'embrace child-like faith in Nature'. Although this was probably more poetic license than a requirement for strict adhesion to an unquestionable dogma.

Oh, btw, your 'service minimum in French Hell' comment almost made me wet my pants.

I can't believe you wrote this last paragraph. What about astrology, racial suprematism, haunted houses, and an host of pseudosciences so big I won't even bother to list some?

It reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago with a few friends. There was also a young man I didn't know, and I was later told he was a committed Catholic.

The discussion was about animal social behaviour, and how it was often very similar to human behaviour.

Someone - So, what really sets humans apart from animals?

Me - I think the main difference is the ability to ask "why?" and "how?"

This, of course, quickly led to religious debate (as 'easy' answers to unexplained natural phenomenons). After a while, the Catholic asked me, with a smile:

Catholic - So, according to you, what really sets believers apart from unbelievers?

Me - I think believers stop asking when given answers by an authority. Nonbelievers don't take premade answers for granted, and this lead them to more hows and whys.

Catholic - I believe you're right. But to avoid unending discussions, we must stop asking at some point, and the sooner the better. He who always asks is only an unproductive fool.

This left me stunned and speechless.

Aaaah, but wasn't Lazarus resurrected because of Jesus' own intervention?

Let me play the Devil's advocate once more - if only because 1) as ConverseAtheist himself pointed out above, it may prove useful on a site like this one, and 2) it's actually sort of fun ;-)

So let's try to refine the initial argument:

1. Only God, if He exists, can raise himself - assuming He inhabits a mortal form - and others from the dead
2. Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead
3. Jesus rose himself from the dead
4. Therefore Jesus was God in human flesh
5. Therefore God exists
6. There's evidence of other resurrections before the First Coming of Jesus
7. There's no evidence of resurrections following the First Coming, other than resurrections performed by Jesus
8. Therefore we conclude that God changed His modus operandi after the First Coming, only performing resurrections using His own mortal form, Jesus.

I think it's a rather accurate reflection of the 'good' (read: literalist) Christians' creed when it comes to resurrections, and it's the best I can do in logical terms. Of course, the evidence of 1, 2, and 6 is, at best, flaky, but (assuming the evidence) it's the validity of the whole construct I'm trying to disprove. I feel there's some sort of circular reasoning at work here, but I can't really put my finger on it.