The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ Historically Occurred

IntroductionFirst off, I think it's fair to say that my opponent has an uphill battle. This is quite a substantial claim. Jesus was flogged, crucified, and stabbed actually rose from the grave bodily after death? That really just doesn't happen in the world we see. Now, that's not saying it CAN'T happen, nor does it mean it should be disregarded immediately. It's a huge claim, but I can't just say "people don't rise from the grave" and call it a day.Further, as with most spectacular historical claims, it is much more difficult to prove this event did not happen than that it did. Am I to also prove the collapse of the unicorn meat market was not the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire? I will provide evidence against the resurrection, but it will be up to my opponent to provide the evidence for the resurrection. This will be the main place of discussion.Content to comeMy arguments against the bodily resurrection of Jesus are 2-fold, and they are powerful, connected, and in-depth.1) The Spiritual Nature of The Resurrection in Earliest Traditions2) The "Visions of Gabriel" Stone Spiritual Nature of the Resurrection in Earliest Christian TraditionsIn passages such as Luke 24:39 and John 20:27, the resurrection is a physical event. The very scars on Jesus' hands and feet are still there. In Luke 24:39 in particular, Jesus says "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Clearly, Jesus is not a spirit and is instead made of flesh and bone. These two traditions come around 100 CE, about 70 years after Jesus was alive. That is plenty of time for embellishments to take place.The earliest material, which we will look at, has something very, very different to say.The Apostle Paul Believed the Resurrection was Spiritual and Percieved through VisionsIn 1 Corinthians 15, Paul discusses what the resurrected body is like. He specifically says "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (v. 44) He also says "I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." (v. 50) If your body isn't the new spirit body, you won't get into the Kingdom of God! A "natural" flesh and bone body is replaced by a spiritual one at the resurrection.Now, couldn't he just be talking about other believers, not Jesus? Well, he goes even further "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (v. 45) Jesus himself (The "Last Adam" in Scripture) in fact himself became a spirit! This is the same Greek word πνεQ66;μα (in a different grammatical form) found in Luke 24:39! (1) So how can Jesus be a "spirit" without flesh and blood in Paul's literature, but he is definitely not a spirit and of flesh and bones in Luke?Simple. Luke is later legend and myth, not what the earliest believers actually thought.Further, it is very notable that the empty tomb never appears in the authentic epistles of Paul. That would be odd, as it is the lynch-pin for all 4 Gospels. Why wouldn't Paul mention it? It simply was not important to him! The Jesus resurrected was spiritual. not flesh and blood!So, how then did Jesus "appear" to the apostles as also in 1 Corinthians 15? The Greek word used here is P01;ρ^0;ω. It indicates a spiritual, visionary experience. (2) NOT a flesh and blood man being seen by your eyes alone, which would be the Greek word βλ^1;πω. (3) After all, when Jesus "appeared" to Paul in Acts, was it not a visionary experience, not one in which the physical fleshly Jesus was seen.Putting this all together, Paul believed Jesus was spiritually risen (not in human flesh), appeared in visions to the disciples, and did not seem to know anything about the empty tomb. Are visionary experiences in one's mind the same as someone bodily rising from the dead? No. No it is not. It is more likely a mass religious hallucination, an event which occurs in many different religions. Q and the Lack of the ResurrectionThis one is going to be a little shorter, less to say on the matter. Q was the earliest Gospel written, around the same time or before 1 Corinthians was written, (4) and it comprises material copied, often verbatim, by Matthew and Luke. Q is a well-documented fact that my opponent has widely chosen to accept.Q is often mischaracterized as a "sayings Gospel." But that's not the case. It has a narrative, starting at baptism, leading through events and sermons, and ending with an apocalyptic pronouncement of judgment. (5) Oddly, the resurrection is never mentioned at all! Now, the crucifixion is alluded to, but not described either. Why? Q focuses on the sayings of Jesus, but there's one place where it implies Jesus was simply "taken." The resurrection, to the Q community, was not important. Moreover, it was a resurrection of assumption, as all spirits do after they die. (6)The Gospel of Thomas and the Lack of the ResurrectionWe have texts outside of proto-Orthodox Christianity which are called "Gnostic" texts. The most famous of these is the "Gospel of Thomas." The Gospel of Thomas is also the oldest Gnostic text, reaching back as far as 70 CE in its final form and as old as Q (40-60 CE) in its sources. (7) It is a true "sayings" Gospel, starting off its passages with "Jesus spoke" more often than not, and it has no narrative. In this early Gospel, like Q, there is no explicit mention of the resurrection.Putting this together, the lack of resurrection material makes sense. Jesus' death was an embarrassing event they were unsure of how to deal with. The Q and Thomas communities sought mostly to just ignore it and focus on the teachings of Jesus passed down to them. Why no visions? They were separated from the Jerusalem church and its visions geographically. (8) They did not inherit those teachings. They, instead, had their own Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus. You'd think if Jesus was actually out and about, this is something they would talk about. But no. They do not. This backs up the "visions" view of the resurrection. The "Visions of Gabriel" Stone (I want to make it perfectly clear I don't make connections between "dying and rising Gods" in Greco-Roman society like Carrier, Price, and their lot claim. That I want to be clear before I start.)The Revelation of Gabriel is a rare ink-on-stone record relates a prophecy that may be of great impact to the debate of Christianity. It was written in the 1st century BCE and describes an apocalyptic event at the end of days. This has similarities with Christianity, but the biggest is later on in the stone. Lines 80-81 describe something especially interesting "In the third day, I command you to live, Prince of Princes!" A messianic figure called the "Prince of Princes" who was said to be raised on the third day? This is a post-event prophecy. These things had already symbolically occurred. The followers of this figure wrote this out as a "prophecy" of the events. The followers of this man believed he was to usher in God and was raised from the dead. However, this resurrection event too came from visions. This shows precedence for an apocalyptic preacher like Jesus being said to have been risen on the third day, specifically in a vision. (9) Josephus and Acts 5:36-37 relate many other Messianic claimants who met with death. Is this one of them? Or another? And is this the only other one before Jesus said to be raised to life on the third day? These questions will be very important as the sands of Israel reveal more of their secrets. ConclusionWhat do we learn here then? 1) The earliest traditions of the resurrection with Paul show visionary experiences and a spiritual resurrection, even to the extent that the empty tomb is not mentioned.2) Other early materials like Thomas and Q do not mention the resurrection at all, or speak of it in a natural sense of ascending to heaven as a spirit3) If Jesus was up and around, we would expect Thomas and Q to record this material. They do not. This shows their separation from the vision centered Jerusalem church.4) Other texts pre-dating Jesus show a messianic figure being raised on the third day in a visionI hope this gives a good overview of what the earliest Christians believed about the resurrection. It was the later Gospel traditions and Epistle traditions that changed Jesus to being physically and bodily. Early material showed no resurrection or a spiritual one experienced in visions.I await my opponent's response. Sources1)http://biblehub.com...2)http://biblehub.com...3)http://biblehub.com...4) Marcus Borg, "The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Sayings of Jesus," pg. 13 5) John S. Kloppenberg, "Q: The Earliest Gospel," pg. 123-1446) Ibid., 80-847) Marvin Meyer (ed), "The Nag Hammadi Scriptures," pg. 136-137 --- Robert J Miller (ed), "The Complete Gospels," pg. 280-2818)"Q: The Earliest Gospel," 65-699) https://hartman.org.il...