Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead

The debate title uses the word "bodily" as to insiuate a spiritual raising, yet the resolution attempt to claim a total lack of resurrection. My opponent engineered this debate, to allow himself an "out". This vauge attempt to confuse the resolution is common, which is why I addressed it in my argument. The risen Christ was touched by his followers and ate food in their presence. If the resurrection occured, it was physical. Let the obscured resolution come into clarity. We are concerned with the physical resurrection. If my opponent wishes to argue that Christ was risen spiritually rather than physically, then let him outright make this claim.My opponent claims that the Bible is not a source to prove the resurrection, yet the Bible is the source of the information of the resurrection. Excluding the Bible as an evidence source in this debate, is the establishment of a strawman. In addition, if the Bible does not count for evidence, why has my opponent quoted it so ferverously in an attempt to confuse the chronology? Obviously the Bible counts as evidence. The opponent has already admitted to the personhood and death of Jesus Christ, the source of which is the Bible. As stated in the previous round, my opponent is picking helpful portions of the manuscripts to aid his case and ignoring the damaging parts by calling them illegitimate. This debate, by definition, is an engineered strawman. My opponent attempted to confuse the chronology of the resurrection by using the Bible. I ask my opponent a few questions:1.> How does a mismatched calendar date disprove an occurance? If my calendar claims Christmas is in February, does that mean Christmas was not celebrated? Your argument doesn't disprove the resurrection, it makes claims about the timeframe of it's occurance. 2.> You claim the Gospels should be rejected as a historical text, yet you agree that Jesus Christ was a person who was executed by the Romans through crucifixion. You can only know this by reading the Bible, reading the apocriphal texts or reading the secular sources, all of which you have discredited as "a very weak case quoting historians writting long after the alleged event."Conclusion: My opponent wishes to make the personhood of Jesus an axiomatic truth. It is not axiomatic. It is based on historical evidence. My opponent has accepted this evidence openly. My opponent is now trying to diffuse that exact evidence, as it's being used to extend the personhood of Jesus, to the divinity of Jesus. This is an oxymoron. It is like claiming:" I believe in huricaines because I trust the weather channel to track the event accurately. However, I don't believe their claim that Huricanes are seasonal because the weather channel is prone to error."This may seem like a silly example but it's an accurate portrail of trusting a source as the expert in one instance and then rejecting it in another on seemingly similar issues.In short, my opponent has thoroughly shot himself in the foot, when he discredited my sources as inaccurate. He is relying on their accuracy to claim Christ even existed. I don't feel I need to address his argument any further in this regard. To debate the topic of credence any further is silly. We either accept the sources or wholly reject them as a whole. My opponent has made no other claims to support his burden of proof. I find no argument that merits the absence of deity. Most of his arguments attempt to demerit human scholars, not Christ himself. New arguments: Since the Bible is the majority source for the claims of the resurrection fo Christ, I will provide evidence that the Bible is a trustworthy document.Lysanius, Nicodemus and the ben Gurion family, Mary/Martha and Lazarus,"The crucified man", Simon of Cyrene, the Pilate Inscriptions, Sergius Paulus inscriptions, Erastus the Treasurer of Corinth, Gallio the govenor of Corinth are all real people mentioned in the Bible.Nazareth, Capernaum, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Derbe in Turkey, Ephesus in Turkey and Corinth in Greece are real places, verified to have existed (or still do exist).If we wish to elliminate the Bible as evidence, then we must elliminate the evidence that verifies the Bible.Extend argument to next round - Jesus was risen from the dead, as per the detailed historically verified text.