Based on scientific evidence, we should reject the notion of bodily resurrection and realize that the text was just using the language to make a theological point. You are distorting the text if you think it actually means that Jesus rose from the dead physically. We all know that science says that is impossible. All the science points the other direction.
Of course I jest a bit. But only a bit. This is a serious problem for you.
Yes, I read the recent two articles. They are special pleading, an ignoring of issues because of the importance of the matter. They purport to rely on eyewitness testimony. Fine. But these are the same people that ignore eyewitness testimony in Gen 1-2. That is special pleading. There are far more scientific reasons to believe in a young earth by direct creation (vs. evolution) than there are to believe in the resurrection. Yet you accept the one that is less scientific and deny the one that is more scientific.
Your whole paradigm is that science matters more than the text and the text is just an ancient unscientific way of making theological points.
It seems to me you can’t legitimately hold your position on Genesis 1 and the resurrection at the same time.