Do they? I think the ends of the Gospels make a lot more sense if you read it as a series of visions and apparitions specifically to his followers, rather than a zombie wandering around the Judean countryside three days after his execution. Where is your textual evidence to the contrary? Yes, he eats a few times, and yes, Thomas touches him physically (though for some reason he doesn't want Mary to do likewise) but one could easily have visions of a person eating. I think the Gospels are portraying the resurrected Jesus as being something other than just a resuscitated body. Note that only his followers see him at all. If the Gospel writers were anxious to prove that Jesus had a physical form, shouldn't they have included a passage where he appears to Pontius Pilate, or just goes on a walk through downtown Jerusalem? Why so coy with his appearances? Also note that Mark, the earliest Gospel, fails to mention the ressurrection at all, yet still clearly portrays Jesus as an important figure? If the resurrection was what made Jesus important, why on earth would you write an entire biography that fails to mention it?
Yes. All four Gospels including Mark mention a physical resurrection.
A zombie-Jesus fits the resurrection accounts well.
Look at the accounts to see that I am, of course, right.
If you wish to explain away the accounts of a physical Jesus post-resurrection as mere visions, then you could explain away his appearances before his resurrection as mere visions too.
We don't know who all the people who we are told could have seen the risen Jesus were, so it's not warranted to conclude we are being told only his followers saw him at that time.
The most likely reason the Gospel writers don't specify unbelievers who saw Jesus is that the Gospel writers were making up the resurrection accounts.
The perspective of a lot of people at the time was that the material realm was something of an illusion, real perhaps but not the ultimate reality. For Jesus to be only a body would be tantamount, from a Neoplatonic perspective, of confining him only to the lower realm. Within the perspective of philosophers of the day, the Fullness contains the material but it isn't bound by it. If Jesus is essentially a God, and resides in the domain of a god, that domain is the realm of the pure Ideal, not just the physical. I reference modernism, because your own assumptions seem much more reflective of modernist philosophy, to wit, the material realm is the "truly real", and empirical testing or objectively accessible Reason the only means of determining the real. Your "logically valid for all times". Am I correct in guessing that you found Plato's Idealist philosophy a bit confusing and off-putting when you encountered it in school? And that you find postmodernist philosophy similarly frustrating now? You are very much a child of modernist thought. We simply don't think of things the same way these days that people did when the theology of resurrection was first being built, and applying modern standards to ancient contexts can only lead to confusion.
I don't think the early Christian sect was too concerned with conforming to a "Neoplatonic perspective" so they wouldn't bother doing so.
My assumptions rest on the logic that if two explanations are available for a claim, then choose the explanation with the fewer assumptions. We know that the Gospel writers wrote of a bodily resurrection, but we don't know if they thought it was merely spiritual. The explanation that Jesus was being claimed to have risen bodily has the fewer assumptions, so I choose it as the explanation that's more likely correct.
I didn't study Plato extensively in school.
I don't find any philosophy frustrating.
No matter how ancient or modern anybody is, death and physical bodies have always been with us. I see no reason, then, to conclude that people of the past could not necessarily have seen a resurrection as physical.
