ruby sparks, you mentioned the Epistles mention a human bodied person
if you didn't say that then I misunderstood you
about the Epistles? which ones are you referring to, who wrote them, and what is the preferred date of origin? and what exactly do they say?
I'll give you an example. 1st Corinthians 15:21.
"For since by a man death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead'. Greek Koine 'anthropou' (man) in both cases. Human mortality supposedly came about because of the sinful actions of one man (Adam) and we were supposedly freed from it by the redeeming actions of another (Jesus). It is arguably the only 'demonstration model' which makes sense if you are trying to persuade otherwise doubtful Jews (and indeed Gentiles) that they too can survive their death. Hence also references to a wooden cross and blood and Jesus having been a Jew himself, etc etc.
This usage of 'anthropou' for Jesus is consistent with the previous use in the same sentence, with other instances in the same letter, with other letters, in Christian texts generally, as well as in wider non-Christian and non-religious Koine Greek. In a nutshell, it's indisputably the word used for 'man'.
As to dates, I'd say early. Possibly mid 50's? That seems to be the generally accepted date, even by Carrier. As I said, even much later would still be early by the standards of ancient history, where late attestations are not unusual. As to who wrote it, I'd guess a bloke. Probably the same bloke who wrote a few other letters.
That Jesus was initially considered by the writer as a never-earthly entity 'killed' in an upper realm instead of ever having come to earth, even as some put it 'in the form of a man' (eg Docetism) is, I think, bordering on being a crank theory and a wild goose chase and not even in my opinion anywhere near the best alternative case by a long way. For example, I think that the theory that Jesus was, in fact, a rebel militant (as in Reza Aslan's variation on this theme) has more legs. In this theory, the Jesus of the NT is virtually unrecognisable, to the point that it could be said that the NT Jesus is largely ahistorical. Some versions suggest that another character, a rebel leader by the name of Judas of Galilee, mentioned by Josephus, was the real figure and that we have a case of mistaken identity (or a deliberate name switch). That said, I wouldn't support that theory all the way, but it's at least more plausible imo, which imo 'outer space' (as Carrier puts it) Jesus is not so much, in the final analysis, all things considered.
Personally, I think it is a pity that so many atheists have readily bought into outer space Jesus via Carrier, who I think bought into it via Doherty.
It also strikes me as slightly odd when someone says to me that the writer 'didn't literally mean a man'. It sounds for all the world exactly like what some theists often do when they pick and choose certain words which fit their prior conceptions and say that the same words are to be taken literally on some occasions but not others in the same text, or in this case the same sentence. I'm sorry, but the word is there and the usage is consistent. Deal with it sensibly, imo.
Incidentally, for those with a taste for debunking and unravelling mysteries, not to mention putting the boot into Christianity, the 'Jesus was the militant rebel Judas of Galilee' theories, or some versions of them, have interesting things to say about Paul, that he was a wheeler-dealer dastardly con-man by the real name of Saul of Tarsus (possibly involving another deliberate name switch) and a Herodian, who only got into Jesus to reinvent himself and turned up later in Judea in a position of some minor political importance (Josephus has a candidate Saul in Judea in the 60's). This may explain why even Acts of the Apostles doesn't describe Paul's demise.
