After having read the Craig/Ehrman debate in full, I just have a few comments.
“In short, Bill makes the mistake by assuming the disciples claimed to see Jesus alive afterwards, they necessarily believed or knew that this was his actual physical body. That’s a modern assumption, not an ancient one. The texts we’re dealing with are ancient texts, not modern ones. Ancient people have no difficulty at all thinking that a divine appearance was not an actual physical appearance.”
Maybe I’m confused here, maybe this is a point that Dr. Ehrman has addressed in one of his many books...I don’t know. I think it’s important to ascertain just what the early Christians would have believed about Jesus’ resurrection, to the best of our ability. This might end up being a whole other discussion, but regardless of what anyone thinks about the actual historical accuracy of the Gospels....I do think that it’s reasonable to believe that the Gospels reflect what the early Christians thought.
“While they were still there talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them,‘Peace be with you.’
They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.” (Luke 24:36-43, NIV)
So what are we talking about here? A “spirit” resurrection, or a full BODILY resurrection?
Now keep in mind here that I’m NOT saying “It happened because the Bible says it happened!!”. What I’m saying here is that I think we have a pretty good indication about what early Christians believed about the resurrection.
Is it possible that the belief in the resurrection morphed from a “spirit” resurrection to a full “bodily” resurrection in the time between of that Passover weekend and the time Luke’s Gospel was written? Perhaps. But we have reason to believe that oral transmission probably wouldhave been pretty good in between those times (at least in relation to Luke). I do plan on writing a post about that sometime. Wait for it ;).

I'll probably think of more things to say in the coming days about this.