Resurrection?

I am of course preparing services from Gospel readings portraying the resurrection. I have long ago come to the conclusion that I am an agnostic as to what happened at the resurrection. I have decided that it would not endanger my faith if someone could prove that the resurrection encounters were a "spiritual realisation/experience" that the disciples had. I kind of suspect that it was the realisation that the life that was expressed in Jesus' ministry etc. was not finished at death, but a movement, a life force that would continue and even be set free after Jesus' death. I believe that maybe they were spiritual "penny dropping" "aha!" experiences in which they became aware that the life Jesus involved them in was bigger than him, himself, but part of the movement of the sacred in this world, and as such could not die, but just build upon the death of Jesus. So, while I would say I believe in the resurrection, my faith is not dependent on a "bodily resurrection" nor an empty grave. I would perhaps say that I believe in what the resurrection stories stand for.

But I had a strange thought that would rock my faith if I happened to believe in the necessity of a bodily resurrection. I was reminded of it last night where on a TV program the explorer came across a deer that had been dead two days, and discussed the decay that had taken place, even though it was lying in snowy cold conditions. In the resurrection stories Jesus' body still has the wounds left by the nails and spear. Now if we are to consider a resuscitated body, why still have the wounds? Surely they could have been dealt to? Jesus died and straight away his body would go into decay mode. Brain cells would die. The muscle tissue would begin the decay process. Rigormortis would have set in for a while. ... he was beaten before death so these wounds would increase decay. Now the process of bringing a two day old body back to life would be enormous, greater things would have to be done than healing spear and nail holes. Brain cells would have to be reconstituted, blood reconstituted, decayed tissue renewed etc etc. Why not in the process of all that healing and renewing, disappear the spear wounds and nail holes?... it would be a breeze compared to the former "miracles"? And yet this body can pass through walls too?

It all suggests to me that the passages are not meant to be taken literally and that the nail and spear wounds are still there for a literary purpose. The stories smack more of mythology and that we should be looking for the "more than literal" truth in the stories, rather than trying to suss out the exact nature of the "body". I believe they are truth full stories, truth filled stories, but am agnostic as to whether they are historically accurate. Just an open questioning thought?