There's a big brick wall of misunderstanding here. I'm not even sure it's resolvable. The idea in Calminian's head that seems unshakeable seems to be that if I say something is "metaphorical" I'm denying its reality. Depthdeception and others like myself don't see it that way at all. I think Calminian and others assume something about language that depthdeception and others including myself don't. That there is a "formal equivalence" between the world and the words used to describe it. That language is, in other words, a clear glass through which we can understand what's really happening.
Myself, I think that it's more like a piece of frosted glass; or maybe the "glass darkly" of St Paul. In his day, mirrors were made of polished glass and reflected at most 50% of what they saw, and clear glass was virtually unknown. So his insight was that we could only see reality partially, because there was always this frosted glass in front of our face. So we can't help but see the world metaphorically; we have to find images and pictures for what we see that approximate but are not exact descriptions of what we see.
This is true of all reality, but it is especially true of those "special" events that we use the metaphor of "supernatural" for (though "natural" is and inherently metaphorical a category as "supernatural.") Miracle stories attach to all kinds of people, not just to Jesus; are the miracles of the Buddha factual? No Buddhist would say it mattered; what matters is what they mean.
So when the Bible describes the resurection through the various stories of the empty tomb, it's describing an event that it it cannot put into words except through metaphor. How else can you describe this strange event except through telling stories about it? It's something that has changed your life, that has created a whole number of changed lives, there is a strange new power in your life, and there are all these rumours and stories circulating about empty tombs, encounters and visions. Nowhere in the Bible does it even attempt to give some kind of naturalistic explanation for this event, because the writers know how strange and crucial it is. They tell stories about it. Are those stories all factual? I don't know; but I know that the tradition of the resurection is so strong from St Paul to the end of the New Testament that something very powerful and beyond explanation happened.
Metaphors, stories, poems, myths, legends are attempts to see a little clearer through the frosted glass; they are not lies. Nobody but the most thoroughgoing post-modernist would deny there is a reality behind the stories and metaphors. But that reality is ultimately a mystery, and our attempts at piercing that cloud of unknowing between us and God are often prompted by fear of that mystery. Accepting that we are fallible, that a human language cannot deal with divine events (like the resurection) is surely the beginning of wisdom.
