That is, namely, by making the historicity of Jesus' ministry, death, resurrection and ascension an optional part of theology rather than something that is integral to what it means to be Christian, you are teaching a different theology, a different narrative, a different Gospel. It doesn't matter that you may happen to believe that these things happened; what matters is that, according to the theology you are espousing, they are, strictly speaking, inconsequential to the Christian message. This is not historic Christianity. Rather, historic Christianity insists on both the "now-ness" of the proclamation that God uses to change hearts and minds, but the content of that proclamation is to bring into the present, through the Word, what God has in fact done for us -- sent His beloved Son in the power of the Spirit to suffer and die on our behalf and rise for our salvation. THERE IS NO DICHOTOMY BETWEEN WHAT GOD HAS DONE AND IS DOING -- BOTH ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE CHRISTIAN PROCLAMATION (sorry for yelling).
However, when historicity of the stories becomes as important as the more-than-historical/factual meaning, one gets a theology, which I have actually heard, of people making a belief in a six-24 hour days of creation essential for Christianity; or, some, who are less literal, will concede that one day is like a 1000 years, so that there could be six 1000-year periods. I talked to a minister who is convinced and his brand of Christianity requires believing that there were no such animals as dinosaurs living on the planet, because they are not mentioned in the Bible and the don't find into the short time spand. The fossils we find were created that way by God to confuse in believers.
You may argue that the OT is different than the gospels, but I think that the literalism and historicism you are espousing for the gospels naturally leads to such convictions about the OT. If you are willing to adopt such an understanding of Genesis 1, you are, at least, consistent that the historical factuality has to be as important as contemporary meaning and proclamation. (The minister I am referring to above is retired LCMS.)
BTW -- in relation to the idea that the resurrected Jesus had a physical body, you are making arguments that is similar to the Reformed side of the debates in Reformation times. That is, since Jesus has a real, physical body and it's located at the right hand of the Father in heaven, how can it be present in the Eucharist? How does it never seem to run out? Is it just really, really big? Of course, all these questions are silly when you're talking about the power of God who can do what He likes with physical bodies. But what you're saying is different again because they did accept that the risen Christ had some type of physical body, though of exactly what type we cannot say.
While I may be sounding Reformed-like, that isn't the argument I've presented, but I simply look at the statement Paul makes about resurrected bodies: they are spiritual (
pneumatikos) bodies. He even states in the midst of talking about the resurrected "spiritual body": "The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:45). Isn't he writing about Jesus as the "last Adam"? Of course, one way out of this is to argue that Paul is talking about
our resurrected bodies, which will be spiritual; and not Jesus' resurrected body, which, like his life on earth, was unique.
One of the things I see in biblical studies and biblical theology is that it is a whole lot messier than systematics. Verses and images and statements don't always neatly fit together.
BTW #2 -- Check out John 21:13. Here, Jesus takes bread and fish and gives it to the disciples. Perhaps he levitated it?
Do such questions help understand the meaning of the passage? Why was this story remembered? Why was this story significant in John's community (and then for us)? "John," or whoever added this epilogue, certainly intends it to be connected with the feeding of the 5000. Those are the only two places in the NT that a particular word for fish is used. It is often argued that the feeding miracle is John's teaching on the Eucharist. Which suggests that both of these "fish" stories have meanings related to the celebration on Holy Communion. (It's been argued, and I think they are pursuasive, that the continued celebration of the eucharist grew out of these post-easter eating stories rather than just what happened in the upper room. Jesus was present in the disciples' eating at Emmaus and on the shore.
John 21 also has many other more-than-historical/factual meanings, such as 153 fish being a symbol for all nations, such as the connection between the word
helko found in 21:6, 11 and its use in 6:44; 12:32; and 18:10.
Hauling in the fish is similar to what Jesus does in
drawing all people to himself. Peter's actions in
hauling in fish is in contrast to his
drawing out his sword.