The 'idea' that has been posited by James Cameron et al isn't a new one IDEA - many have attempted to discredit Christ & His followers using poorly & selectively researchd "Science, Archaeology, & the thoughts Old Dead Guys." Its the case of starting with an agenda & creating a case to try & validate it.
The Apostle Paul addressed those that were saying that there was no resurrection of the dead - they had largely based these thoughts on a belief that the physical body was inherently sinful & that only the spirit was pure - Paul points out that the resurrection of Christ is the cornerstone of the Christian faith - without which we "are the most miserable people in the world." Loons. Delusional. To be pitied.
But that's not the case.
14And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless. 15And we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, and you are still under condemnation for your sins. 18In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished! 19And if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world. 20But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead. He has become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again.
21So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, Adam, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man, Christ. 22Everyone dies because all of us are related to Adam, the first man. But all who are related to Christ, the other man, will be given new life. 23But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised first; then when Christ comes back, all his people will be raised..
On that same note - take a look at the following excerpt from an article by philosopher, academic, & deep thinker Ravi Zacharias - it addresses the reality of Christ's resurrection using the evidence of the lives of the ones who witnessed it:
One thing is historically incontestable: the disciples went to their deaths proclaiming the resurrected Christ. And it is here that it seems we are left with common sense questions. For if the disciples agreed to propagate a story, having even the slightest bit of intelligence, wouldn't they have thought to conceive something less remarkable--perhaps a story that would accommodate the arguments they would undoubtedly face? Why wouldn't they have come up with something unfalsifiable? If they would have only claimed that Jesus had spiritually risen again, how would the antagonists have proven them false? And in so doing, they would not have to worry about hiding the body or about what would happen to them if the body was ever discovered. Furthermore, if the disciples agreed to propagate a story, when standing up for these falsified claims became a matter of life and death wouldn't at least a few of them have buckled?
But the disciples did not say that Jesus spiritually rose from the dead, and nor did they back down when the time came to stake their lives on it. They took the dangerous road--indeed, the inconceivable road--and they not only went to great lengths to proclaim that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, but they went to their deaths proclaiming it was true. Now why would they risk everything proclaiming the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead if they knew it was a lie?
You can read the entire article at this link: