Second: Did he arise from the tomb or not?
You replied: ‘No. The account in the gospels is allegorical.’
Please justify this claim, with supporting evidence from the text itself.
The resurrection of Christ has been well debated on RF. I've started a couple of threads myself.
Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection
Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?
Probably the best starting point is the earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection, namely Paul's first epistle to Corinthians. Paul as we know from the account in Acts of the Apostles 9 converted to Christianity on the road to Damascus, when he has a blinding vision. This is thought to be a few years after Christs post resurrection appearances culminating in His ascension. Paul speaks of His experience as if it were an encounter with the resurrected Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:4-9. So His encounter with the resurrected Christ appears to how a born again Christian might encounter Jesus, not in the flesh but the spirit.
As I write, I am reminded of an even bigger hole Muslims dig themselves into. They claim the Apostle Paul corrupted Christianity!
As for the gospel account themselves, the nature of reality of christ changes. His intimate companions or disciples have trouble initially recognising Him and He seems to take on a spirit like quality as he moves through walls.
Of course the account of Christ's ascension (Acts of the apostles 1:9-11) has no credibility if taken literaly as we have Christ rising through the stratosphere to the physical (as opposed to spiritual) heaven.
Next consider the metaphorical way the Body of Christ is used in the last supper and the Apostles. The Body of Christ represents the church of body of faithful believers.
The Church is called “one body in Christ” in Romans 12:5, “one body” in 1 Corinthians 10:17, 1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 4:12 and “the body” in Hebrews 13:3.
I could continue, but that will suffice for now.