... Was Einstein a real person? Either he existed, or he did not. In Orthodoxy, it has been taught from the time of Christ Himself (and can be found in the Gospels), that if Christ did not rise in the body, our faith is in VAIN.
I would like to suggest to you that the Gospels are written to tell us something more, and much more important, than history. You can accept that or not - I just suggest you consider it.
The verse you refer to is presumably in 1 Corinithians:
15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
This speaks of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead (which Bahais believe and preach), it does not mention the resurrection of the body, and it is most unlikely that a bodily resurrection is meant. 1 Corinthians is one of the epistles written by Paul himself, somewhere around 53 to 57 AD. It is too early, and too Pauline, to have the bodily resurrection in it. Paul's own experience of the resurrected Christ is of a spiritual presence:
Acts 9:3 ... as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. ... And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
The earliest New Testament documents do not contain the bodily resurrection, for one of two reasons (1) although Christians taught it, they did not write it down because Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection, and they did not want to be seen to be like the Pharisees, or (2) Christians did not yet believe in bodily resurrection. They proclaimed the resurrection in the form of the risen and present Christ, a living reality, rather than as a physical miracle which had happened in the past. Either possibility is compatible with the fact that the earliest form of Mark stops with the resurrection, not including the ending with the various post-resurrection appearances (bodily resurrection), which are added by a different author later. Mark does enable us to date when the idea of bodily resurrection entered the tradition: some time soon after 64 AD, and before Mark 16:19, Luke and Acts were composed - so before 70AD, since the destruction of the Temple is not reflected in Luke and Acts.
There's an outline of the arguments here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Origin_of_the_narrative
As I understand the tradition, the bodily resurrection was not an innovation in doctrine, but another way of transmitting the doctrine of the risen Christ, in the form of post-resurrection appearances and then (because the body of Christ obviously was no longer present), the Ascension. Narrative as a means of transmitting teachings is a common feature of religious discourse, certainly in the Abrahamic traditions. Consider the creation stories, which teach that one God is Lord of all, or the parables of Christ, each with its own moral, or the stories in Rabbinical literature, some of which are reflected in the Quran. Or the story of Joseph, "the best of stories."
I certainly don't advocate throwing out the later way of telling the resurrection in favour of the earlier. The Catholic (in the sense of universalist, inclusive) approach has always been to include multiple approaches, and this can be seen in the canon: it has not one gospel synopsis but 4 different gospels, not one creation story but two in Genesis, and so on. This catholicism gives us two or more different ways of looking at a truth that cannot be conveyed to us completely in any one way, because it is ineffable.