Have you heard of the substitution hypothesis interpretation of the…

Have you heard of the substitution hypothesis interpretation of the Lord’s resurrection? People said that the man crucified on the cross was the twin of Jesus, not Jesus Himself, which they said, was a mistaken identity. Then after Jesus’s twin died, then Jesus appeared to his disciples and claimed to them that He was raised again fron the dead, it means that for critics, Jesus is a con man who deceived many people in believing in Him that He is the long waited Messiah. Other critics suggest that this twin of Jesus was actually Thomas, the Didymus. And when you look at the Greek meaning of Didymus, it means the twin. They often claimed that there is a document dated to be approximately about 120-150 A.D. which says that this Didymus was one of the Lord’s brother, which is Judas (not Iscariot).

What do you think are the flaws of this substitution hypothesis of the Lord’s resurrection? And why do you think that the literal resurrection of the Lord is much a better approach than those naturalistic explanations?

P.S. i’m a christian