At the very least what I do is grant for the sake of argument that Paul’s view was the transformation of the body of Jesus into an imperishable one, a supernatural one, but a body nonetheless, one that came from a mortal, perishable one. It was not a bodily resuscitation, nor was it probably a spiritual resurrection leaving his body still lying in the grave. This grants more than most skeptics or liberals will allow, I know. I want to take the best case scenario and see what follows. I don’t think it follows that Jesus bodily rose up from the grave.
It fills me with hope that John Loftus can really read a Bible passage and understand what it says even if he doesn't agree with it. Of course taking this stand means that he disagrees with Dr. Robert Price that Paul believed in a physical Resurrection. Price says he didn't. I agree with Loftus that he did. I see no way that one can honestly come form to Price's conclusions for the same reasons Loftus enumerates in his posts. The bottom line is that Paul did believe that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. Now there can be a discussion as to whether or not Jesus did.
Instead of nitpicking the article, let's look at the first comment from Samphire:
Take a grain of wheat and burn it; grind up the carbon remaining and throw it in the sea. No new plant.
Take a christian (dead or alive) and burn it; grind up the carbon remaining and throw it in the sea. No new christian.
So is Paul just playing with words? Does his theology reflect itself in any reality?
We need some flesh of meaning on these dead bones of scripture. Even WLC doesn't seem to have a clue as to what a glorified body is. If there is any real meaning to what Paul was preacing surely after 2,000 years of discussion somebody should have some sort of clue. But it seems not.
And what did the Pillars think of Paul's teaching? There is not a single word on the subject in the epistles of James, John or Peter. What does that tell us?
If God could call all of reality into existence, restoring a cremated body should be easy! Paul does not try to explain what a glorified body is in detail. Only that it was physical. I see nothing wrong with that. Oh and we do know what Peter thought of Paul's teaching!
14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. - 2 Peter 3:14-16
Twisting Paul's letters into distorted lies is something I see often in our culture today.
Debunking Christianity: Did Paul Conceive of a Resurrected Body and if So Does this Change Anything?