Did Paul, with his "resurrection body", believe that a physical body of Jesus still lay in a tomb?

Tosh and tommyrot, per good British English, if one looks at what Paul actually says in I Corinthians 15, but British philosopher Jonathan M.S. Pearce believes differently. He's been corrected.

I disagree that there's massive difference between Paul and the Synoptic Gospels and that Paul's talking about two actually different bodies, unlike his claim that Paul's "resurrection body" means that Jesus' physical body was still lying in a tomb.

First, especially in Luke, it's pretty clear to me that something like Paul's "spiritual body" is being talked about, rather than a theoretically "narrow" physical resurrection. And, it's not just Luke's relatively extensive discussion of resurrection appearances by Jesus.

His argument with the Sadducees, common to all three Synoptics (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 20), would seem to support this Jesus, and the gospelers here, talking about something like a spiritual body, and Mark using Sadducee beliefs specifically to introduce this as a teaching. 

Beyond that? Mark discusses nothing and Matthew next to nothing. That, then, leaves Paul only in conflict with John. And of course, as in many other things, John is not a Synoptic gospel, and also has its own long editing history, in part related to Gnosticizing issues.

Second, it's purely an argument from silence to claim that Paul believes there's a physical body still in a tomb; it's arguably also a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 15. (This is something I've long thought.) And, as when used by mythicists, such arguments from silence aren't good logically as well as being not good empirically.

This one is the biggie. Although Pierce has apparently finally fallen on the non-mythicist side of the fence re a historic Jesus, he's backed unwarranted arguments from silence before.

Third, Paul's "spiritual body" pretty clearly seems something out of middle Platonism, as his interpretation of what ‮ylidob‬ resurrection means. The "spiritual body," at least to me, pretty clearly is within his take on Jewish ideas of resurrection, an "ideal body." Paul, (and the pseudo-Paul of Colossians) does have Gnosticizing elements, tis true. That said, most scholars distinguish that from full-on Gnosticism, first of all. Second, per my take, there's no conflict between Paul perhaps having cadged an idea from middle Plantonism and having been influenced by Gnosticizing.

Given that the Synoptics, while they nuance Paul in many ways, also are at least indirectly dependent on Paul in some ways, a head-on conflict between them on any theological matters would be questionable. 

Pearce's fanbois rallied to his colors, though, voting down anybody who disagreed with him, both nuanced disagreers and the religious right or semi-so.

==

Update: Via Twitter, Pierce thinks he has me.

First, he notes that Jesus does eat a fish in the second half of Luke 24. True. He also eats nothing at Emmaus before that, and Luke 24:36-43 has drawn a lot of critical skepticism over the years, including whether it might be an interpolation. See here and here for starters.

As for Third Corinthians? No, Jonathan, we don't know that the author is early Christians trying to correct Paul's theology. Rather, it could be one pseudopigraphal work trying to correct the theology of an earlier pseudopigraphal work from the "school of Paul," ie, Colossians. Otherwise, the full length of Third Corinthians, shorter than Philippians and not a lot longer than Philemon, is too slender a reed to lean on too much.

But, unlike the Tippler, or John Loftus, or Gnu Godless in Dixie, I haven't gotten famous and hired by Patheos, whether myself or a "school," speaking of, to help me write.

==

Update 2: At Gary the ex-Lutheran's blog, having posted a link to this on Gary's piece about Paul and Platonism, I seemed to have picked up a shape-shifting fundagelical-like commenter known as "Aussiestockman." I've run into him a bit before; (under current name?) he's a relatively recent commenter there, so, hence my "fundagelical-like." I don't have enough data points to prove he is full-on. 

But, by current Wordpress name used there at least (Google had few hits in general with it spelled as all one word) I do have enough to say the "like." And, for Google to add his name here among search hits, as I've also added it to the SEO population.

The goalpost-shifting? After noting my graduate degree background, he raised the bar to PhD, and other things. My last response to him said, among other things, that even if that wasn't enough, it was certainly more than he had.

Per his last comment, to which I didn't respond, I made a real point in my first comment. (He also didn't respond to my note about his lack of qualifications on the issue.) Ergo, we're entering trollery land.