tompicard said
Steefen thanks

at 9:25 Price mentions a George Ladd who wrote on multiplicity of Jewish views of  the resurrection body, and follows with a rant on opposing views by  William Craig and NT Wright who claim that there was only a single Jewish view regarding this body at resurrection.    

I think that Wright’s and  Craig’s  view also shared by Ehrman,  resurrection into a physical but immortal body,  which Ehrman then seems fairly confident was the exact view held by Paul and Jesus, which then logically leads to his view of annihilation of sinners. 

Here I agree with Price. We cannot be sure what Jesus and Paul though about resurrection. And the way Price mock’s the standard view is reasonable. View of immortal physical body is extremely problematic at any time in human history.    

There is no substitute for expertise.   Allow me to recommend Dale Martin’s work ** you do not have permission to see this link **which deals with just this issue.  Many people operate under a misconception about the way the ancients thought about the body.  The idea of a dichotomy between the immaterial spirit and the fleshly body doesn’t go back much further than the Middle Ages.  That’s not the way the ancients thought.   To Paul the body had three components: the flesh (sarx), the soul (psyche), and the spirit (pneuma).  Alas, none of these terms mean quite what they mean to moderns.  But they were all embodied, made of progressively finer stuff.  In the Resurrection, the sarx and the psyche would dissolve and the pneuma would be transformed into the resurrection body.  Paul definitely believed in a bodily resurrection.  He just had a different conception of the body than we do.  

For Jesus’ views about the  Resurrection we are at the mercy of the gospel writers.  But none of these ancient writers thought about the body the way medieval scholastics came to see it.