Saturday, March 31, 2018

Resurrection: "Historical?" or "History Making?"

Image result for theologian Jurgen Moltmann
Jurgen Moltman (at 91)


I always forget to do Resurrection article for Easter, so this year I got the Jump on it, Almost.

I affirm the literal resurrection of Christ, as I affirm the Nicene creed. Unfortunately, affirming it and proving it are two different things. Many apologists try to use the Resurrection as proof in itself that Jesus was the Son of God. The problem is, the event itself has to be proven, and is of equal dispute to the claims of Christ's deity. Thus, I doubt that it makes a great tool for verifying the claims of the faith, since it is itself such a claim. On the other hand, let us ask ourselves, "was the true purpose of the resurrection as a proof of Jesus validity?" I think not. I think the true purpose was not to offer modern scientific "courtroom evidence" of the event, but to confirm in a religious way, for insiders, by provision of an important symbol. Tillich says that a symbol participates in the thing it symbolizes. Thus a bull fighter dying young is a symbol of darning courage going awry, but an abstract figure like the American flag is not a symbol but an embalm. Thus the resurrection of Christ can be a theological symbol and still be a real event! Thus the true importance of the event is its theological significance and not its market place value as an apologetic tool. 

Some have argued, that a view like that of the resurrection of Christ can't be understood as a historical event, thus can't be proved by historical evidence because history is intrinsically naturalistic. Historians must make naturalistic assumptions thus miracle can't play role in history. The first thing to notice about this argument is that far from contradicting what I've said, it supports my position in that I argue that atheist's only have ideological objections to the resurrection. There's no historically based disproof. If untrained non-historian apologists mistakenly argue "this is historical" the atheists objections are not based upon disproving the historically based evidence they are only based upon ideological assumptions. Evoking the rules of history is also ideological assumption.

Secondly, I don't say "O I'm going to prove the resurrection historically." In the heat of argument I may have said words to that effect, but my actual position is not "yes we definitely prove the resurrection." There is no way to prove something that happened 2000 years ago, at least not to the point of making it indubitable. The only way to do that would be to go back in time and watch it happen. It's as unfair a requirement that it be "historical" as it is to say we are going to prove it historically. Either way is an unfair requirement because it's not something that can be proved. The prohibition on supernatural evidence in history not withstanding it's unrealistic, and therefore, unfair, to expect it to be proved. Be that as it may all is not lost for the historically minded apologist. There is still a good argument to be made for the resurrection and it involves historically-based evidence.

The better decision-making paradigm is not "proof," that is unrealistic, but "warrant." If we don't claim we proving historical events but rather that understanding an event in a certain way (as true) is warranted by the evidence, then we are not imposing the unrealistic burden of proof nor are we evoking the category of "history" to explain it thus we are not transgressing historical protocols. Rather we are finding that the placing of confidence in a hypothesis for private belief is warranted by the evidence. Toward this end we need to see text as an artifact. So rather than say "this is true because so and so says it,"we are saying "this is what the early community of faith believed as evidence by their texts. To the extent that we can trust their testimony we can place confidence in the hypothesis that this belief may communicate a truth. Thus private belief that this is the case is warranted. Thus the resurrection, not put in the category of "historical fact" is nevertheless understood as both a religious symbol and a likely event.


Religious Symbol and Historical Likelihood.

Be that as it may, the event of Christ's resurrection offers more to the unbeliever and the cause of Christian apologetics than one might think given what I wrote. Rather than give up on it as an argument, we need to put it into a different context: we need to abandon the "court room" model of proof in apologetics, and take up a historian's perspective. The point is not that we can prove the resurrection "really happened." The importance of historical evidence surrounding resurrection is its possibility as a history making event. By that I mean, it's not as important to prove "conclusively" that it happened, as it is to show that the perimeters shaped by the evidence still leave open the validity of the possibility that such an event occurred, once one clears away the ideological clutter of naturalism. The evidence need only point to the fact that the belief tenet is still "in the running" as a possibility, not that it actually happened, although we believe, as Christians, that it did happen. The event described cannot included as a historical event, because history as a modern social science is constructed upon naturalistic assumptions; but it can be understood as a history making event, one that shaped the nature of our society and culture.

Away with the Court Room Model


So much past apologetics has been based upon the model of a court room debate, then declared to "prove history." We see this most especially in McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict (the classic case). We also see it in the works of a vast array of apologists who say things like, "the man who invented rules for court room evidence Simon Greenleaf (1783-1953 ) [1] argued for the Resurrection, and he was a smart lawyer, so he must be right." But historians do not "prove" historical 'arguments' by holding courtroom debates! If we are going to make historical claims for the resurrection, we have to think like historians, and not like lawyers. We have to hold the evidence to the perimeters of historical evidence, not to those of jurisprudence.

History is probability. It's not mathematical probably, but it is probabilistic. One cannot go back in time and verify the assumptions of historians, all we can do is argue from extrapolated data as to the most likely conclusion based upon the "facts." But how are these "facts" ascertained? They are not derived from debate, they are not derived from physical artifacts, and they are certainly not given in any kind of absolute certainty. Many skeptics place the level of confirmation they seek on a par with a TV camera recording an event it happens. History is documents! History is not a documentary featuring live footage, although such material is no doubt going to be included in future historical records. But history is the impression we find most likely as a probabilistic guess based upon the data we find available in written documents of the past. Historians do debate documents, but they do not say things like, "would this be accepted in a courts of law?" Historians don't a flying spit wad about what is accepted in a court of law (but one hears that phrase in apologetics quite a bit). Thus, in accessing the prospects for the validity of the resurrection, one cannot worry about courtrooms, or about exact proof as though we could take a TV camera to the tomb and watch the angel move the stone. The best we can ever do is to access the possibility and its place int he likelihood of events, given our world view assumptions vis a vie, supernatural events.

The History Making Concept.

In his great ground breaking work, Theology of Hope [2] Jurgen Moltmann did something radical. It suited Moltmann to be radical because he was one of the major influences upon radical theology of the 60s, including liberation theology. Being German Moltmann took the structures of historical scholarship very seriously. He knew that historiography of the nineteenth century had ruled out any but naturalistic assumptions in the category of "historical." Moltmann argues, the rules of history exclude the miraculous. This is because historians, as heirs to the enlightenment, automatically exclude the supernatural. For this reason the resurrection cannot be seen as historical, a priori, for the rules of making history are set by an ideology of metaphysical assumptions which dogmatically exclude anything miraculous. History must be predicated upon the assumption of a coherent natural world, therefore, the supernatural cannot be part of history (176). Yet he felt it was important to make a place for the resurrection in modern thought. So he argued for changing the rules. Rather than calling the resurrection "historical" he calls it "history making." The belief itself has shaped the outline of historical event. This is apart from the question of its truth content, the fact of belief in it made history what it is. This introduces the concept of understanding the belief as history making thus the evidence that supports the belief is also history making. His solution: change the rules. We wont call it "historical" but "history making."
"The resurrection of Christ does not mean a possibility within the world and its history, but a new possibility altogether for the world, for existence, and for history. Only when the world can be understood as contingent creation out of the freedom of God...does the rising of Christ become intelligible as nova create [new creation]. ...it is necessary to expose the profound irrationality of the rational cosmos of the tech scientific world." (179)

"The resurrection of Christ is without prattle in the history known to us. But it can be for that very reason regarded as a 'history making event' in the light of which all other history is illumined, called into question and transformed." (180)

Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. Before they jump into this fray, they should first ask themselves about the nature of historical facts. Most historical "facts" are not proven. "History" (whatever that is) says that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, yet evidence indicates he did not.* History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. The German Theologian Jurgen Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God,
).[3]

The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could. Rather than merely declare a rules change, I will argue that this rules change is warranted based upon the evidence. In other words, not that the resurrection can be "proven" in the same sense that any other aspect of historical research can be proven, but that the resurrection evidence is credible enough that one can feel confident in asserting its truth as a tenet of faith. The actual case can never be proven, or disproved, but the evidence allows one to believe with impunity.

Historical Verdict Reversed

William Lane Craig sums up liberal theological support for the resurrection:
The real case for skepticism of the resurrection of Christ was actually developed by 19th century liberal theology, and though they don't know it, the objections of most Internet skeptics today are echoes of those arguments. But in the postwar era even major liberal theologians began to defend the resurrection. Ernst Kasemann, student of Bultmann, at Marburg in 1953 argued that Bultmann's skepticism toward the historical Jesus was biased and Kasemann re-opened a new Quest for the historical Jesus. The great modern liberal theologian Wolfheart Paennberg argued for the resurrection of Jesus. Hans Grass argued that the resurrection cannot be dismissed as mere myth, and Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen defended the historical credibility of Jesus empty tomb...Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead...According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.:"[4]


Before the apologist can even posit the truth of the resurrection, his truth is refuted by the very nature of historical "facts" as modern thought construes them; supernatural events cannot be part of history. But Moltmann turns this around on the nature of modern thought by arguing that before modern thought can posit a naturalistic history, the content of history is already shaped by supernatural claims.
In response to the issue that history must make naturalistic assumptions, thus miracles must be excluded.Yes but that's just a simple matter of you not understanding my argument. I"m not saying "this is true because they say it is." I'm saying:







(1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readigns that can be understood as even older artifacts.

(2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.

(3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.

(4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.

(5)not proof but it is a good reason to assume it's valid as a belief.It has historical verisimilitude.

The standard I set my arguments:The Resurrection was a history making event. Whatever truly happened, the actual events which are make by the claims of witnesses and faith in the veracity of those witnesses, the upshot of it all is that the historical probabilities suggest the likelihood of an event, and that event shaped the nature of history itself. The faith claims cannot be historical claims, but they don't have to be. The faith itself is justified, it cannot be ruled out by history, but instead lies at the base of modern history in some form. We can suggest throughout the strength of the evidence that those actual events were the very events attested to in the Gospels. We cannot prove this claim with absolute certainty, but the warrant provided by the evidence itself is strong enough to make the historical nature of the religious hope valid. Some religious hopes are just ruled out by the facts. For example, the idea that the Native Americans are part of the 10 lost tribes of Israel; this can be dispelled by genetics as well as dentistry. The Resurrection, on the other hand, can be accepted as likely Given the suspension of ideological objections of Naturalism.

The history making aspects work as an apologetic tool without arguing for historical proof. The fact that the doctrine made history indicates that the faith is transforming.



*Crockett died at the Alamo the evidence clearly indicates that (I would have to assert it anyway,I am rom Texas). The point is it's not something we can prove. We call it "fact" but it's only assumption based upomn perponderence of the evidence.




Sources


[1] Simon Greenleaf , "Testimony of the Evangelists," Trial of Jesus homepage, edit Douglas Linder, o date given.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
(accessed 3/31/18)

[2] Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope:On The Ground and Implications of Christian Eschatology.
New York: Harper Collins publishers 1965
on amazon https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Hope-Jurgen-Moltmann/dp/0800628241
(accessed 3/31/18)








[3] Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God:The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Mineapolis Mn: Fortress Press,, trans. R.A. Wilson, Fortress Press edition1993. Originally shipbuilder 1968.
https://www.amazon.com/The-Crucified-God-Foundation-Criticism/dp/0800628225

[4] William Lane Craig.  "Contemporary Scholarship and The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth,A Journal of Modern Thought 1 (1985): 89-95.


41 comments:

Eric Sotnak said...

"community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false."

This premise is reasonably reject-able. Suppose I claim to have witnessed my deceased grandmother standing on my front porch. Other family members say they also had visions of her. But suppose in all these cases there are, in fact, naturalistic explanations. The possibility of a veridical supernatural explanation is not being discounted as impossible -- it is simply the case that the explanations in all these cases are not, in fact, supernatural.

Now how would anyone go about screening out the testimony of any of the witnesses in these cases? You say, "I don't think you really saw her" and I reply, "I did, I tell you!"
Some people side with me, and others side with you. Isn't that, in fact, the pattern we find all the time with sightings of ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc?

Joe Hinman said...

Good point Eric.I should have said "could have been screened out, not would have been.

--Now how would anyone go about screening out the testimony of any of the witnesses in these cases? You say, "I don't think you really saw her" and I reply, "I did, I tell you!"

what I was thinking was more on the order of "I was there, that did not happen."

If my point was about proving the resurrection it would be even better. My point was actually as long as the resurrection is not excluded by known fact the important thing is what it means as a doctrine;even if it was excluded that meaning would still aptly it would just be less effective in the way it's made.

Joe Hinman said...

Some people side with me, and others side with you. Isn't that, in fact, the pattern we find all the time with sightings of ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc?

If we get far enough to actually debate evidences for things, you are just informing me of your habit. You discount Venice for A because it's so much like B which you also discount, because it'[s so much like C, but you have no actual disproof of any of them.

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

what I was thinking was more on the order of "I was there, that did not happen."

How much sense does it make for someone to claim "I was there when event E didn't happen"? If something didn't happen, then there can't be a "there" (because literally nowhere is where the event occurred) or a "when" (because at no time did the event occur).

Joe Hinman said...

How much sense does it make for someone to claim "I was there when event E didn't happen"? If something didn't happen, then there can't be a "there" (because literally nowhere is where the event occurred) or a "when" (because at no time did the event occur).

that is entirely semantic. One could say "what you claim happened did not happen,I was there it did not happen."

im-skeptical said...

The earliest texts in the NT do nor claim that Jesus was bodily resurrected. Paiul explicitly states that Jesus was "resurrected in the spirit". It seems clear that the only "resurrection" that Paul speaks of is not a resurrection of the flesh, but of the spirit. Here are some excerpts from 1 Cor 15:

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.


Furthermore, the earlier versions of Mark (the oldest of the gospels) make no mention of any resurrection, but that was added some time later. It should be obvious to anyone who examines the question of resurrection that the earliest accounts of resurrection came from Paul, who spoke of the rise of the spirit, and that subsequently morphed into a bodily resurrection, which we see in the later gospels.


One could say "what you claim happened did not happen,I was there it did not happen."
- And one could say that nobody attested to seeing it not happen because it did not happen in the first place. By the time those stories started appearing, there was nobody still around to deny it. Think about it. I could make the claim that George Washington died while crossing the Delaware. And then I could claim that it must be true because there is no historical account of anyone saying it didn't happen.

Zgob ermn said...

im-skeptical “The earliest texts in the NT do nor (sic) claim that Jesus was bodily resurrected.” – We agree that 1 Cor is an early text, thus prima facie credible.

“Paiul (sic) explicitly states that Jesus was "resurrected in the spirit"… the only "resurrection" that Paul speaks of is not a resurrection of the flesh, but of the spirit.” – If I’m reading your “ONLY… resurrection… of the SPIRIT” correctly, then I think you are seriously misreading the context. Let’s look at the text in its context (from the NRSV)--

“1. … I would remind you… of the good news… 3. … I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures…” > Was Paul talking of Christ as “of the spirit” or of the body?
“4. and that he was buried” > Christ as “of the spirit” or of the body?
“… and that he was raised on the third day?” > Christ as “of the spirit” or of the body?

I think what is “explicit” right at the very beginning of Paul’s argument is a Christ of the “body” or “flesh.” And the relevance of this should not get lost in the reading of the references concerning the resurrection body. Of course the risen Christ is MORE than a body, but it is certainly not LESS than a body; it’s a GLORIFIED body.

(vv42-45) “So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

But that this is no less a body is demonstrated by the other accounts of the Gospels.

Note Jesus’ encounter with Thomas—
(Jn20:24-25) “But Thomas… said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” – IOW, ‘unless I see Jesus “IN THE FLESH” I will not believe.’
vv26-27 “A week later… Jesus came… 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”

Also by the fact that the risen Christ ate broiled fish in John 21 and Luke 24. Luke’s account is powerful—
vv36-43, Jesus himself stood among them… They thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them, “Why… do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” … he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence.”

Joe Hinman said...

Hey Zgob ermn welcome to the blog! your comments are acute! thanks for your contribution,I hope you stick around.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger im-skeptical said...
The earliest texts in the NT do nor claim that Jesus was bodily resurrected. Paiul explicitly states that Jesus was "resurrected in the spirit". It seems clear that the only "resurrection" that Paul speaks of is not a resurrection of the flesh, but of the spirit. Here are some excerpts from 1 Cor 15:

Our new commemter set you straighton that one, Seealso my aritloce on religious a priori "the No Body Theory:"



44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.


that does not say he did not raise in Body,It suggests that in heaven he wont be in flesh and blood but it does not say he didn't rise that way read my artile I deal with all of it,

Furthermore, the earlier versions of Mark (the oldest of the gospels) make no mention of any resurrection, but that was added some time later.

you need to read the discussions on cadre blog with Pixie and Gary both of won admit I proved there are older sources than Mark. bTW Mark does sayhe rose fro the dead,

You are still not getting it,You are trying to argue about the res happening or not,I'm talking about what it means as a doctrine,

by the way why does Paul talk about different kinds of flesh if he doesn't mean to say Jesus rose bodily?



It should be obvious to anyone who examines the question of resurrection that the earliest accounts of resurrection came from Paul, who spoke of the rise of the spirit, and that subsequently morphed into a bodily resurrection, which we see in the later gospels.

im-skeptical said...

Zgob, I understand that more recent interpretations of Paul's words are an attempt to reconcile them with the belief that Jesus was raised in the flesh. However, it is clear that Christian beliefs have evolved over time. Just look at the drastic changes (including the progression in their view of the divinity of Jesus) in the gospel stories from Mark to John.

It might be worthwhile to read this material without without preconceptions. Just listen to what it says, and don't insert things that it doesn't say. Then you might have a better idea of what I'm trying to convey to you. There is no question in my mind, from reading what Paul wrote (and not some later interpretation of it), that he wasn't referring to a resurrection of the flesh.

im-skeptical said...

that does not say he did not raise in Body,It suggests that in heaven he wont be in flesh and blood but it does not say he didn't rise that way read my artile I deal with all of it
- Paul explicitly says Jesus was resurrected in the spirit.


you need to read the discussions on cadre blog with Pixie and Gary both of won admit I proved there are older sources than Mark. bTW Mark does sayhe rose fro the dead
- Paul is the only source older than Mark. That's the consensus of scholars.


You are still not getting it,You are trying to argue about the res happeningh or not,I'm talking about what it means as a doctrine,
- Oh, sorry. I thought you were talking about whether the resurrection was a "historical" event. Yes, it is very easy to misinterpret Christian writings.


by the way why does Paul talk about different kinds of flesh if he doesn't mean to say Jesus rose bodily?
- He spoke of the body of flesh and the body of the spirit to emphasize that they are two distinctly different things. According to Paul, it is the spirit - not the flesh - that rises after death. That's what he says. You should read it.

Zgob ermn said...

I’m-skeptical “I understand that more recent interpretations of Paul's words…” At the moment my concern is with the actual text that you quoted. You seem to ignore the point of the questions I raised. Again,


“1. … I would remind you… of the good news… 3. … I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures…” > Was Paul talking of Christ as “of the spirit” or of the body?

“4. and that he was buried” > Christ as “of the spirit” or of the body?

“… and that he was raised on the third day?” > Christ as “of the spirit” or of the body?


The connection continues in the rest of the discussion. Note carefully the ff, (vv42-45),


“So it is with the resurrection of the dead.” > Here Paul addresses primarily the question concerning the ‘dead body’ (that’s buried or what have you . Of course prior to being ‘dead,’ this would refer to the EMBODIED person, in pre-resurrection existence; mortal, subject to the phenomenon of dying, of becoming a lifeless body. Paul elaborates on this in the ff,


“What is sown is perishable… sown in dishonore… in weakness… physical body… a living being” > Descriptions/pictures/metaphors of the existence of the EMBODIED person prior to resurrection.


Paul then contrasts this with by ff,


“what is raised is imperishable… in glory… in power… a spiritual body… a life-giving spirit.” > The New Creation EMBODIED, GLORIFIED personal existence for the New Age (in a New Creation, that’s still an EMBODIED creation, but that’s another discussion).


Note the connection between “the dead”, the “what” (EMBODIED existence pre-resurrection), and finally the “what” (of the New glorified, EMBODIED existence). The three are all connected. There is always an EMBODIED existence. Paul’s thought appears to always include an EMBODIED EXISTENCE; in fact there is continuity, continuing IDENTITY between "the dead" and the "whats"--"the dead" and what is resurrected is one and the same in identity, though a radical ontological transformation, if you will, has occurred. This is powerfully portrayed in the account of the Gospels concerning Christ pre and post resurrection.

im-skeptical said...

Zgob,

I asked that you read the words without preconception. That's what I have tried to do. Paul never once speaks of the risen Jesus in the flesh. Nor does (the original) Mark. Nor do either of then speak of a virgin birth, or Jesus calling himself a divine person. Not one single time that I know of. Those stories were obviously not known to the authors at the time they were written.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
Zgob, I understand that more recent interpretations of Paul's words are an attempt to reconcile them with the belief that Jesus was raised in the flesh. However, it is clear that Christian beliefs have evolved over time. Just look at the drastic changes (including the progression in their view of the divinity of Jesus) in the gospel stories from Mark to John.

that is just ignorant poppy cock, you are reassuring Mark was the first writing about Jesus it was not! there were already things written way before Mark, Your phony evolutionary scheme is disproved by Pauli and by noncanonical gospels.

It might be worthwhile to read this material without without preconceptions. Just listen to what it says, and don't insert things that it doesn't say. Then you might have a better idea of what I'm trying to convey to you. There is no question in my mind, from reading what Paul wrote (and not some later interpretation of it), that he wasn't referring to a resurrection of the flesh.


again why does Paul talk about types of felsh,

Remember my discussions with Pixie? GPet draws upon an early independent tradition,

Joe Hinman said...

I asked that you read the words without preconception. That's what I have tried to do. Paul never once speaks of the risen Jesus in the flesh.

Paul never tells us one word about his mother,not one word, therefore he must not have had a mother.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
The earliest texts in the NT do nor claim that Jesus was bodily resurrected. Paiul explicitly states that Jesus was "resurrected in the spirit". It seems clear that the only "resurrection" that Paul speaks of is not a resurrection of the flesh, but of the spirit. Here are some excerpts from 1 Cor 15:

The new Testament does not contain the earliest writings about Jesus. Q source predates the Gospels. The pre mark redaction predates everything in the NT

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

spiritual body is not intangible

Furthermore, the earlier versions of Mark (the oldest of the gospels) make no mention of any resurrection, but that was added some time later.

Mark 16 6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Mentioned in Mark.Mention of resurrection in Mark. also pre Mark redactor dates to AD 50, Mark t0 AD 70




It should be obvious to anyone who examines the question of resurrection that the earliest accounts of resurrection came from Paul, who spoke of the rise of the spirit, and that subsequently morphed into a bodily resurrection, which we see in the later gospels.

that is an extremely ignorant statement, the pre Mark redaction is consensus in the field now,l it dates top AD 50. knowledge.

Joe Hinman said...

Skepie once again you have hijacked the thread. This is the opposite of the kind of thing my thread as about.My whole idea was to get away from this kind of thing, argument about proving it append and dealing with what it means for believers to believe it. you are not even capable of understanding that concept, and your so hung up spouting obsolete propaganda.

im-skeptical said...

that is just ignorant poppy cock, you are reassuring Mark was the first writing about Jesus it was not!
- I did not say that. Go back and read what I wrote.

again why does Paul talk about types of felsh
- I answered that question explicitly. Go back and read what I wrote.

Remember my discussions with Pixie? GPet draws upon an early independent tradition
- The consensus of scholars is that the gospel of peter is a second century document.

Paul never tells us one word about his mother,not one word, therefore he must not have had a mother.
- Paul wasn't writing about his mother. He WAS writing about the resurrection, and he said it was IN THE SPIRIT.

The new Testament does not contain the earliest writings about Jesus. Q source predates the Gospels. The pre mark redaction predates everything in the NT
- The consensus of scholars is that Paul's writings are the oldest in the NT, followed by Mark.

spiritual body is not intangible
- How would you know that?

Mark 16 6 ...
- The consensus of scholars is that this was not part of the original gospel.

that is an extremely ignorant statement, the pre Mark redaction is consensus in the field now,l it dates top AD 50. knowledge.
- First, Mark doesn't even draw from Q, as is claimed of Matthew and Luke. Second, there is no consensus that this existed, let alone that it is dated top AD 50.

Skepie once again you have hijacked the thread. This is the opposite of the kind of thing my thread as about.My whole idea was to get away from this kind of thing, argument about proving it append and dealing with what it means for believers to believe it. you are not even capable of understanding that concept, and your so hung up spouting obsolete propaganda.
- This is the second time you have accused me of this. I READ YOUR ARTICLE. It is all about the historicity of the resurrection. Furthermore, Eric made a comment about witnesses to the event, (which is exactly the same matter that I commented on) and you didn't accuse him of hijacking the thread.

Zgob ermn said...

Joe, thanks for the welcome.

Im-skeptical “I asked that you read the words without preconception. That's what I have tried to do.” – And that’s been my discipline in reading ANY text requiring interpretation (of course I don’t do it perfectly). I think what I’ve given is fair exegesis. If I’m guilty of eisegesis then do point that out. I stand by my argument.

“Paul never once speaks of the risen Jesus in the flesh.” – If you mean ‘the same old flesh’ then of course. But Paul did speak explicitly that SOMETHING was raised; a something that was previously embodied in mortality. Note that what was RAISED was that same embodied mortality, raised into a ‘spiritual body’ (soma pneumatikon), an embodied immortality. I would argue that it’s more natural to read Paul’s argument and language as suggesting embodiment for both pre and post resurrection existence.

im-skeptical said...

But Paul did speak explicitly that SOMETHING was raised

- Of course. That something would be the very thing that Christians believe is the eternal aspect of the person. It is the soul of the man. The first man is clothed in the body of flesh. The second man is clothed in the spirit.

Listen to what Paul says:
"The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven."
That clearly says the body of flesh does not persist. That's what Paul is saying.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger im-skeptical said...
that is just ignorant poppy cock, you are reassuring Mark was the first writing about Jesus it was not!
- I did not say that. Go back and read what I wrote.

Then your arguments make no sense,every time you bring up Mark I say "so what?"

again why does Paul talk about types of felsh

- I answered that question explicitly. Go back and read what I wrote.

No you didn't. You gave a bull shit answer that repeated another point but it did not explain this point


Remember my discussions with Pixie? GPet draws upon an early independent tradition
- The consensus of scholars is that the gospel of peter is a second century document.

sheer barking ignorance, you are not even willing to follow a simple,argument. The argument is that it draws upon older material we can tell by the readings,

Paul never tells us one word about his mother,not one word, therefore he must not have had a mother.

- Paul wasn't writing about his mother. He WAS writing about the resurrection, and he said it was IN THE SPIRIT.

He wasn't writing about the basics of Christianity either. He knew Jesus rose bodily everyone knew it no one questioned it so no need to mention it,

The new Testament does not contain the earliest writings about Jesus. Q source predates the Gospels. The pre mark redaction predates everything in the NT
- The consensus of scholars is that Paul's writings are the oldest in the NT, followed by Mark.

I didn't say that I said not the first writings about Jesus. There are older sources, Your arguments must moot.

spiritual body is not intangible
- How would you know that?

they Jews did not believes the Messiah would raise all of fallen Israel to be ghosts, Paul believe the standard ideas of Judaism of his day. Messiah was suppossed to raise all of fallen Israel and he was raised first.


That is why Jesus calls him ":first fruits form the dead." So Messiah's resurrection has to be like all the ohters, they never talkabojt ghosts they talkabout all the dead of Israel being raised back to life.


Mark 16 6 ...
- The consensus of scholars is that this was not part of the original gospel.

No that is wrong it is not, the consensus is that that is the natural ending but they don't deny that it includes that reference.

Moreover you deny above saying that Mark is the first writing about the story of Jesus. That means your your argument has no reliance, so what if Mark doens't talk of the Resurrection? Others did Older documemts did.



that is an extremely ignorant statement, the pre Mark redaction is consensus in the field now,l it dates top AD 50. knowledge.


- First, Mark doesn't even draw from Q, as is claimed of Matthew and Luke. Second, there is no consensus that this existed, let alone that it is dated top AD 50.

Geeeez@ not the issue Einstein,it till meas there is material older than Makr that talks about the resurrection

Skepie once again you have hijacked the thread. This is the opposite of the kind of thing my thread as about.My whole idea was to get away from this kind of thing, argument about proving it append and dealing with what it means for believers to believe it. you are not even capable of understanding that concept, and your so hung up spouting obsolete propaganda.

- This is the second time you have accused me of this. I READ YOUR ARTICLE. It is all about the historicity of the resurrection. Furthermore, Eric made a comment about witnesses to the event, (which is exactly the same matter that I commented on) and you didn't accuse him of hijacking the thread.

No it's not. it is about a specific concept by Jurgen Moltmann called "history making!" It's even i the title where juxtapositions historical with history making.

10:48 AM Delete

Zgob ermn said...

im-skeptical, "the body of flesh does not persist. That's what Paul is saying." Well yes, if again you mean 'the old flesh subject to mortality.' But Paul's language in no may suggest anything DISembodied. Paul's argument for the resurrection is more naturally read as suggesting an embodied existence, a microcosm of the old creation and the New Creation (which is still and embodied creation).

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
But Paul did speak explicitly that SOMETHING was raised

- Of course. That something would be the very thing that Christians believe is the eternal aspect of the person. It is the soul of the man. The first man is clothed in the body of flesh. The second man is clothed in the spirit.

Listen to what Paul says:
"The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven."
That clearly says the body of flesh does not persist. That's what Paul is saying

you are reading in the assumption of your positioning there is no valid reasons for him to speak of the body veining incorruptible if he didn't believe they got bodies,

You are not hip to the concept of glorified body,

Joe Hinman said...

Corinthians 15: 50

"Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen,29 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,
BUT WE WILL BE CHANGED


52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,
and this mortal body must put on immortality.

[RIGHT THERE HE SWAYS THE BODY WILL BE CHANGE TO IMPERISHABLE NOT THAT IT WILL BE DONE AWAY]

Anonymous said...

Joe: you need to read the discussions on cadre blog with Pixie and Gary both of won admit I proved there are older sources than Mark. bTW Mark does sayhe rose fro the dead

Speaking for myself, I never disputed that there was an earlier document. However, the fact is that Paul's letters are the earliest documents that we have.

Joe: by the way why does Paul talk about different kinds of flesh if he doesn't mean to say Jesus rose bodily?

There are three possibilities here. The spirit, the original flesh-and-blood body, and a new spiritual body. Paul was talking about the third. A physical body, not a ghost, but definitely not made of flesh and blood. Your arguments seem to be directed against the first, a mere ghost, and I agree Paul is not talking about that.

Joe: again why does Paul talk about types of felsh,

To differentiate between the flesh and blood of the perishable body, and the heavenly flesh of the new body.

Joe: Remember my discussions with Pixie? GPet draws upon an early independent tradition,

It draws on an earlier tradition, but it also draws on the Gospels, Matthew especially.

Joe: they Jews did not believes the Messiah would raise all of fallen Israel to be ghosts, Paul believe the standard ideas of Judaism of his day. Messiah was suppossed to raise all of fallen Israel and he was raised first.

Jewish burial customs involved putting the body in a tomb until the flesh rotted away, then putting the bones into a jar. We can therefore be certain that the Jews also did not believe the Messiah would raise all of fallen Israel in their original flesh. What they expected was to be risen in new bodies made of heavenly flesh.

Joe: "Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen,29 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,
BUT WE WILL BE CHANGED


You quoted Paul very clearly saying "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", and yet you still claim the resurrection is in the flesh and blood? Paul is saying the righteous will be changed, so they will not be flesh and blood, but instead will be made of the divine.

Pix

im-skeptical said...

No it's not. it is about a specific concept by Jurgen Moltmann called "history making!" It's even i the title where juxtapositions historical with history making.
- Oh, well excuse me again. This is apologetic-speak for "If you don't want to call it history, then we'll continue to make all the same arguments and call it history-making."

Here's what you said:
(1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readigns that can be understood as even older artifacts.

(2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.

(3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.

(4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.

(5)not proof but it is a good reason to assume it's valid as a belief.It has historical verisimilitude.


Are you not arguing for the historicity of the resurrection? You can say "history-making" if you like, but take away the word 'verisimilitude' from this, and it's the exact same argument.




sheer barking ignorance, you are not even willing to follow a simple,argument. The argument is that it draws upon older material we can tell by the readings,
- Regarding the Q source, I told you that there is no consensus on its existence. If it did actually exist, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it dates to before either Paul or Mark. "One of the only areas of consensus regarding Q is that it antedates both Matthew and Luke." (from here)

Joe Hinman said...

My point is the resurrection body, Since we don't know what that is it might look like a flesh and blood body. When he says not inherit the kingdom he obviously doesn't mean a flash and blood body can't raise from the dead because we are already in the kingdom now in this life.So he is using the term "kingdom" to mean it;s final form the after life heaven.

It is possible that Jesus had a flesh and blood body when he rose then that was transformed when he ascended. After all he did eat food after the res.

Joe Hinman said...

You quoted Paul very clearly saying "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", and yet you still claim the resurrection is in the flesh and blood? Paul is saying the righteous will be changed, so they will not be flesh and blood, but instead will be made of the divine.

you conveniently stop short of quoting the line that totally disproves your point,

1 Cor 15:53 "For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,
and this mortal body must put on immortality."

that does not say the perishable body will be forgotten and left behind it says it will be made imperishable,so it's the same body but revamped,


Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
No it's not. it is about a specific concept by Jurgen Moltmann called "history making!" It's even i the title where juxtapositions historical with history making.
- Oh, well excuse me again. This is apologetic-speak for "If you don't want to call it history, then we'll continue to make all the same arguments and call it history-making."

Motlmann was a major thinker of the 20th century he was highly respected even by Philosophers in East Germany,this was one of his most important ideas. Trying to dismiss it so studly as being some befuddlement is really indicative of your not being well read,.

Here's what you said:
(1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readigns that can be understood as even older artifacts.

(2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.

(3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.

(4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.

(5)not proof but it is a good reason to assume it's valid as a belief.It has historical verisimilitude.

Are you not arguing for the historicity of the resurrection? You can say "history-making" if you like, but take away the word 'verisimilitude' from this, and it's the exact same argument.


I am saying that the facts allow for belief in the resurrection by not disproving it or contradicting it but proving it is not the point,it's theological meaning is the point,



sheer barking ignorance, you are not even willing to follow a simple,argument. The argument is that it draws upon older material we can tell by the readings,
- Regarding the Q source, I told you that there is no consensus on its existence. If it did actually exist, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it dates to before either Paul or Mark. "One of the only areas of consensus regarding Q is that it antedates both Matthew and Luke." (from here)

that is utter bull shit,I studied with the major advocate of the Greisbach hypothesis when i was at Perkins, William Farmer. I know the opposition to Q is a tiny minority, a handful of scholarship.

there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it dates to before either Paul or Mark. "One of the only areas of consensus regarding Q is that it antedates both Matthew and Luke." (from here)

Again sheer ignorance, Mark is usually dated around 70 AD and Q had to exit before that because Matt around 75 there would not have been time for Matt to learn Q and combine it with Mark if it was written after Mark.

The rest of your statement,about Paul, assumes the nonsense I've already refuted about Paul. In fact since Q like sayings make up a third of GTom and Paul is thought to have used a saying source its highly likely he used the saying Thomas used whcih would include Q.



9:22 AM Delete

Joe Hinman said...

My major argue mt Agassi your Paul as the first writing about Jesus is the Pre mark Redaction you have no argument agaisnt that. AD 50.

Anonymous said...

Joe: My point is the resurrection body, Since we don't know what that is it might look like a flesh and blood body.

So the best you have is that it might be?

Joe: When he says not inherit the kingdom he obviously doesn't mean a flash and blood body can't raise from the dead because we are already in the kingdom now in this life.So he is using the term "kingdom" to mean it;s final form the after life heaven.

Paul was anticipating the Messianic Age, which was when God's Kingdom would come to Earth. He was not expecting to go to heaven, but to live on earth in paradise.

By the way, this is why you say "Your Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven" when you say the Lord's prayer; you are hoping (or mindlessly repeating Jesus when he was hoping) for the Kingdom of God coming to Earth.

Paul clearly states that flesh and blood cannot be part of God's Kingdom on Earth, which has to mean resurrection in a new body. But what happens to those who are still alive when the Kingdom of God arrives, if flesh and blood are not permitted? Those still alive will be transformed into their new heavenly bodies.

1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Joe: It is possible that Jesus had a flesh and blood body when he rose then that was transformed when he ascended. After all he did eat food after the res.

However, it is more likely that all those Jerusalem appearances were made up later, given they contradict Mark (who says Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee) and Paul (who says Peter saw Jesus first). Neither Mark nor Paul mention the ascension, of course, which would be odd - if they had known about it.

Joe: you conveniently stop short of quoting the line that totally disproves your point,
1 Cor 15:53 "For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,
and this mortal body must put on immortality."
that does not say the perishable body will be forgotten and left behind it says it will be made imperishable,so it's the same body but revamped,


But Paul clearly says the living will be changed. What change is that, if they have the same bodies?

Joe: that is utter bull shit,I studied with the major advocate of the Greisbach hypothesis when i was at Perkins, William Farmer. I know the opposition to Q is a tiny minority, a handful of scholarship.

Does it matter? Q, if it existed, was a sayings document, so even if we had a copy of it, it would give no support to the Easter events.

Pix

im-skeptical said...

it's theological meaning is the point
- That doesn't mean it happened.

that is utter bull shit,I studied with the major advocate of the Greisbach hypothesis when i was at Perkins, William Farmer. I know the opposition to Q is a tiny minority, a handful of scholarship.
- So you know what one guy (who is an advocate of the theory) says. THERE IS NO SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS that it's true. And there are plenty of reasons to think it isn't. (See this srticle.) Since Q is purely hypothetical, there is no way anyone could possibly date it to AD 50.

Joe Hinman said...

t's theological meaning is the point
- That doesn't mean it happened.

it did happen, but that's not the point I just said that,

that is utter bull shit,I studied with the major advocate of the Greisbach hypothesis when i was at Perkins, William Farmer. I know the opposition to Q is a tiny minority, a handful of scholarship.

- So you know what one guy (who is an advocate of the theory) says. THERE IS NO SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS that it's true. And there are plenty of reasons to think it isn't.

Consensus is not truth, you only resort to consensus when the answer is not clear.Something can be true without being consensus,


(See this srticle.) Since Q is purely hypothetical, there is no way anyone could possibly date it to AD 50.

O Jesus, you are so stupid,I've only tallied about this about a thousandth times since you've been hanging out here, to not know this inexcusable, It's ot Q thati said is AD 50 but the PMPN which includes the empty tomb.

Joe Hinman said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: My point is the resurrection body, Since we don't know what that is it might look like a flesh and blood body.

So the best you have is that it might be?

that's a silly argument all historical arguments are probability,

Joe: When he says not inherit the kingdom he obviously doesn't mean a flash and blood body can't raise from the dead because we are already in the kingdom now in this life.So he is using the term "kingdom" to mean it;s final form the after life heaven.

Paul was anticipating the Messianic Age, which was when God's Kingdom would come to Earth. He was not expecting to go to heaven, but to live on earth in paradise.

same principle.But in fact they seem to have foreseen an end to the millennial l kingdom then a new heaven. Paul believed in the seven heavens of the Kabala.


By the way, this is why you say "Your Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven" when you say the Lord's prayer; you are hoping (or mindlessly repeating Jesus when he was hoping) for the Kingdom of God coming to Earth.

yes but that would not be permanent,

Paul clearly states that flesh and blood cannot be part of God's Kingdom on Earth, which has to mean resurrection in a new body. But what happens to those who are still alive when the Kingdom of God arrives, if flesh and blood are not permitted? Those still alive will be transformed into their new heavenly bodies.

that argument helps my view more than yours. because can't just be killed so they can be ghosts,they could be transformed, it says:we will be changed,"

1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Joe: It is possible that Jesus had a flesh and blood body when he rose then that was transformed when he ascended. After all he did eat food after the res.

However, it is more likely that all those Jerusalem appearances were made up later, given they contradict Mark (who says Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee) and Paul (who says Peter saw Jesus first). Neither Mark nor Paul mention the ascension, of course, which would be odd - if they had known about it.


No we hashed that out and you lost,

you have no answer the passage 1 cor 15:53

both of you have failed to grasp the point I;ll try again next with another theological issue, this topic is closed now,


Anonymous said...

Joe: yes but that would not be permanent,

Is that what Paul believed? I have not seen anything to indicate that.

Joe: No we hashed that out and you lost,

No, you lost. Paul is quite clear that the righteous dead get new bodies, and those still alive have their bodies changed.

Joe: you have no answer the passage 1 cor 15:53

And you have no answer to verses 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 all of which make clear that the righteous will be raised in new or different bodies.

Joe: both of you have failed to grasp the point I;ll try again next with another theological issue, this topic is closed now,

Yeah, best to shut down any discussion you might be losing.

Pix

The Pixie said...

I have a blog post of what Paul believed here:
http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/the-beliefs-of-st-paul-apostle.html

If you are going to address what he thought the nature of the resurrected body was, you might want to take a look.

Joe Hinman said...

I may answer this on cadre

Joe Hinman said...

Yeah, best to shut down any discussion you might be losing.

I have kicked your ass and you know it. Right now I have to save western democracy,

Joe Hinman said...

you already lost man, the idea that they occupy a new earth in a res body only helps my view not yours, for one thing you and Skepie don;t have the idea you are really supporting him

you have not answered 1 cor 15:53

The Pixie said...

1 Cor 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Are you saying that the perishable and mortal body is covered with something that is imperishable and immortal? So that everyone in heaven has a mortal body inside that is slowly decaying? That is what a literal reading of the verse says.

Given the rest of the chapter, it makes far more sense to think Paul is saying the mortal and perishable body is discarded.

Look at this analogy from the sequel:

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Is Paul saying we will have a tent inside our new house? Of course not! The new house is instead of the tent. No one wants to live in a tent, inside of a fine house. No one wants to live in an old, decaying body inside a glorious cover.