The consistent events from Jesus' burial to His ascension

[RBD]

Here is the consistent timeline in order from the burial of Jesus, to His ascension 40 days later.

Many women from Galilee follow Joseph and Nicodemus to see Jesus laid in the tomb. Magdalen and the other Mary are specifically mentioned. (John 19) (Mark 15) Afterward that evening, some of the other women go home to prepare spices and ointments for Jesus' body. (Luke 23)

The next day on the high Sabbath, the chief priests go to Pilate for a guard on the tomb. (Matthew 27)

In the night, there's another earthquake, and an angel in appearance as lighting rolls away the stone, making the soldiers become as dead. (Matthew 28) Jesus either resurrects at this time, or any time during the night beforehand. At some time in the night, the guards awaken and depart the empty tomb, to report to the chief priests.

Magdalen comes later in the dark before dawn, and finds the tomb empty. She tells Peter and the other disciple, and they come running to see the tomb empty. They enter to see and depart. (John 20)

Magdalen remains behind and sees two angels in the tomb, and then Jesus Himself alive outside the tomb. She is the first person on earth to see Him after His resurrection. While still dark, she returns again to tell the disciples of His resurrection, and they don't believe it. (John 20) (Mark 16)

Magdalen, the other Mary, Salome, and the other women from Galilee, including Joanna, arrive at the tomb in the morning light. One group arrives with their prepared spices and ointments, while Magdalen's group arrives with bought sweet spices. They find the tomb empty. (Mark 16) (Luke 24)

Magdalen, the other Mary, and Salome are met by the angel that rolled away the stone, and are told to see in the tomb where the Lord had lain. Another angel sitting therein tell them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see Jesus. (Matthew 28) (Mark 16) The other women including Joanna enter the tomb and see no one, and while standing outside are met by two more angels, that send them also to the disciples to go to Galilee to meet Jesus. (Luke 24)

All the women depart and en route meet Jesus, and hold His feet in worship. He also sends them all to tell the disciples to meet Him in Galilee. They all then tell the disciples these things, and they don't believe it. (Matthew 28)

Peter runs to the tomb a second time and ponders these things. (Luke 24)

Jesus next appears to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus, and later toward evening they recognize Him at table, and He vanishes from their sight. In that hour, they go to the eleven to tell them of Jesus' resurrection. They don't believe it. Luke 24) (Mark 16) Peter has now also seen the Lord Jesus. Paul reports that Jesus also appeared to James at some time.

At evening, Jesus now first appears to the disciples with the others in the their midst, and shows He is indeed resurrected bodily from the dead, and not only a spirit, by showing His hands and side, and eats some fish. Thomas is not with them. (Luke 24) (John 20)

8 days later, He appears to the eleven with Thomas as they sat at meat, and upbraids them for their unbelief, and also challenges Thomas to insert His fingers into his hands, and his hand into Jesus' side. (Mark 16) (John 20)

Afterward on another day, Peter goes a fishin' at the sea of Galilee with 6 other disciples, including Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of thunder, and 2 other disciples. For the third time after His resurrection, Jesus meets His disciples on the Galilee shore with food on a fire. They all know Him. (John 21)

Afterward on another day, all the disciples meet Jesus at the Galilee mount, that He had appointed them, and worshipped Him. Some doubted what to do. (Matthew 28)

On the 40th day after His resurrection, He leads all the disciples and many others to Bethany on Mt Olivet. (Luke 24) (Acts 1) There He gives His great commission with promise of the Holy Ghost, and ascends to heaven to be recieved up in a cloud. The disciples remain standing and looking upward for Jesus, until two angels come to remind them to go to Jerusalem, and wait for the promise of the Father.

These are a consistent order of events from the 4 gospels and Acts 1.

Paul confirms Peter saw the Lord first before the other apostles, on the evening of the first day of His resurrection, and that above 500 saw Him during the 40 days after. He was also seen by James after the evening of the first day, either before His second appearance to them on the 8th day, or afterward before the sea of Galilee for the third time.

[AchillesHeel]

...what we find in the New Testament is a clear pattern of legendary development that grows in scope and physicality over time ...

Interesteing comparative chart


Source ChatGPT

I'm not really sure what the point of this is ...

Simply that the gospels do not display the same trajectory of legends which generally take much longer to develop. In short one would be hard pushed to find any other set of documents with legends that were codified in so short a period of time.

Nevertheless, they still display legendary growth when you compare the accounts in chronological order. It doesn't matter if they "didn't take as long to develop as other legends." They're still legends.

And I'm going to need to see evidence that Luke and John's resurrection narratives, for instance, circulated earlier in Jerusalem rather than being invented decades later. Seriously - what is the evidence for that when the origin of the stories are indistinguishable from just being invented in the compositions themselves?

[JehovahsWitness]

...what we find in the New Testament is a clear pattern of legendary development that grows in scope and physicality over time ...

Interesteing comparative chart


Source ChatGPT

I'm not really sure what the point of this is ...

Simply that the gospels do not display the same trajectory of legends which generally take much longer to develop. In short one would be hard pushed to find any other set of documents with legends that were codified in so short a period of time.

Nevertheless, they still display legendary growth ...

One man's " legendary growth" is another man's added detail. If one man claimed to his grandchildren to have been interned in a concentration camp and years later another wrote a detailed analysis of the Hilter's rule, does that make it the " legendary growth" of the Holocaust?

[JehovahsWitness]

And I'm going to need to see evidence that Luke and John's resurrection narratives, for instance, circulated earlier in Jerusalem rather than being invented decades later.

Obviously the writings themselves didn't circulate before they were written but there is strong evidence the followers of Jesus were a community of worshippers some time before the written narratives appeared and that they recognised a "risen" Christ. Tacitus (c. 116 CE) refers to Christians as a group having spread into Rome by the mid-1st century, implying an earlier origin. and the writings of Paul indicated to the Corinthians he had "received" teachings that Christ died and was raised and although he didn't say where he received this teaching, he specifically stated he went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion to meet leading church members. All of the above is evidence based indication that there was a resurrection tradition amongst Judean believers prior to the mid 50's (when Paul wrote the Corinithians), predating the gospels; well within living memory.

[AchillesHeel]

And I'm going to need to see evidence that Luke and John's resurrection narratives, for instance, circulated earlier in Jerusalem rather than being invented decades later.

Obviously the writings themselves didn't circulate before they were written but there is strong evidence the followers of Jesus were a community of worshippers some time before the written narratives appeared and that they recognised a "risen" Christ. Tacitus (c. 116 CE) refers to Christians as a group having spread into Rome by the mid-1st century, implying an earlier origin. and the writings of Paul indicated to the Corinthians he had "received" teachings that Christ died and was raised and although he didn't say where he received this teaching, he specifically stated he went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion to meet leading church members. All of the above is evidence based indication that there was a resurrection tradition amongst Judean believers prior to the mid 50's (when Paul wrote the Corinithians), predating the gospels; well within living memory.

Yes, I'm well aware of all this. viewtopic.php?p=1176296#p1176296

[JehovahsWitness]

And I'm going to need to see evidence that Luke and John's resurrection narratives, for instance, circulated earlier in Jerusalem rather than being invented decades later.

Obviously the writings themselves didn't circulate before they were written but there is strong evidence the followers of Jesus were a community of worshippers some time before the written narratives appeared and that they recognised a "risen" Christ. Tacitus (c. 116 CE) refers to Christians as a group having spread into Rome by the mid-1st century, implying an earlier origin. and the writings of Paul indicated to the Corinthians he had "received" teachings that Christ died and was raised and although he didn't say where he received this teaching, he specifically stated he went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion to meet leading church members. All of the above is evidence based indication that there was a resurrection tradition amongst Judean believers prior to the mid 50's (when Paul wrote the Corinithians), predating the gospels; well within living memory.

Yes, I'm well aware of all this. viewtopic.php?p=1176296#p1176296

Well if you are "aware of this" then you know there is no valid reason to claim that the gospels (or even Paul himself) started the story of the resurrection or that the claims started outside of the region the events allegedly occurred and beyond the lifespan of anyone that would have been in a position to falsify them. Thus evidently there was no need for the comment ....

And I'm going to need to see evidence that Luke and John's resurrection narratives, for instance, circulated earlier in Jerusalem rather than being invented decades later.

JW

[AchillesHeel]

And I'm going to need to see evidence that Luke and John's resurrection narratives, for instance, circulated earlier in Jerusalem rather than being invented decades later.

Obviously the writings themselves didn't circulate before they were written but there is strong evidence the followers of Jesus were a community of worshippers some time before the written narratives appeared and that they recognised a "risen" Christ. Tacitus (c. 116 CE) refers to Christians as a group having spread into Rome by the mid-1st century, implying an earlier origin. and the writings of Paul indicated to the Corinthians he had "received" teachings that Christ died and was raised and although he didn't say where he received this teaching, he specifically stated he went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion to meet leading church members. All of the above is evidence based indication that there was a resurrection tradition amongst Judean believers prior to the mid 50's (when Paul wrote the Corinithians), predating the gospels; well within living memory.

Yes, I'm well aware of all this. viewtopic.php?p=1176296#p1176296

Well if you are "aware of this" then you know there is no valid reason to claim that the gospels (or even Paul himself) started the story of the resurrection or that the claims started outside of the region the events allegedly occurred and beyond the lifespan of anyone that would have been in a position to falsify them. Thus evidently there was no need for the comment ....

And I'm going to need to see evidence that Luke and John's resurrection narratives, for instance, circulated earlier in Jerusalem rather than being invented decades later.

JW

Would you mind actually explaining what you think my position is and how you are effectively addressing it? I just provided a link and you did not respond to it. Moreover, I have already clarified my position in an earlier comment.

To clarify, I'm not saying the Resurrection belief was legendary. They obviously believed Jesus was resurrected early on. It's just that the stories where Jesus is touched and witnessed ascending to heaven are later legends. If any other story grew like this in chronological order, we would have no trouble identifying it as a legend.

Now, would you actually address that?

[JehovahsWitness]

To clarify, I'm not saying the Resurrection belief was legendary. They obviously believed Jesus was resurrected early on. It's just that the stories where Jesus is touched and witnessed ascending to heaven are later legends.

I have to disagree, chronological expansion is not of itself always indicative of legend; indeed fact-based research and additional evidence based documentation can extend a core narrative without it being taken as legendary.

If any other story grew like this in chronological order, we would have no trouble identifying it as a legend.

Are you sure about that?


NOTE While there exists evidence that the gospels were penned at least a decade earlier than in this chart (starting with Matthew rather than Mark) , the point is to present a historically accepted narrative that developed /expanded over a similar time period rather than contest dates of authorship.




RELATED POST Is the trajectory of the gospels typical of most legend?
viewtopic.php?p=1184599#p1184599

[AchillesHeel]

To clarify, I'm not saying the Resurrection belief was legendary. They obviously believed Jesus was resurrected early on. It's just that the stories where Jesus is touched and witnessed ascending to heaven are later legends.

I have to disagree, chronological expansion is not of itself always indicative of legend; indeed fact-based research and additional evidence based documentation can extend a core narrative without it being taken as legendary.

If any other story grew like this in chronological order, we would have no trouble identifying it as a legend.

Are you sure about that?


NOTE While there exists evidence that the gospels were penned at least a decade earlier than in this chart (starting with Matthew rather than Mark) , the point is to present a historically accepted narrative that developed /expanded over a similar time period rather than contest dates of authorship.




RELATED POST Is the trajectory of the gospels typical of most legend?
viewtopic.php?p=1184599#p1184599

"Chronological expansion" Haha! Good one.

If the Saratoga narratives mirrored the New Testament Resurrection discrepancies, they would look like this:

Witness 1 (like Paul, focused on proclamation):
“Victory was revealed first to General Gates, then to Arnold, then to Morgan and 500 riflemen, then to the militia, then to all the patriot commanders, and finally to me. Saratoga secured the independence of America.”
No battle is narrated. No geography is given. Just a list of who received the victory.

Witness 2 (like Mark, empty tomb style):
“The battlefield was found empty at dawn. The British had vanished, and a messenger said, ‘He will be seen again on the road to Canada.’”
No actual battle scene is described at all.

Witness 3 (like Matthew, physical details and doubt):
“As the American troops left the field, General Burgoyne suddenly appeared to them on the hill. They seized his coat and saluted his boots. He told them the empire would not prevail. Then, on the same day, the British dead rose from the field and marched toward Albany, and some officers doubted whether it had really happened.”

Witness 4 (like Luke, more physical and more apologetic):
“Two American scouts encountered Burgoyne on the road to Albany, but did not recognize him at first. He then appeared to the officers in Saratoga, showed them his surrender papers, ate hardtack in front of them to prove he was no mere rumor, and afterward was lifted up from the Hudson River in full view of the army. They were told to remain in Saratoga until further orders.”

Witness 5 (like John, with locked-room appearances and doubt overcome):
“Burgoyne first appeared to General Gates alone inside the headquarters tent, though Gates did not recognize him at first. Later he passed through locked British lines to appear to the patriots. A week later he returned and invited a doubting General Arnold to inspect his uniform and touch the bullet holes. Finally, he appeared again to seven officers by the river during a fishing expedition.”

[JehovahsWitness]

To clarify, I'm not saying the Resurrection belief was legendary. They obviously believed Jesus was resurrected early on. It's just that the stories where Jesus is touched and witnessed ascending to heaven are later legends.

I have to disagree, chronological expansion is not of itself always indicative of legend; indeed fact-based research and additional evidence based documentation can extend a core narrative without it being taken as legendary.

If any other story grew like this in chronological order, we would have no trouble identifying it as a legend.

Are you sure about that?


NOTE While there exists evidence that the gospels were penned at least a decade earlier than in this chart (starting with Matthew rather than Mark) , the point is to present a historically accepted narrative that developed /expanded over a similar time period rather than contest dates of authorship.




RELATED POST Is the trajectory of the gospels typical of most legend?
viewtopic.php?p=1184599#p1184599

"Chronological expansion" Haha! Good one.

I don't see that its "good" or "bad" its simply relevant to the discussion

CHRONOLOGICAL EXPANSION :

-- > Initial core (immediate)
Basic facts recorded close to the event

-- >Early additions (short-term)
Eyewitness perspectives

-- > Minor contextual details
Later expansions (decades)

-- > Memoirs, collected accounts
More complete narratives/Long-term development

I thought your central point was that growth in a chronological order can be considered evidence of legend ....

To clarify, I'm not saying the Resurrection belief was legendary. They obviously believed Jesus was resurrected early on. It's just that the stories where Jesus is touched and witnessed ascending to heaven are later legends. If any other story grew like this in chronological order, we would have no trouble identifying it as a legend.

Emphasis MINE

And my response was composed to support the point that that is certainly not automatically the case.

[AchillesHeel]

To clarify, I'm not saying the Resurrection belief was legendary. They obviously believed Jesus was resurrected early on. It's just that the stories where Jesus is touched and witnessed ascending to heaven are later legends.

I have to disagree, chronological expansion is not of itself always indicative of legend; indeed fact-based research and additional evidence based documentation can extend a core narrative without it being taken as legendary.

If any other story grew like this in chronological order, we would have no trouble identifying it as a legend.

Are you sure about that?


NOTE While there exists evidence that the gospels were penned at least a decade earlier than in this chart (starting with Matthew rather than Mark) , the point is to present a historically accepted narrative that developed /expanded over a similar time period rather than contest dates of authorship.




RELATED POST Is the trajectory of the gospels typical of most legend?
viewtopic.php?p=1184599#p1184599

"Chronological expansion" Haha! Good one.

I don't see that its "good" or "bad" its simply relevant to the discussion

CHRONOLOGICAL EXPANSION :

-- > Initial core (immediate)
Basic facts recorded close to the event

-- >Early additions (short-term)
Eyewitness perspectives

-- > Minor contextual details
Later expansions (decades)

-- > Memoirs, collected accounts
More complete narratives/Long-term development

I thought your central point was that growth in a chronological order can be considered evidence of legend ....

To clarify, I'm not saying the Resurrection belief was legendary. They obviously believed Jesus was resurrected early on. It's just that the stories where Jesus is touched and witnessed ascending to heaven are later legends. If any other story grew like this in chronological order, we would have no trouble identifying it as a legend.

Emphasis MINE

And my response was composed to support the point that that is certainly not automatically the case.

Given the Saratoga accounts I gave above, would you believe all those details if that's what the accounts actually said?