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.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #90]

I really would like to explain to you how much I appreciate this post. I cannot thank you enough. I have spent years, and years, studying this subject from both sides of the equation, and I do not believe I have ever read anything at all in all these years which gives me more confidence in what it is I already believe concerning the matter. I certainly plan to share this post with all of my Christian friends, because I am certain they as well will find your post to give them confidence in what it is they believe. I'm just telling you that I am being serious! I have read many apologetic books, and what you have typed out here trumps all these books in giving someone a reason to believe.

I mean, let us take a look at what you have conceded thus far,

1. An empty tomb.

2. Multiple, varied encounters with a being identified as Jesus.

3. Physical interactions (touching, eating).

4. Collective and individual appearances over 40 days.

5. A final, dramatic departure ("ascension").

But the thing is, it is not really what it is you have conceded more than it is the explanation you attempt to give. I mean, this explanation is by far the best material a Sunday School teacher could ever hope for. What I do not think you understand is the fact that I feel no need in discussing or debating the issue because I am happy conceding to the explanation because it demonstrates my argument that any explanation of the facts and evidence, we know is going to have to be extraordinary. Not only have you supplied us with an extraordinary explanation, but it is also by far the most extraordinary explanation I have ever heard. This goes on to demonstrate another argument of mine which is one will have to exchange one extraordinary tale, for another extraordinary tale, and you have certainly come up with a most extraordinary tale.

It is like you have gone to the extreme to come up with this most extraordinary tale, in order to convince yourself that you have eliminated the supernatural (which I have not been arguing for BTW) and what you have created is the best argument for the truth of the reports contained in the NT.

[William]

Here is a list of the essential OT stories/themes, each ripe for Ancient Earth Specie (AES) explanation:

1. Creation & The Garden of Eden

Christian Significance: The origin of humanity, the inherent "goodness" of creation, and the introduction of sin/death through disobedience.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: A controlled environment or preserve (the Garden) for a fledgling intelligent species. The "Tree of Knowledge" could be a restricted technology or information source. The "Fall" is a breach of protocol, leading to expulsion from the controlled environment into the broader, untamed world.

2. The Noahic Flood & Covenant

Christian Significance: God's judgment on sin, preservation of a remnant, and a universal covenant promise.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: A planetary "reset" or corrective action (via climate engineering/terraforming) following a failed experiment and catastrophic divergence.

3. The Abrahamic Covenant

Christian Significance: The founding of a chosen people through whom blessing and salvation would come.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: The selection of a specific genetic or cultural line for a long-term observation/guidance program. The promises (land, descendants) are project milestones.

4. The Exodus: Moses, Plagues, Passover, Red Sea

Christian Significance: God's powerful deliverance, forming a people, prefiguring salvation.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: A coordinated extraction and relocation operation. "Plagues" as targeted bioweapons or environmental disruption. The "Passover" is a identification protocol to spare the target group. The Red Sea as temporary terrain manipulation.

5. The Giving of the Law (Mosaic Covenant) at Sinai

Christian Significance: God's holy standard, the definition of sin, the structure for a holy society.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: The delivery of a social-operating system (civil, moral, and hygiene codes) to stabilize and elevate a primitive tribal society into a cohesive, sustainable culture. The thunder, fire, and smoke are atmospheric effects or display technology.

6. The Prophetic Tradition (e.g., Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel)

Christian Significance: God's communication, foretelling judgment, hope, and the coming Messiah.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: Designated communicators receiving information (via advanced means) about AES intentions, geopolitical events (presented as "predictions"), and long-term plans. Visions (Ezekiel's wheels, Daniel's beasts) could be veiled representations of AES tech for future events.

7. The Davidic Covenant & Messianic Hope

Christian Significance: God's promise of an eternal dynasty to David, fulfilled in Jesus as the Messianic king. This is the political/theological backbone for the Christmas story and Jesus's title "Son of David."

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: The establishment of a stable royal line as part of a long-term societal structure, possibly with the intent to produce or identify a specific individual (a "fulcrum" person like Jesus) later in the program. The "Messianic hope" could be an implanted cultural meme anticipating a future key interaction.

Mechanism: How could these events physically happen? (Advanced tech, environmental engineering, biotech, consciousness interaction.)

Motive: Why would they happen? (Scientific study, social engineering, pedagogical guidance, species development.)

Consistency: A single, coherent causal agent (the AES) acting across millennia with evolving tactics.

Strategic Impact:

For any thoughtful reader, it makes the traditional "God did it" explanation look like what it is: a placeholder that stops inquiry.

It transforms the Bible from a book of supernatural mysteries into a potential record of ancient contact and intervention.

It completely bypasses attempts at mockery (veiled or upfront). This isn't any more a "wild tale" than the Biblical stories it seeks to address. It's a systematic explanatory model presented with scholarly detachment.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #92]

1. Creation & The Garden of Eden

Christian Significance: The origin of humanity, the inherent "goodness" of creation, and the introduction of sin/death through disobedience.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: A controlled environment or preserve (the Garden) for a fledgling intelligent species. The "Tree of Knowledge" could be a restricted technology or information source. The "Fall" is a breach of protocol, leading to expulsion from the controlled environment into the broader, untamed world.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the reports of the resurrection in the NT. But thanks for the extraordinary explanation of the story concerning the Garden of Eden. Fantastic Sunday school material. One question I would have though, is the AESE only contained to explaining the Hebrew Christian religion? Or would it pertain to other religions as well?

2. The Noahic Flood & Covenant

Christian Significance: God's judgment on sin, preservation of a remnant, and a universal covenant promise.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: A planetary "reset" or corrective action (via climate engineering/terraforming) following a failed experiment and catastrophic divergence.

Again, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the reports contained in the NT. Are you suggesting that AESE can explain the whole of the Christian message reaching back thousands of years? This is a most extraordinary tale, on the same level as the supernatural.

3. The Abrahamic Covenant

Christian Significance: The founding of a chosen people through whom blessing and salvation would come.

Ancient Earth Specie Explanation: The selection of a specific genetic or cultural line for a long-term observation/guidance program. The promises (land, descendants) are project milestones.

Which if these seems more likely to you? In my mind, neither seems likely at all.

I am going to stop with this.

This isn't any more a "wild tale" than the Biblical stories it seeks to address.

Agreed! Which proves my point. You are willing to exchange an extraordinary tale, for another extraordinary tale, no matter how extraordinary it may be, as long as it does not involve what you would rather not believe.

[William]

The value of the Ancient Earthly Specie hypothesis is not in explaining one event in a vacuum, but in providing a single, coherent, naturalistic lens through which to view the entire tapestry of biblical narrative - from origins to covenants to prophetic encounters to the resurrection itself - as potentially stemming from interaction with a non-human intelligence. The following post outlines why this lens is not a 'wild tale,' but a serious, parsimonious, and scientifically-grounded alternative to supernaturalism.

Why the Ancient Earthly Specie (AES) Hypothesis Is a Serious Scientific Contender
Core Premise: This is a thought experiment in extreme naturalism. It takes the established timeline of Earth (4.5 billion years, life evolving over billions of years) and asks: If the extraordinary events reported in human history are based on real experiences, what is the most parsimonious natural explanation?

1. It Is Grounded in Earth's Demonstrated Potential.

We know Earth produces intelligent, technological life - we are proof.

Given deep time (hundreds of millions of years of complex life), it is statistically plausible, if not likely, that such intelligence arose more than once.

The AES is not an alien import; it is a potential earlier product of our own planet's evolutionary history.

2. It Is More Parsimonious Than Extraterrestrial Hypotheses.

ET Hypothesis: Requires interstellar travel - a monumental, unproven barrier.

AES Hypothesis: Requires only that evolution on a single planet repeated a successful outcome. This is the simpler explanation by Occam's Razor.

3. It Explains the Persistent, Intimate Focus on Humanity.

An interstellar visitor might survey and leave. Why would it care for millennia?

A terrestrial elder intelligence would have a inherent, long-term interest in its own planet's biosphere. Humanity could be its deliberate project, creation, or successor species - explaining a deep, sustained, and interactive involvement.

4. It Predicts the "Missing" Archaeological Evidence.

A civilization millions of years older than ours would leave traces erased by geology, or composed of advanced, unrecognizable materials (programmable matter, organic tech, nanoscale structures).

Its active presence would utilize advanced cloaking and base itself in realms we cannot thoroughly explore (deep ocean, subsurface, or other dimensions of reality).

5. It Unifies "High-Strangeness" Reports Across Human History.

It provides a single, coherent lens for phenomena otherwise placed in separate boxes:

Ancient "Divine" Encounters: Miracles, angels, resurrections (technological interactions).

Modern UAP Phenomena: UFOs, "alien" contacts (ongoing monitoring/interaction).

The Bible Itself: Not an AES-authored manual, but the human-generated contact narrative - a record of how our ancestors interpreted these experiences.

The common thread is interaction with a non-human intelligence; only the cultural interpretation changes.

6. It Replaces the Supernatural "Void" with a Natural Investigable Cause.

Labeling events "supernatural" declares them inexplicable - it ends historical and scientific inquiry.

The AES hypothesis keeps inquiry alive. It proposes a natural, intelligent cause with advanced but understandable technology, making extraordinary reports potentially explainable in principle.

7. It Suggests a Coherent Interaction Methodology.

The AES may not impose a "correct" interpretation. By providing experiences while allowing human mythology to develop, they could be studying how intelligence processes the unexplained - making our religions and stories the primary data of a long-term observational experiment.

Conclusion: A Challenge to Conventional Categories
The AES hypothesis is not a claim of proof. It is a demonstration of a profound possibility: that the most coherent explanation for humanity's deepest historical mysteries may not lie in the supernatural or in distant stars, but in the hidden chapters of our own planet's story. It challenges us to expand our view of what is "natural" and to consider that we may not be the first, nor the only, intelligent actors on Earth's stage.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #94]

Conclusion: A Challenge to Conventional Categories
The AES hypothesis is not a claim of proof. It is a demonstration of a profound possibility: that the most coherent explanation for humanity's deepest historical mysteries may not lie in the supernatural or in distant stars, but in the hidden chapters of our own planet's story. It challenges us to expand our view of what is "natural" and to consider that we may not be the first, nor the only, intelligent actors on Earth's stage.

That is your conclusion, and I have no problem with your conclusion. My conclusion is you have come to understand that there are enough facts and evidence to convince you that something far out of the ordinary around the reports of the death and resurrection of Jesus occurred, and these events must and has to have some sort of explanation. You seem to have settled upon one of the most, if not the most extraordinary explanation I have ever heard in my life, without the first shred of facts and evidence in support. In the end all you have done is to prove the whole point I have been attempting to make in that, we have the facts and evidence which demands some sort of explanation, and any explanation of the facts and evidence we have is going to be extraordinary. Again, your explanation is by far the most extraordinary I have ever heard. PERIOD!

[William]

The Coherent Causality Argument removes 'supernatural miracle' from the realm of valid historical explanation. Consequently, if the resurrection reports describe a real event, they must describe a natural one. The most parsimonious natural framework capable of accounting for the full scope of the data is the Ancient Earthly Specie (AES) hypothesis. The following breakdown shows how the entire narrative sequence functions as a coherent, staged disclosure protocol under this model.

The Resurrection as a Staged Disclosure Protocol: An AES Hypothesis Breakdown

Burial Witnessed: Women from Galilee, including Mary Magdalene, witness Jesus' burial by Joseph and Nicodemus. Some prepare spices afterward.

AES Point 1: Women serve as verified perceptual anchors to establish the death and burial as an uncontested baseline event.

Guard Request: On the Sabbath, chief priests secure Pilate's permission to seal and guard the tomb.

AES Point 2: The human (priestly/Roman) request for a guard inadvertently sets an official seal of security, raising the stakes and evidentiary value of the subsequent anomaly.

Tomb Opened: At night, an earthquake occurs; an angelic figure rolls back the stone, terrifying the guards. The tomb is found empty.

AES Point 3: The event at the tomb is a staged technological reveal using overwhelming sensory effects (light, sound, force) to incapacitate guards and create state-attested, adversarial witnesses.

Initial Discovery: Mary Magdalene finds the tomb empty at dawn, informs Peter and another disciple, who verify it and leave confused.

AES Point 4: The discovery by Peter and John is orchestrated friendly verification, providing a second layer of credible witness testimony to the core anomaly.

First Appearance: Mary remains, sees two angels, then encounters the resurrected Jesus. She reports to the disciples, who disbelieve.

AES Point 5: Mary Magdalene's encounter is the first personalized interface, using a recognizable biometric construct to deliver a specific message, transforming her into the first authorized agent.

Group Verification: Other women arrive with spices, find the tomb empty, and are met by angels who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee.

AES Point 6: The women's group discovery is collective, redundant verification, transforming the anomaly into a established social fact among followers.

Angel Instructions: Different groups of women receive the same angelic message to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.

AES Point 7: The angelic messages are tailored perceptual interfaces delivering a consistent, focused command to direct group movement to the next controlled location (Galilee).

Collective Appearance & Command: All the women meet Jesus on their return, worship Him, and receive the same Galilee instruction. The disciples still disbelieve.

AES Point 8: Jesus' appearance to the women is physical authentication and command reinforcement, using touch to override grief and solidify their role as messengers.

Peter's Pondering: Peter returns to the empty tomb alone, deep in thought.

AES Point 9: Peter's solitary return is targeted psychological preparation, creating a cognitive opening in a key leader for impending direct contact.

Road to Emmaus: Jesus appears to two disciples on the road, is recognized at meal, then vanishes. They report to the Eleven, who remain skeptical. Separate appearances to Peter and James are noted.

AES Point 10: The Emmaus and other appearances are modulated, multi-spectrum revelation targeting intellectual, personal, and leadership witnesses to build multiple independent pillars of testimony.

First Group Appearance: That evening, Jesus appears to the gathered disciples (minus Thomas), shows His wounds, and eats food to prove His physical resurrection.

AES Point 11: The appearance to the Ten is the definitive corporeal verification protocol, using wounds and mundane acts (eating) to prove physical resurrection to the core group.

Thomas's Proof: Eight days later, Jesus appears to all eleven, specifically inviting Thomas to examine His wounds, overcoming his doubt.

AES Point 12: The appearance to Thomas is the empirical doubt protocol, designed to convert the highest standard of skepticism into the most unequivocal testimony.

Galilee Reunion: Later, by the Sea of Galilee, Jesus appears to seven disciples, shares a meal, and restores Peter, focusing on mission.

AES Point 13: The Sea of Galilee appearance is normalization and mission transition, grounding the extraordinary in the ordinary and shifting focus from proof to purpose.

Great Commission & Ascension: On a mountain in Galilee, Jesus gives the Great Commission to all disciples. Forty days after the resurrection, He leads them to Bethany, blesses them, and ascends into a cloud. Two angels tell them to return to Jerusalem and await the Holy Spirit.

AES Point 14: The Ascension is the staged withdrawal and transition to remote operancy, concluding the physical contact phase and promising continued influence via a new mode ("Spirit"). Paul's summary confirms the phased disclosure campaign.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #95]

RWJ,

You state the AES hypothesis comes “without the first shred of facts and evidence in support.” This is a critical misunderstanding.

The primary facts and evidence are the biblical narratives themselves - the very accounts presented as the basis for this discussion. The hypothesis is built directly upon that evidence. It does not invent new events; it provides a new, coherent causal framework to explain the reported sequence.

Your objection reveals a telling inconsistency:

You treat the Bible as reliable evidence when arguing for the historicity of the disciples' experiences and the empty tomb, as do I, for the purpose of this enquiry.

In short: you accept the data but appear to have no explanation for it. When a coherent explanation is offered, you dismiss the data itself as insufficient, which is a contradiction.

The “shreds of facts and evidence” for the AES hypothesis are the recorded events of the empty tomb, the appearances, and the entire prophetic backstory. The hypothesis takes them seriously as reports of real experiences and provides a unified, natural answer to what best explains the cause of them.

Your response - to acknowledge its extraordinary explanatory scope while rejecting it for lacking "evidence" - demonstrates that your criterion is not the ability to coherently explain the data, but something else entirely, which you keep to yourself.

The discussion has reached its logical end. I have provided a complete, natural framework that explains the stipulated evidence. You have declined to engage it on its explanatory merits, offering only a critique of its category.

Readers can now clearly see the difference between an attempt to explain the evidence and a strategy to dismiss any explanation that falls outside a predetermined boundary.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #10]

The discussion has reached its logical end.

I'm afraid it has not, and not by a long shot.

You state the AES hypothesis comes “without the first shred of facts and evidence in support.” This is a critical misunderstanding.

Oh, it is not a misunderstanding, rather it is simply a fact.

The primary facts and evidence are the biblical narratives themselves

You are correct to say that the "biblical narratives" are facts and evidence, but I can assure you that the "biblical narratives" are not evidence of AES. Again, all you are doing is to demonstrate one who completely understands the facts and evidence we have surrounding the claims of the resurrection, and you also understand that you are forced to attempt to give some sort of alternative explanation, and it does not matter in the least to you that the explanation you are attempting to give is the most extraordinary explanation I have ever heard in my life, not to mention again, there is not a shred of facts and evidence to back such an extraordinary scenario up. There is not a shred of evidence that what you call AES had a thing in the world to do with the events concerning what we know about the death, burial, and empty tomb of Jesus.

It does not invent new events

Oh? But it does. It is suggesting an event some millions of years ago had something to do with the events surrounding the reports of a resurrection. This is indeed a "new event."

it provides a new, coherent causal framework to explain the reported sequence.

Without the first shred of evidence that AES ever existed, much less has a thing in the world to do with the events surrounding the resurrection.

You treat the Bible as reliable evidence when arguing for the historicity of the disciples' experiences and the empty tomb

This is false! I do not treat the Bible as reliable. Rather, I read the NT in such a way as to determine what it is we can know to be true, whether the material be reliable or not. I will assume you do not believe the reports in the NT to be reliable, but you certainly seem to believe there are certain things we can know to be true by reading the material, and thus far you have conceded the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, along with conceding the fact that His followers were truly convinced He had risen from the dead. One thing we cannot know by reading the NT, nor anything else is whether your AES would have had a thing in the world to do with anything in the NT. The thing is, we have no idea at all if there even is or was AES.

as do I, for the purpose of this enquiry.

No! It is not simply "for the purpose of this enquiry" because you know full well there are certain things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt by reading the NT whether it be reliable or not.

In short: you accept the data but appear to have no explanation for it.

I know the explanation given in the NT. I know the explanation given in the NT would answer all the questions involved and does not collapse under the weight of the facts and evidence. I know that the explanation given in the NT is unlikely because of the fact a resurrection would be extremely unlikely.

When a coherent explanation is offered, you dismiss the data itself as insufficient, which is a contradiction.

This is what is called, "fake news." How in the world am I dismissing the data as insufficient? I am not even dismissing your explanation. I am simply asking for some facts and evidence to support the idea that what you refer to as AES had a thing in the world to do with the reports in the NT.

The “shreds of facts and evidence” for the AES hypothesis are the recorded events of the empty tomb, the appearances, and the entire prophetic backstory. The hypothesis takes them seriously as reports of real experiences and provides a unified, natural answer to what best explains the cause of them.

What are the facts and evidence in support of the fact that AES best explains the events we know occurred? We have no evidence of AES PERIOD! We do have evidence of a resurrection, because we have those who testified to such an event, and we also know beyond a reasonable doubt that these folks were reporting what they believed to be fact. We have facts and evidence strong enough to know this. As far as I know we have no evidence at all concerning AES, much less the idea that this AES had a thing in the world to do with the reports of a resurrection.

Your response - to acknowledge its extraordinary explanatory scope while rejecting it for lacking "evidence" - demonstrates that your criterion is not the ability to coherently explain the data, but something else entirely, which you keep to yourself.

No! My response is to acknowledge that a resurrection would be an extraordinary explanation and going on to acknowledge that any other explanation of the facts we can know will have to be extraordinary and it does not matter in the least which you believe to be the least extraordinary. You are for certain demonstrating my case, because you are certainly demonstrating one who is willing to accept any explanation at all, no matter how extraordinary it may be, nor whether or not there is any evidence in support of such an extraordinary explanation.

Listen, I am fine with whatever explanation you would rather believe, and if AES is the explanation you would rather believe then I have no problem with that in the least. However, you would have to agree that you are exchanging one extraordinary tale for another extraordinary tale.

Readers can now clearly see the difference between an attempt to explain the evidence and a strategy to dismiss any explanation that falls outside a predetermined boundary.

Again, I am not dismissing your explanation at all. I am simply acknowledging the fact that such an explanation is an extraordinary explanation, and it is by far the most extraordinary alternative explanation I have ever heard.

I am just telling you that this is the most incredible thing I have ever experienced on this site. I am used to hearing folks here attempt to explain an alternative explanation that sounds reasonable to begin with, until you begin to compare such an alternative to the facts and evidence we have, and then one begins to see just how unlikely such a scenario would be. What I have never, ever witnessed on this site, nor anywhere else, is one who understands how strong the evidence we have in support of the resurrection, who attempts to come up with an explanation in an attempt to eliminate the supernatural, who ends up with an explanation which would be on the same plain as far as the extraordinary is concerned, as a resurrection. It is like I cannot believe what I am reading, because the explanation you attempt to give, is by far the best apologetic for the resurrection I have ever heard in my life.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #10]

The discussion has reached its logical end.

I'm afraid it has not, and not by a long shot.

You state the AES hypothesis comes “without the first shred of facts and evidence in support.” This is a critical misunderstanding.

Oh, it is not a misunderstanding, rather it is simply a fact.

The primary facts and evidence are the biblical narratives themselves

You are correct to say that the "biblical narratives" are facts and evidence, but I can assure you that the "biblical narratives" are not evidence of AES. Again, all you are doing is to demonstrate one who completely understands the facts and evidence we have surrounding the claims of the resurrection, and you also understand that you are forced to attempt to give some sort of alternative explanation, and it does not matter in the least to you that the explanation you are attempting to give is the most extraordinary explanation I have ever heard in my life, not to mention again, there is not a shred of facts and evidence to back such an extraordinary scenario up. There is not a shred of evidence that what you call AES had a thing in the world to do with the events concerning what we know about the death, burial, and empty tomb of Jesus.

It does not invent new events

Oh? But it does. It is suggesting an event some millions of years ago had something to do with the events surrounding the reports of a resurrection. This is indeed a "new event."

it provides a new, coherent causal framework to explain the reported sequence.

Without the first shred of evidence that AES ever existed, much less has a thing in the world to do with the events surrounding the resurrection.

You treat the Bible as reliable evidence when arguing for the historicity of the disciples' experiences and the empty tomb

This is false! I do not treat the Bible as reliable. Rather, I read the NT in such a way as to determine what it is we can know to be true, whether the material be reliable or not. I will assume you do not believe the reports in the NT to be reliable, but you certainly seem to believe there are certain things we can know to be true by reading the material, and thus far you have conceded the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, along with conceding the fact that His followers were truly convinced He had risen from the dead. One thing we cannot know by reading the NT, nor anything else is whether your AES would have had a thing in the world to do with anything in the NT. The thing is, we have no idea at all if there even is or was AES.

as do I, for the purpose of this enquiry.

No! It is not simply "for the purpose of this enquiry" because you know full well there are certain things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt by reading the NT whether it be reliable or not.

In short: you accept the data but appear to have no explanation for it.

I know the explanation given in the NT. I know the explanation given in the NT would answer all the questions involved and does not collapse under the weight of the facts and evidence. I know that the explanation given in the NT is unlikely because of the fact a resurrection would be extremely unlikely.

When a coherent explanation is offered, you dismiss the data itself as insufficient, which is a contradiction.

This is what is called, "fake news." How in the world am I dismissing the data as insufficient? I am not even dismissing your explanation. I am simply asking for some facts and evidence to support the idea that what you refer to as AES had a thing in the world to do with the reports in the NT.

The “shreds of facts and evidence” for the AES hypothesis are the recorded events of the empty tomb, the appearances, and the entire prophetic backstory. The hypothesis takes them seriously as reports of real experiences and provides a unified, natural answer to what best explains the cause of them.

What are the facts and evidence in support of the fact that AES best explains the events we know occurred? We have no evidence of AES PERIOD! We do have evidence of a resurrection, because we have those who testified to such an event, and we also know beyond a reasonable doubt that these folks were reporting what they believed to be fact. We have facts and evidence strong enough to know this. As far as I know we have no evidence at all concerning AES, much less the idea that this AES had a thing in the world to do with the reports of a resurrection.

Your response - to acknowledge its extraordinary explanatory scope while rejecting it for lacking "evidence" - demonstrates that your criterion is not the ability to coherently explain the data, but something else entirely, which you keep to yourself.

No! My response is to acknowledge that a resurrection would be an extraordinary explanation and going on to acknowledge that any other explanation of the facts we can know will have to be extraordinary and it does not matter in the least which you believe to be the least extraordinary. You are for certain demonstrating my case, because you are certainly demonstrating one who is willing to accept any explanation at all, no matter how extraordinary it may be, nor whether or not there is any evidence in support of such an extraordinary explanation.

Listen, I am fine with whatever explanation you would rather believe, and if AES is the explanation you would rather believe then I have no problem with that in the least. However, you would have to agree that you are exchanging one extraordinary tale for another extraordinary tale.

Readers can now clearly see the difference between an attempt to explain the evidence and a strategy to dismiss any explanation that falls outside a predetermined boundary.

Again, I am not dismissing your explanation at all. I am simply acknowledging the fact that such an explanation is an extraordinary explanation, and it is by far the most extraordinary alternative explanation I have ever heard.

I am just telling you that this is the most incredible thing I have ever experienced on this site. I am used to hearing folks here attempt to explain an alternative explanation that sounds reasonable to begin with, until you begin to compare such an alternative to the facts and evidence we have, and then one begins to see just how unlikely such a scenario would be. What I have never, ever witnessed on this site, nor anywhere else, is one who understands how strong the evidence we have in support of the resurrection, who attempts to come up with an explanation in an attempt to eliminate the supernatural, who ends up with an explanation which would be on the same plain as far as the extraordinary is concerned, as a resurrection. It is like I cannot believe what I am reading, because the explanation you attempt to give, is by far the best apologetic for the resurrection I have ever heard in my life.

Why are you addressing this to me?

[William]

What are the facts and evidence in support of the fact that AES best explains the events we know occurred?

Those have already been presented in my other posts in this thread, which you have YET to address properly.

Your response - to acknowledge its extraordinary explanatory scope while rejecting it for lacking "evidence" - demonstrates that your criterion is not the ability to coherently explain the data, but something else entirely, which you keep to yourself.

No! My response is to acknowledge that a resurrection would be an extraordinary explanation...

Then we are talking past each other. You are saying the resurrection is an extraordinary event and I agree. You appear to also be saying that the witness mapped in the Opening Post #1 of this thread are extraordinary, which I agree. What you don't seem to understand is that I have mapped out an overall explanation for - not only the resurrection, but for every other story in the Bible.
What you also don't appear to understand is alongside that, IF you demand evidence for such an extraordinary thing as the AES as an explanation for such an extraordinary thing as the bible stories, THEN you will have to explain why you can accept any of the extraordinary stories in the bible, without any explanation as to how those extraordinary things came to actually happen.

If you are saying that you don't believe ALL the bible stories happened, but you do believe the resurrection happened BUT you don't care to know HOW it happened or WHY it happened, then we have identified why we are now talking past each other.

is one who understands how strong the evidence we have in support of the resurrection, who attempts to come up with an explanation in an attempt to eliminate the supernatural

The supernatural has already been eliminated. You chose to ignore that by refusing to examine the post in the link I gave, on the weak ground that you don't mix threads.
If you want to actually argue for a supernatural explanation, do so. Otherwise , it is irrelevent.