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 #40]

There is so much I would love to respond to in what you say but I am not at this time. Maybe as I have time, I will respond to some of the points one at a time. All I will say at this point is what you have come up with is a most incredible tale. All you are doing is to exchange one incredible tale for another and it does not matter which tale you believe to be more incredible. I will go on to tell you that there would have to be a tremendous amount involved in order for the events to play out in the exact way in which you describe. What you are demonstrating is that it is going to take a whole lot more than simply suggesting the story of the resurrection was a made-up story, because you understand the evidence will not allow this to be the case.

In the end you have taken up a whole lot of space and time, because none of what you have to say changes the fact that we can know beyond doubt that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to believing audiences at the time, addressing concerns at the time, with the authors having no concern nor any idea that what they were writing would be read by anyone else at all besides the believing audience at the time, which means we can know the overwhelming majority of the material contained in the NT was not an attempt by the authors to spread religious propaganda in order to persuade the masses.

This is what we were debating, and it seems certain from your last post that you are indeed conceding this to be the case. When and if I have time, I will address the points I choose from your last post to respond to.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #40]

While you argue that the New Testament’s internal consistency and the disciples’ sincerity point toward a miraculous resurrection

The first point I will make here is the fact that I have never made such an argument. I know I have not used the words "internal consistency" to describe the contents of the NT. I also know that I have not referred to the "sincerity" of the disciples because I know that it is a useless argument to make seeing as how folks being sincere would have nothing to do with the truth because folks can and have been sincerely in error, and or deceived.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #41]

What you are demonstrating is that it is going to take a whole lot more than simply suggesting the story of the resurrection was a made-up story, because you understand the evidence will not allow this to be the case.

In the end you have taken up a whole lot of space and time, because none of what you have to say changes the fact that we can know beyond doubt that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to believing audiences at the time, addressing concerns at the time, with the authors having no concern nor any idea that what they were writing would be read by anyone else at all besides the believing audience at the time, which means we can know the overwhelming majority of the material contained in the NT was not an attempt by the authors to spread religious propaganda in order to persuade the masses.

Early Christian writers writing to early Christians does not constitute evidence that what they were writing was correct.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #43]

Early Christian writers writing to early Christians does not constitute evidence that what they were writing was correct.

Agreed! And again, it would take a very simple mind to attempt to make such an argument. It kind of makes me wonder who you are attempting to debate since I have never, and would never make such a simple-minded argument?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #43]

Early Christian writers writing to early Christians does not constitute evidence that what they were writing was correct.

Agreed! And again, it would take a very simple mind to attempt to make such an argument. It kind of makes me wonder who you are attempting to debate since I have never, and would never make such a simple-minded argument?

I was going off your comment that....

What you are demonstrating is that it is going to take a whole lot more than simply suggesting the story of the resurrection was a made-up story, because you understand the evidence will not allow this to be the case.

....which I assumed meant that you considered Christians writing to other Christians stronger evidence than the case laid out for Christianity being employed for political reasons. In fact, you went so far as to assert of another poster that....

All you are doing is to exchange one incredible tale for another

Given the overtly political nature of human society, I hardly find that as incredible as an assertion that someone rose from the dead after three days.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #41]

In the end you have taken up a whole lot of space and time, because none of what you have to say changes the fact that we can know beyond doubt that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to believing audiences at the time, addressing concerns at the time, with the authors having no concern nor any idea that what they were writing would be read by anyone else at all besides the believing audience at the time, which means we can know the overwhelming majority of the material contained in the NT was not an attempt by the authors to spread religious propaganda in order to persuade the masses.

Even that being the case, My initial post in this thread was in reply to the Opening Post - which did not ask any question for debate and which I simply put the idea forth that how are we to ascertain that this whole story wasn't a useful fiction created through a combined effort of Roman and Jewish intellectuals designed to influence the masses, and I have maintained that line of thought.

Given that the actual gospels were presented well after the writings of Paul and those others, and regardless of whether we think these were written only with in mind for the people of those times who believed in what the letters had to say - to the particular churches they attended, there is enough evidence by the hindsight of our modern world position to ascertain that they well might have always been a useful fiction - rather than they simply could not be anything but true/based solely in fact.

It (perhaps) becomes beside the point as to whether the writers wrote what they did with in mind that what they wrote was religious propaganda meant to persuade the masses, and not simply to persuade those at the time who believed what was written, since history shows us that this was indeed what the writings (and other device) were used to do.

Certainly they were used to persuade that generation (and every other since) who believed that the end was near and that their resurrected Messiah would return "soon" while in the waiting time, power and influence could be used by the minority welding it over the majority, as a means of influence through "what was written".

That the writers may not have not have intended that, certainly the publishes saw that usefulness, so your protest is quite thin in the fact of actual history.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #45]

Allow me to attempt to take us back to where we have been, to where we are now. I will try to be as clear as possible so please attempt to read carefully. Responding to William, I said,

because you understand the evidence will not allow this to be the case.

To which you reply,

which I assumed meant that you considered Christians writing to other Christians stronger evidence than the case laid out for Christianity being employed for political reasons.

My first post on this thread was a response to William when they said,

How are we to ascertain that this whole story wasn't a useful fiction created through a combined effort of Roman and Jewish intellectuals designed to influence the masses?

William was responding to the OP, and as far as I can tell the OP only refers to what is contained in the NT. So then, if Wiliam is responding to the OP, and the OP only refers to the NT then it would seem as if when William refers to the "whole story" he must be referring to the content of the OP which again, as far as I can tell only refers to the content of the NT. Ergo, I responded by pointing out the fact that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in what has been called the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time who would have already been believers. Moreover, I believe both you and William have agreed that it would not have been possible for the story of the Resurrection to have been made up. Since this is the case, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT cannot be said to be reporting what the authors knew to be fiction, and since it can be demonstrated that the audience was already believers, then this demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of what has been contained in the NT was not an attempt to persuade the masses.

Ergo, when I say "William understands the evidence will not allow this to be the case" I am referring to the fact that the evidence from the NT will not allow one to come to the conclusion that the reports of the Resurrection was made up. Moreover, the facts and evidence will not allow one to come to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was intended to persuade the masses. In fact, no one can rightly insist that anything at all in the NT was intended to persuade the masses.

What we have just done is to eliminate the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT from the accusation of an attempt to persuade the masses, along with demonstrating that none of the NT can be insisted to have been an attempt to persuade the masses, and we can also eliminate the NT authors from having any sort of political reason.

The whole point here is any attempt to use Christianity to persuade the masses, any attempt to use Christianity as some sort of propaganda, useful fiction, or to employ Christianity for political reasons, would have had to have been well after the fact. However, even if any of these things have occurred, this would not have a thing in the world to do with whether or not what is reported by the authors contained in the NT would be true, or false. The fact of the matter is, not only do I agree that Christianity has been used in the ways you all describe, but it is also a fact that there are those here in the United States whose aim it is to do away with our freedoms, and they call themselves, "Christian nationalists." What I am struggling to understand is what in the world any of this would have to do with the writing contained in the NT?

I did respond to Wiliam with this,

All you are doing is to exchange one incredible tale for another

To which you respond,

Given the overtly political nature of human society, I hardly find that as incredible as an assertion that someone rose from the dead after three days.

First off, we have already determined that it would have been impossible for the story of the Resurrection to have been made up. Therefore, the authors contained in the NT could not have possibly made up the story of the Resurrection for political reasons. More importantly, if you have not already done so, you need to go back and read post #40 by William and determine how incredible such events would have to be. As I said to William, "it does not matter how much more incredible you think a resurrection would be." Rather, it is an incredible scenario, in an attempt to explain away another incredible scenario. I mean, all this incredible alternative explanation of the facts and evidence we have for the Resurrection is doing is to demonstrate that one understands very well that they must, and have to come up with some sort of alternative explanation, no matter how incredible the explanation may be. If there were no facts and evidence in support of the Resurrection, then there would be no need in any of these incredible alternative explanations. However, we know from the facts and evidence we have surrounding the Resurrection that the stories could not have been made up, and therefore we are forced to come up with some sort of explanation, no matter how extraordinary, as long as we are convinced that it is not as extraordinary as what we would rather not believe.

This is exactly why I continue to say, "I am not insisting that I am correct which means I am not insisting that I could not be in error, what I am insisting is, no one could possibly sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims of the Resurrection to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away believing there are easy answers on either side. It is not as easy as most Christians make it out to be, but it is not as easy as most unbelievers make it out to be. Either side you are on, you will end up with a most extraordinary tale, and it does not matter which tale you believe to be the least extraordinary."

The question now is, are you going to insist the claims of the Resurrection is false? I highly doubt you will take that option because you will not be able to demonstrate your case. Are you going to claim that what you believe concerning the claims of the resurrection is more likely? Exactly what is it you believe concerning the claims of the resurrection? Either way, if you want to claim what it is you believe concerning the resurrection is more likely, I will not argue with you, because I understand that the likelihoods do not get you anywhere closer to the truth. Or will you claim to be agnostic toward the resurrection? In this way, you will not have to take a stand one way or the other. My stance is, I am convinced that Jesus Christ rose from the dead because of the facts and evidence involved, but I do not insist I must and have to be correct, and understand the reasons for doubt and unbelief, and enjoy conversing with those who hold to a different conclusion because it allows me to think more deeply about what it is I believe.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #47]

Moreover, I believe both you and William have agreed that it would not have been possible for the story of the Resurrection to have been made up.

Ergo, when I say "William understands the evidence will not allow this to be the case" I am referring to the fact that the evidence from the NT will not allow one to come to the conclusion that the reports of the Resurrection was made up.

First off, we have already determined that it would have been impossible for the story of the Resurrection to have been made up.

This is not fact; it is merely a convenient assumption which you repeat. The discrepancies between the resurrection accounts constitute evidence that material was made up, so it has certainly not been "determined" that none of it was.


As for the political manipulation of a new religious movement being as incredible as someone rising from the dead after three days, I can only ask which has happened more often.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #48]

The discrepancies between the resurrection accounts constitute evidence that material was made up, so it has certainly not been "determined" that none of it was.

You need to make a stand. Was it just material was made up? Or was the story of the resurrection made up? Because you see, it is from the material which you claim was made up that the majority of even the critical scholars are forced to admit that the resurrection story was not made up. The reason they are forced to admit this is because of the facts and evidence coming from the same material which you claim was made up. Allow me to give you a few quotes from scholars who are not Christian.

Paula Fredriksen (historian and professor of religious studies at Boston University): “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw.

Gerd Lüdemann (atheistic NT professor at Göttingen): “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

Bart Ehrman (atheistic NT scholar): “It is undisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and that something had to have happened to make them think so.”

My friend, even if you are convinced material in the NT was made up, the evidence from this same material is so overwhelming that it would be impossible to deny the fact that the earliest followers of Jesus including the Apostles were somehow convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death. In other words, we can be certain that the reports of the resurrection were not made up, which I would suggest is the most vital point.

So, while I am sure you want to insist that some of the material was made up, I am not thinking you will want to insist that the reports of the resurrection were made up.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #49]

Paula Fredriksen (historian and professor of religious studies at Boston University): “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw.

Gerd Lüdemann (atheistic NT professor at Göttingen): “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

Bart Ehrman (atheistic NT scholar): “It is undisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and that something had to have happened to make them think so.”

Those who think that the story of the resurrection cannot have been made up, haven't thought things through - as far as I can tell, and certainly you have not produced any accompanying reasons as to WHY they think that is the case.

I ask myself, IF the story is true, THEN of what significance is it's truth?

If the ones quoted above think the story is true, then have they converted to Christianity or are they still atheists? If not, then WHY not?

Also, there is no dispute that Christians BELIEVE the story is true, but to what end is such belief - meaning - how is such belief helpful that it is best to believe it is true?

Is it a true story in the same way that the sun in the sky is a true thing? If so, why believe it to be true rather than KNOW it to be true?

And IF the use of belief is a part of the process from not believing the story is true, to knowing it is true, what use is that knowing, once belief is exchanged for knowing?