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 #70]

I have never presented any argument here that the resurrection did not occur.

I am not saying you have. What I am doing is to demonstrate that the argument you are attempting to use can be used on you as well. Although you may have never made such an argument, you certainly seem to be certain that it did not.

Given that definition, do you agree then that the resurrection was a supernatural event?

I could not possibly agree to such a thing, since there would be no way in which to demonstrate this to be the case. What I am insisting is, the question of the resurrection is a historical question, rather than a scientific question. Science can only help us out in so far as to explain to us that a resurrection would be scientifically impossible. Again, simply because such an event would be scientifically impossible, does not demonstrate anything other than, if a resurrection occurred, science would not be able to explain it, since such an event would be outside the realm of science.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #70]

I have never presented any argument here that the resurrection did not occur.

I am not saying you have. What I am doing is to demonstrate that the argument you are attempting to use can be used on you as well. Although you may have never made such an argument, you certainly seem to be certain that it did not.

Given that definition, do you agree then that the resurrection was a supernatural event?

I could not possibly agree to such a thing, since there would be no way in which to demonstrate this to be the case. What I am insisting is, the question of the resurrection is a historical question, rather than a scientific question. Science can only help us out in so far as to explain to us that a resurrection would be scientifically impossible. Again, simply because such an event would be scientifically impossible, does not demonstrate anything other than, if a resurrection occurred, science would not be able to explain it, since such an event would be outside the realm of science.

If you cannot affirm a supernatural cause, then the only remaining category for the cause is natural (i.e., within the system of nature, even if currently unknown).

To argue otherwise is to seek to have it both ways.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #72]

If you cannot affirm a supernatural cause, then the only remaining category for the cause is natural (i.e., within the system of nature, even if currently unknown).

I am afraid there are many things you and I have "affirmed" over the weeks we have been conversing. There is no way in which to list them all here, but I have posted on the other thread now and have given at least some of the things we have affirmed there. viewtopic.php?p=1182123#p1182123

The point I am making is, simply because we have not affirmed a "supernatural cause" does not necessitate a natural cause. The fact is, we have affirmed the reports were not fabricated, in that those who were reporting were bearing false witness. Rather, we have affirmed that they were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death. Moreover, we have not affirmed that what was reported was false. So then, we have not affirmed the cause to be either supernatural, or natural.

To argue otherwise is to seek to have it both ways.

How is it to "seek to have it both ways" to acknowledge what we have affirmed, as opposed to what we have not affirmed, and go on to acknowledge that we have not affirmed the cause to be either natural or supernatural?

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #73]

In historical inquiry, we seek causes that are investigable - causes within the natural world that can be understood through evidence and reason, even if currently unknown. A 'supernatural' cause, defined as a force outside nature and beyond understanding, is not a competing type of explanation. It is, by definition, an abandonment of historical explanation - a label for the inexplicable.

So the real choice is not between 'natural' and 'supernatural.' It is between:

Seeking a natural cause (known or unknown) within a coherent reality, or

Declaring the event historically inexplicable and placing it in the 'supernatural' void.

Your position tries to have it both ways: you treat the resurrection as a historical event but avoid classifying its cause, because to call it 'supernatural' ends rational inquiry, and to call it 'natural' opens the door to explanations that might well challenge what has since built up around it - that being the historical influencing of the masses.

This is why your stance is untenable. We do not need to "affirm" a natural cause. The default position in historical inquiry is to seek natural explanations. A supernatural claim is the extraordinary assertion that requires affirmative evidence, as it proposes a cause outside all known/knowable systems.

Saying we have not affirmed the cause to be either is an attempt to place the resurrection in a special, exempted category. But if the event happened in history, it must have had a cause that is either part of the natural world or not. By refusing to classify it, one avoids acknowledging that one's position (a literal resurrection) necessarily implies a supernatural cause, as a natural resurrection is a contradiction to what we know about nature.

Perhaps you are trying to keep the discussion in the “safe” zone of testimony (“they saw him!”) while avoiding the follow-up: “What does that testimony actually describe, and what could have caused it?”?

Based on a coherent metaphysical framework where 'supernatural' denotes an explanatory void, a supernatural cause for the resurrection is incoherent as a historical explanation. Therefore, any genuine historical investigation must seek a natural cause - a cause operating within a consistent, understandable framework, even if currently unknown. This is the only path forward that doesn't abandon the historical method.

This isn't just a debate about historical method. It's about what constitutes a coherent explanation. While you were away, I formalized an argument on this point, which I'll summarize here because it directly addresses why I can state the following categorically:

The Coherent Causality Argument (Summary):

A 'supernatural' cause is defined as being beyond scientific understanding and natural law.

Such a cause is, by definition, outside any framework of evidence or coherent explanation. It labels the unknown as unknowable.

Therefore, a 'supernatural cause' cannot function as a historical explanation - it is an explanatory dead end.

Consequently, for any historical event to be explainable, its cause must be natural (i.e., part of a broader, coherent reality operating by consistent principles, even if currently unknown to us).
____________________________________________________________

Based on this, the resurrection cannot have had a supernatural cause - not as a matter of personal belief, but as a requirement for coherent historical inquiry. A 'supernatural resurrection' is an oxymoron in historical terms.

Therefore, the only productive path forward is to investigate natural possibilities that could explain the disciples' testified experiences. The door to supernatural causation is closed not by prejudice, but by logic - it is a conceptual void that explains nothing.

Would you like to engage with the full argument, or address why a cause that is 'beyond understanding and evidence' should be considered a valid historical explanation for the resurrection?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #74]

Thank you for the response. I really appreciate the conversation because it is certainly beneficial for me. With that being said, allow us to take one thing at a time so as to not bogged the conversation down.

In historical inquiry, we seek causes that are investigable - causes within the natural world that can be understood through evidence and reason, even if currently unknown. A 'supernatural' cause, defined as a force outside nature and beyond understanding, is not a competing type of explanation. It is, by definition, an abandonment of historical explanation - a label for the inexplicable.

So the real choice is not between 'natural' and 'supernatural.' It is between:

Seeking a natural cause (known or unknown) within a coherent reality, or

Declaring the event historically inexplicable and placing it in the 'supernatural' void.

But the thing is, I am not arguing for a supernatural explanation. You sound as if you may be an actual historian. If this is the case, I appreciate your expertise and also sharing this expertise with me. With that being said, allow us to look at a quote from another historian scholar in order to discuss what she has to say,

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.

This is only part of the quote, and we will address the rest as we go. The first thing I will point out is the fact that Fredriksen begins by saying, "I know." She later says, "as a historian I know," and I believe we can apply this here as well. In other words, she as a historian is claiming to "know'" what she is about to say, and what she claims to "know as a historian" is "in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus." So then, the evidence according to this historian is that these folks at the very least were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death.

Okay, with this being the case, what has convinced this historian that this is indeed the case? Well, according to her, "all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw." So then, it is "all the historic evidence we have." Is this historian in any way suggesting that this should be classified as a supernatural event? I do not believe she is doing this in the least, and I believe this is demonstrated by what she has to say next.

I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus.

So then, what this historian is telling us we can "know" is that the early followers (which would include the Apostles) were truly convinced in what they saw. What we cannot know is if this is what "they really did see." The next question I would have for this historian would be, what is the natural explanation for these things you claim to know? Her answer?

I don’t know what they saw.

My question to you now is, has this historian left the realm of the natural by acknowledging that she does not know? I do not believe she has. Rather, I believe she is just acknowledging that she knows of no known explanation which could explain it. However, as a historian, what does she tell us we can "know?"

But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.

The point is this historian has no known natural explanation for what she claims we can "know", but she claims we can "know" this to be the case because of the facts and evidence we have. Are we leaving the natural for the supernatural here? I do not believe we have, but I do know we are still searching for a natural explanation which would be likely.

I will end here with the quotes of the two New Testament scholars I referred to.

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.

Ehrman does not give us any explanation which would be likely but rather assures us that "any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a resurrection." All I can tell you is, Ehrman will have no argument from me concerning this to being the case. However, what Ehrman is acknowledging is the fact that all the alternative explanations are not very likely at all. It is just that no matter how unlikely they may be, they are still more likely than a resurrection. In the end, he is willing to exchange one unlikely tale, for another unlikely tale, and it does not seem to matter to him how unlikely the tale may be as long as we do not choose the most unlikely.

Now let us move on to the other atheist NT scholar and see what it is he has to say,

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.

Here again we have a NT scholar who is not a Christian telling us we can be "certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Again, all these scholars are telling us what we can know and then going on to acknowledge what we cannot know. They are able to do this by using the historical method. In other words, they are not appealing to the supernatural but are rather appealing to the historical method.

The bottom line here is the fact that whether one is a historian or not, or a scholar or not, there is a fine line between something being unlikely, as opposed to being out of the ordinary. I believe what we are discovering is, at the very least, we are dealing with the extraordinary. In other words, no matter the explanation of the facts we can know in this case, I think we will have to agree that we are dealing with the extraordinary.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #75]

Are you conflating 'extraordinary' (rare, unexplained, but still within nature) with 'supernatural' (outside nature, beyond explanation)?
The scholars you cite are doing the former - they acknowledge an extraordinary event but apparently do not go so far as to offer any natural explanation.

If you are not arguing for a supernatural cause, you agree with them. If we are to seek explanation, we must seek a natural explanation, no matter how extraordinary it seems.

But if you believe the event is so extraordinary that it cannot be explained naturally - that it points to a cause outside nature - then you are arguing for a supernatural cause, regardless of whether you say the word, that is your position.

This is not a third option. It's a choice:

Natural cause (unknown but investigable), or

Supernatural cause (an explanatory dead end).

This is why my Coherent Causality Argument is crucial: it demonstrates that a 'supernatural cause' is an explanatory dead end. The only coherent path for historical inquiry is to pursue a natural cause, no matter how extraordinary the event appears. Your scholars are on that path. Are you?"

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #76]

Your scholars are on that path. Are you?"

I'm thinking you and I have been on this path for a number of weeks now, and I believe we have made some very significant progress as we have been able to affirm a number of things together. I will not at this time attempt to list all the things we have affirmed together, but I believe we have now affirmed something else, and that is we seem to have affirmed that the events no matter the explanation are extraordinary. Not only have we affirmed the events to be extraordinary, but also, I believe we have affirmed that any explanation of the events will have to be extraordinary.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #77]

Are you conflating 'extraordinary' (rare, unexplained, but still within nature) with 'supernatural' (outside nature, beyond explanation)?
The scholars you cite are doing the former - they acknowledge an extraordinary event but apparently do not go so far as to offer any natural explanation.

If you are not arguing for a supernatural cause, you agree with them. If we are to seek explanation, we must seek a natural explanation, no matter how extraordinary it seems.

But if you believe the event is so extraordinary that it cannot be explained naturally - that it points to a cause outside nature - then you are arguing for a supernatural cause, regardless of whether you say the word, that is your position.

This is not a third option. It's a choice:

Natural cause (unknown but investigable), or

Supernatural cause (an explanatory dead end).

This is why my Coherent Causality Argument is crucial: it demonstrates that a 'supernatural cause' is an explanatory dead end. The only coherent path for historical inquiry is to pursue a natural cause, no matter how extraordinary the event appears. Your scholars are on that path. Are you?"

I'm thinking you and I have been on this path for a number of weeks now, and I believe we have made some very significant progress as we have been able to affirm a number of things together. I will not at this time attempt to list all the things we have affirmed together, but I believe we have now affirmed something else, and that is we seem to have affirmed that the events no matter the explanation are extraordinary. Not only have we affirmed the events to be extraordinary, but also, I believe we have affirmed that any explanation of the events will have to be extraordinary.

extraordinary
/ɪkˈstrɔːd(ɪ)n(ə)ri,ɛkˈstrɔːd(ɪ)n(ə)ri,ˌɛkstrəˈɔːd(ɪ)n(ə)ri/
adjective
1.
very unusual or remarkable.


affirm
/əˈfəːm/
verb
past tense: affirmed; past participle: affirmed
1.
state emphatically or publicly.

Great. It is now affirmed that we both agree we are not using the word "extraordinary" to mean "supernatural" and this agreement means we can now move in examining my initial post question:

Re: The consistent events from Jesus' burial to His ascension
Post #9
Post by William » Fri Jan 02, 2026 6:11 pm

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Q: 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?

useful
/ˈjuːsf(ʊ)l/
adjective
able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways.

fiction
/ˈfɪkʃn/
something that is invented or untrue.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #78]

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?

I believe this was the first question I responded to on this thread, and my point continues to stand. I have no idea about the Romans, or the Jewish intellectuals or what they would have to do with anything. What I do know is, the Romans, and the Jewish Intellectuals did not have a thing in the world to do with the fact that we have enough facts and evidence in order to convince most all scholars that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up. They also did not have a thing in the world to do with the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to those who already believed, demonstrating that this material was not an attempt to convert the unbeliever in order to influence the masses.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #78]

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?

I believe this was the first question I responded to on this thread, and my point continues to stand. I have no idea about the Romans, or the Jewish intellectuals or what they would have to do with anything. What I do know is, the Romans, and the Jewish Intellectuals did not have a thing in the world to do with the fact that we have enough facts and evidence in order to convince most all scholars that the reports of the resurrection could not have been made up. They also did not have a thing in the world to do with the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to those who already believed, demonstrating that this material was not an attempt to convert the unbeliever in order to influence the masses.

You may be correct that the earliest belief (the disciples' conviction) wasn't invented by later Roman/Jewish elites. That's the 'kernel.' My question is about the developed narrative -the 'shell' -and its social function. The New Testament texts, written by believers to believers, are tools for community shaping, doctrinal unity, and behavioral control. That is 'influencing the masses' - the masses of adherents - to create a stable, enduring movement. The 'useful fiction' isn't necessarily about the origin of the belief, but about the utility of the story for building and managing a society. Remember Jesus' commision to those disciples - "Go into ALL the WORLD..."

Focus on the Unexplained Kernel. We agree the disciples were convinced by something extraordinary. We agree we're seeking a natural explanation. The 'useful fiction' question arises after we identify that natural cause: once this extraordinary experience occurred, how was its story told, and to what end? But first, we must identify the cause. We agree that it's not supernatural. So, let's propose and evaluate specific natural explanations (e.g., visionary experiences, possible contact with a non-human intelligence). Which natural hypotheses (if any) do you find plausible, and why?