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 #80]

You may be correct that the earliest belief (the disciples' conviction) wasn't invented by later Roman/Jewish elites.

It is not just that I may be correct, rather this is a fact which cannot be denied.

My question is about the developed narrative -the 'shell' -and its social function.

Which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin. I mean, we have established that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT had nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to persuade the masses, because we have determined the intention of the majority of the NT. Moving on to a later narrative, does not tell us anything at all concerning the reports of the resurrection.

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.

Again, even if this were correct, it tells us nothing concerning the reports of the resurrection. In other words, moving ahead to understand how a religion has been used, and or abused does not tell us if there is any reason to believe the religion to be true or false.

Remember Jesus' commision to those disciples - "Go into ALL the WORLD..."

My friend, those folks are no longer with us today, and so they are no longer going into all the world preaching the gospel. We also have to keep in mind that we have already established that those who were given this commission, were not reporting what they knew to be false, and their intention had nothing whatsoever to do with controlling the masses. What we are attempting to do is to determine how the reports came to be in the first place and moving ahead in order to determine how what they reported was somehow used, and or abused does nothing as far as the truth of the claims.

Focus on the Unexplained Kernel.

The "unexplained kernel" you are referring to has nothing whatsoever to do with it. ZERO! Allow me to attempt to explain it this way. In Second Corinthians chapter 10 Paul tells the Corinthians, "We take every thought captive." Okay, there are many Christians today who tell us that Paul is commanding us as Christians to "take every thought captive." However, if you go back and read this passage in its context you will discover this has nothing whatsoever to do with the intention of Paul. In other words, Paul was not commanding the Corinthians to "take every thought captive" and the Corinthians certainly would not have understood it to be a command to them. Rather, this was a warning to the Corinthians from Paul, that if they (the Corinthians) did not straighten up their act, they would discover that Paul & company "take every thought captive" and there is no doubt that this is the way in which the Corinthians understood it.

So then, we have just established the intention of Paul in this passage, and we have also established the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians have used and abused this passage. However, it does not matter in the least how these Christians have used and abused this passage, because we have just determined the original intention of the passage. In the same way, even if we were to move ahead and discover how a religion has been used and abused in order to influence the masses, this would tell us nothing of the original intent, nor would it tell us if there would be any reason to believe the religion.

We agree we're seeking a natural explanation.

Correct, and we are not doing very well at all. The fact is, we are not the only ones involved here because there have been many, many, throughout the years who have endeavored such a task and none of the natural explanations are very likely at all.

The 'useful fiction' question arises after we identify that natural cause:

Exactly my point! However, you have already moved ahead acting as if what may have occurred later would have some sort of impact back in time.

We agree that it's not supernatural.

I don't think we have agreed to this. I believe what we have agreed to is to search for a natural explanation which would be likely.

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?

My friend, I have been at this for some 30 years now, and I have failed to come up with, or hear of any natural explanation which would be likely at all. I can tell you this, when I hear someone throw out the idea that "non-human intelligence" may have been involved, it explains a lot to me.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #81]

We agree that it's not supernatural.

I don't think we have agreed to this. I believe what we have agreed to is to search for a natural explanation which would be likely.

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?

My friend, I have been at this for some 30 years now, and I have failed to come up with, or hear of any natural explanation which would be likely at all. I can tell you this, when I hear someone throw out the idea that "non-human intelligence" may have been involved, it explains a lot to me.

I see. Before we can move to examining the ground of ascertaining whether useful fiction and influencing the masses might be involved, we first need to establish common ground in order to avoid talking past one another...

Help me understand your process. You say no natural explanation is 'likely at all.' To make that judgment, you must have:

Identified the leading natural hypotheses.

Evaluated them against the evidence.

Found them wanting.

Could you please specifically list all of these natural explanations you have considered and briefly explain why you have rejected them?

Don't forget to include "non-human intelligence" since that too is a natural explanation...

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #82]

You say no natural explanation is 'likely at all.

This is not what I said. What I am saying is, I myself have been at this for some 30 years now, along with the fact that there have been others who dedicate their lives to the study, and I have not come across an alternative explanation which could be considered likely.

This has been going on now for some 2000 years, and it would be impossible to go through each one and give an analysis of each and every one, and I am not going to attempt such an endeavor in this type of format. I just do not have the time. What I will do is to take a look at the very first explanation which would naturally arise in our minds, and that is the possibility that these early followers somehow got together in order to devise a plan in order to deceive. Well, it does not take very long at all to come to understand that not only would such a scenario be highly unlikely, but we also know that it would have been impossible. And this is how it goes, and you move on to the next, and sooner or later you end up where Dr. Bart Ehrman is, where you simply have to acknowledge how unlikely any of the scenarios are, and simply go with the fact that any of these other scenarios, no matter how unlikely they would be, are more likely than a resurrection.

You see, I am not satisfied with such an answer, and if I were to bet, I would say that Ehrman himself is not satisfied with the answer, but that is all he has after years, and years of study. I think what we are beginning to understand is the fact that there is no scenario which will be likely. All the natural explanations become unlikely when we compare them to the facts and evidence we can know. The explanation which is given by those who make the reports is not unlikely when compared to the facts and evidence we know, rather this explanation becomes unlikely because it is not a natural explanation.

So then, we have all these natural explanations which collapse under the weight of the facts and evidence we have, while we have what was actually reported which does not collapse under the facts and evidence, but rather becomes unlikely because it is not a natural explanation.

Don't forget to include "non-human intelligence" since that too is a natural explanation...

Yeah! It is a natural explanation, and what it explains to me is that there are those who will consider any alternative at all, as long as we do not consider what it is they would rather not believe.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #83]

Don't forget to include "non-human intelligence" since that too is a natural explanation...

Yeah! It is a natural explanation, and what it explains to me is that there are those who will consider any alternative at all, as long as we do not consider what it is they would rather not believe.

True. I would rather not believe that non-human intelligences explained in the bible (as God, angels et al) are supernatural.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #84]

Thank you, because all you have done is to demonstrate one who has no interest in the truth of the matter, and the facts and evidence does not matter, because all that matters is not having to consider what it is one would rather not believe. You have no explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would be likely in the least, and you have no answers. However, explanations, facts, evidence, and answers can never get in the way of what one would rather not believe.

I have no interest in having you believe, I am simply demonstrating there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe, and one can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic in order to arrive to belief. It does not take facts, evidence, reason, and logic to come to conclude that I will believe anything at all, no matter how unlikely it would be, as long as it does not involve what I would rather not believe.

I genuinely appreciate the conversation because it has certainly been beneficial for me.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #84]

Thank you, because all you have done is to demonstrate one who has no interest in the truth of the matter, and the facts and evidence does not matter, because all that matters is not having to consider what it is one would rather not believe. You have no explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would be likely in the least, and you have no answers. However, explanations, facts, evidence, and answers can never get in the way of what one would rather not believe.

I have no interest in having you believe, I am simply demonstrating there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe, and one can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic in order to arrive to belief. It does not take facts, evidence, reason, and logic to come to conclude that I will believe anything at all, no matter how unlikely it would be, as long as it does not involve what I would rather not believe.

Here you have just performed a classic, full retreat into accusation. You have abandoned substantive debate and are now solely attacking my motives. This is a concession of intellectual defeat.

What you have done:

Psychologized my position by accusing me of having "no interest in the truth," that evidence "does not matter," and that I am are driven purely by an emotional refusal to believe. This is ad hominem.

Ignored my central argument: You do not address my Coherent Causality Argument (which dismantles supernatural explanations). You do not respond to my point about classifying biblical entities as non-human intelligences.

Straw-manned my stance: You claim I have "no explanation" and "no answers." This is false. I have offered a framework for explanation which can be discussed (natural causes, including non-human intelligences) and a methodological critique (supernaturalism is an explanatory void). You simply dismissed these without engagement.

Declared Victory by Fiat: You have stated you are "simply demonstrating there are facts... to believe." But you have not demonstrated that those facts lead uniquely to a supernatural resurrection. You have only demonstrated that they lead to the disciples' sincere belief - a point I already conceded.

What this means:
Any further discussion is functionally over. You cannot or will not engage with the philosophical and historical substance. You retreated to preaching and moral accusation.

I genuinely appreciate the conversation because it has certainly been beneficial for me.

Then go and enjoy the self congratulations of smug disengagement. Perhaps your arm is indeed long enough to genuinely pat yourself on the back.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #86]

Here you have just performed a classic, full retreat into accusation. You have abandoned substantive debate and are now solely attacking my motives. This is a concession of intellectual defeat.

My friend, I can only respond to what you have to say in one post at a time. Here is the whole content of your last post which I was responding to.

True. I would rather not believe that non-human intelligences explained in the bible (as God, angels et al) are supernatural.

Not a whole lot there to respond to, and you are admitting to believing what you would rather believe. It is not a retreat, it just seem to me the conversation had ran its course if all you had left to say is what it is you would rather not believe.

Psychologized my position by accusing me of having "no interest in the truth," that evidence "does not matter," and that I am are driven purely by an emotional refusal to believe.

If one is responding to a post which admits to believing what one would rather believe (and that is what the post says) then such a person who admits to believing what it is they would rather believe, is demonstrating no interest in what the actual truth may be. PERIOD!

Ignored my central argument

I can only respond to the posts you make, and the central argument of the post I was responding to only argument was telling me what you would rather not believe. We have been at this for weeks now, and I believe I have responded to most every single thing you have had to say. Have you? I don't think you have. Rather, you have picked and chose what it is you wanted to respond to, and I have not complained.

You do not address my Coherent Causality Argument

Where is that at? Is it on this thread? If it is not, how can I be held accountable? You and I have been discussing here on this thread, and I have responded to most all you have had to say. I am not obligated, nor am I interested in some other thread you may have. In other words, we are having a discussion here on this thread, and if you refer me to another thread, I am not obligated, especially if I am not interested, to take up an argument made on another thread.

You do not respond to my point about classifying biblical entities as non-human intelligences.

My friend, that was my whole last post. I mean, maybe we are talking past each other at this point and there is a misunderstanding?

Straw-manned my stance: You claim I have "no explanation" and "no answers." This is false. I have offered a framework for explanation which can be discussed (natural causes, including non-human intelligences) and a methodological critique (supernaturalism is an explanatory void). You simply dismissed these without engagement.

You have given us no explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would be likely in the least. That is the most amazing thing about this whole thing. We have those who want to insist a resurrection did not take place, but then have no explanation for the events we know in fact did occur.

Declared Victory by Fiat: You have stated you are "simply demonstrating there are facts... to believe." But you have not demonstrated that those facts lead uniquely to a supernatural resurrection. You have only demonstrated that they lead to the disciples' sincere belief - a point I already conceded.

And why are you conceding this to be the case? It certainly is not because you would rather concede this fact. It is because the facts and evidence demands this to be the case. What this does is to eliminate the possibility of the early followers being involved in the theft of the body. So now we are on to the next alternative explanation, which again will collapse under the weight of the facts and evidence.

Any further discussion is functionally over. You cannot or will not engage with the philosophical and historical substance. You retreated to preaching and moral accusation.

Well, I am still here, and it is not "preaching and moral accusations" which is winning the debate, rather it is the facts and evidence.

[William]

The Logical Impossibility of a Supernatural Historical Explanation (A Methodological Note)

1. The Purpose of Historical Explanation
The goal of historical inquiry is to provide coherent, understandable accounts of past events. This involves proposing causes that operate within a consistent framework of reality - a framework that allows us to connect evidence to causation using reason and analogy.

2. The Definition of "Supernatural" and Its Consequence
By standard definition, a supernatural cause is one attributed to a force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Therefore, a supernatural cause is, by its own definition:

Outside the consistent framework of natural laws.

Beyond the reach of evidence-based investigation.

Incapable of being understood through analogy or rational inference.

If “supernatural” simply means existing outside our universe but still operating by consistent, higher-level laws, and is not being used in its strong, classical philosophical sense here, then it becomes a subcategory of the natural - understood broadly as any reality operating within a coherent framework of cause and effect.

If, however, “supernatural” means wholly beyond understanding, outside any consistent laws, and intrinsically inexplicable, then it cannot meaningfully explain anything—including the origin of the universe.

{SOURCE}

3. The Core Argument: Supernatural as Explanatory Surrender

If historical explanation requires placing an event within a coherent, understandable causal framework...

And if a "supernatural cause" is defined as being outside any such framework...

Then asserting a "supernatural cause" does not provide a historical explanation. It declares the event historically inexplicable.

To label an event "supernatural" is not to explain how it happened. It is to state that it happened in a way that principle cannot be explained by any investigable cause. It marks the boundary of historical method, not a product of it.

4. Application to the Resurrection Reports
This is not a comment on the truth or falsity of any specific event (like the resurrection of Jesus). It is a statement about categories of explanation.

One may believe the disciples' resurrection experiences were genuine.

One may believe they were caused by God.

However, to call this cause "supernatural" is to acknowledge that it cannot be established or analyzed by historical means. It is a theological conclusion, not a historical one.

5. The Implication for Historical Inquiry
For history to proceed as an investigative discipline, it must seek natural explanations - causes within the web of natural, understandable reality. These explanations may be ordinary, extraordinary, or currently unknown, but they must, in principle, be coherent and investigable.

_______________________________________

Invoking the supernatural does not advance historical understanding; it relinquishes it. It is the difference between searching for an answer and stating that, by definition, no answer can be found within the realm of historical evidence and reason.

This note is offered to clarify a foundational point of methodology that often goes unstated in historical debates.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #88]

By standard definition, a supernatural cause is one attributed to a force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Before we get started here, are you suggesting that if science cannot explain an event, then the event could not have occurred?

[William]

A Natural Explanation for Extraordinary Reports: The Ancient Earthly Specie (AES) Hypothesis

1. The Extraordinary Data Set
The opening post of this thread provides a detailed, harmonized account of events from Jesus' burial to his ascension. It describes a sequence of extraordinary phenomena:

An empty tomb.

Multiple, varied encounters with a being identified as Jesus.

Physical interactions (touching, eating).

Collective and individual appearances over 40 days.

A final, dramatic departure ("ascension").

The historical core—that the earliest disciples had transformative experiences they interpreted as the risen Jesus—is well-established. The question is: What caused these experiences?

2. The Limits of Standard Explanatory Categories
As argued in post#88, a "supernatural" explanation is an explanatory dead end for history. Common natural explanations (hallucination, legend, fraud) often feel inadequate to account for the scope, variety, and transformative impact of these reports, leading to an impasse.

This impasse suggests we may need to expand our conception of a "natural" cause.

3. Introducing a Thought Experiment: The Ancient Earthly Specie (AES)
As a thought experiment in natural explanation, consider the following hypothesis:

A non-human, intelligent species, native to Earth and vastly more advanced than humans, has existed for a long time.

This AES has, for reasons of its own (scientific, pedagogical, or social), interacted with human development.

The beings described in the Bible - God (YHVH), angels, and the risen Christ - could be understood as manifestations or agents of this AES.

4. How the AES Hypothesis Explains the Data
Under this model, the resurrection events could be re-interpreted as a planned interaction or demonstration by the AES:

The Empty Tomb & Appearances: Advanced technology (biotech, holography, consciousness projection) could create the experience of a physical, interactive presence.

The Varied Encounters: Tailored interactions with individuals (Mary, Peter, Thomas, the 500) to achieve specific pedagogical or psychological effects.

The "Ascension": A dramatic exit using advanced conveyance or cloaking technology ("a cloud received him").

The Coherence of the Narrative: The AES provides a unified, intelligent cause for the entire sequence, replacing a series of disparate natural accidents or supernatural miracles.

5. The Nature of "God" in This Framework
This does not trivialize the experience. It naturalizes it. The "God" of the Bible becomes not a supernatural creator, but a hyper-advanced, natural intelligence. Its "miracles" are advanced applications of physics and consciousness technology. Its "revelation" is communication. Its "salvation plan" could be a long-term educational or genetic program.

6. Purpose and Implications
This hypothesis is not a claim of proof. It is a test of explanatory scope. It asks:

Could a natural, intelligent cause account for the breadth and depth of these extraordinary reports better than disconnected natural accidents or a supernatural void?

Does this framework allow us to take the witnesses' experiences seriously without abandoning the principles of coherent, natural explanation?

It reframes the question from "Supernatural miracle or human fiction?" to "What kind of natural, intelligent interaction could produce this record?"

7. Invitation for Analysis
This post is an invitation to consider a different category of natural explanation. The AES hypothesis is speculative, but it is coherent and investigable in principle. It keeps the search for understanding within the natural world, while attempting to match the extraordinary nature of the evidence.

This thought experiment is offered to move the discussion beyond the traditional stalemate and explore the outer boundaries of natural historical explanation.