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.

[RBD]

Word play is a last resort to change the simple meaning of a verse, that any child can understand.

It is not "word play" to present an analysis of the Koine Greek that John wrote.

It is when it changes a plain meaning, that any child can understand, into something more complicated for a personal agenda.

2Co 3:12
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

'Going to the Greek' is an old ploy to change the meaning of something, that grammatically and contextually needs no changing.

Jhn 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

*cometh from the Greek "erchomai"

If you are going to erect an entire thesis based on a single statement in John's gospel it is not unreasonable to look closely at that statement.

It is, if it's to change the plain meaning.

And including an often overlooked principle fact in the record, is not 'erecting a thesis', but simply getting off to a correct start.

Find me the multitude of scenarios of the events, whether by believer or unbeliever, that does not include this simple fact, then I'll show you a vain effort to support them over a gaping whole.

You propose that Mary M visited the graveside for the first time alone during the darkness of night,

Noting the recorded fact, is not a proposal, but only noting a recorded fact.

People can debate whether she was alone or not, but she was certainly there in the dark before dawn, when she also accompanied many other women.

No other gospel account speaks of the dark, with anyone coming to nor being at the tomb. (Other than the guards of course)

There is no reason whatsoever to speak of the dark, if all comers were at the morning light.

So, if you want to say that John lied, in order to cover up an inconsistency. Then do so. It's no worse than trying to turn coming in darkness, to coming in light.

Afterall, John's gospel is the last one in order, and so could have been the last one written. And since he also lived longer than the apostles, maybe he did slip in a latter day lie? Right.

Conspiracy theories are endless. once the plain words of an account are 'investigated' a little bit deeper.

[RBD]

"Yet even then their testimony did not agree."
(Mark 14:59)

The principle here is that if the testimony against Jesus should be considered unreliable because it was inconsistent, then the testimony of his resurrection should be treated in the same manner.
[/quote]
I wondered what your reference was too. I figured you were just quoting yourself, from some earlier claim of the apostles' gospel records not agreeing.

Mar 14:58
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together.

Seriously. This is truly a new one. You're quoting people like yourself, that also get the record wrong, and so falsely accused Jesus' words, as a standard for falsely accusing His apostles' record of Jesus' resurrection.

Jhn 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Yep, sounds just like you're own bad reading of the record. They change from Him being destroyed, to Him destroying. The same as changing from her being in the dark, to being in the light.

Truly amazing how birds of a feather, even after so long a time, still flock together.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #152]

Mar 14:58
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together.

This is actually quite interesting.

Jhn 2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

The Scripture does not say that Jesus clarified at the time, but only that His disciples did not understand it, until after His death and resurrection.

And yet, these false accusers that changed His words, actually did understand what He was talking about. They were in fact more astute than the other disciples. Perhaps they were some of the smarter disciples like Judas, who did know what Jesus was talking about, and chose to betray Him, because His mission was not the same as their own...

Jhn 2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

We see here, that this occurs right after speaking of His body being destroyed, and raised again the 3rd day. We also know that Peter was vehemently against Jesus laying down His life.

Just because the record of the faithful disciples shows their ignorance of Jesus' mission, doesn't mean that all the disciples did not understand beforehand.

Therefore, we can conclude that these false accusers, whether past disciples or not, knew exactly what Jesus was talking about, and so knew exactly what He said: Purposely changing the words of record, in order to find fault. Which proves some people clinging to fault, despite the record being represented accurately by others, are determined to change it and find fault. Such as Magdalene not being at the tomb in the dark before dawn, before accompanying other women at dawning light...

[RBD]

[Replying to William in post #125]

Can you explain why you think this is the case, or if you have already explained this in a past post in this thread, direct my to that?

"Yet even then their testimony did not agree."
(Mark 14:59)

The principle here is that if the testimony against Jesus should be considered unreliable because it was inconsistent, then the testimony of his resurrection should be treated in the same manner.

Mark 14:59 Context

56For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. 57And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59But neither so did their witness agree together. 60And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

So, are you arguing that those who bore witness re the one they had followed and whom had witnessed his execution, were behaving in the same way as those who were part of the plot to try and get him executed? Telling lies?

Not just telling lies, but telling lies about Jesus, that got Him executed. Maybe the disciples wanted Him executed again, to see if He would resurrect again.

I know. Wild stuff. Honestly, I've never heard anyone try to accuse the faithful disciples and writers of the gospel, of being guilty liars by association with the false accusers for His death.

In a way, this is why I continue so long with some discredited readers, because you never know what they can come up with next.

[RBD]

[Replying to William in post #129]

So, you are really arguing that there should have been one gospel/all gospels should have been the same.

I'm arguing that however many gospels there are, they shouldn't contain any details which are mutually exclusive.

Since the gospels were written by different people with different sources and purposes, what level of agreement would you expect? Is perfect consistency a realistic standard for any ancient event recorded by multiple witnesses?

Secular historians don’t reject multiple accounts just because they differ in details - they try to reconstruct what likely happened, discrepancies and all.

Is your real point one about historical reliability or theological consistency? If the latter, that’s a different discussion.

Is 'Mary was with other women' logically incompatible with 'Mary also went alone earlier'? One narrative includes a detail the other omits; that's not the same as them saying the other didn't happen.

Whether this is a problem at all depends on your expectations. If you're reading the gospels as a single composite narrative that must be internally consistent in every detail, then yes, you'll find tensions that need harmonizing. But if you're reading them as four independent accounts, each with its own perspective and emphasis, then differences aren't problems - they're what we should expect. The authors main focus is on the resurrection as an overall event.

Certainty is a high bar. But historians deal in probabilities. The core event (empty tomb, women discover it) is multiply attested. The discrepancies around the edges are exactly what we'd expect from independent traditions. They don't automatically disprove the core, they just complicate the reconstruction.

Well said. Completely fair.

Historians deal in partial and even conflicting accoutns, and so must sift through all the available material to draw possible conclusions. Theologians must insist on perfect consistency, if the Authorship is a perfect a God.

Having been both, I am now the latter. In fact, having been the former when reviewing Bible books for classical literary study, I became the latter. After seeing even my own initial complaints of errancy, being sufficiently dispelled with further reading; I stopped making premature assumptions, until all the evidence was in.

I still do so, which is why I like hearing other claims of error. Literary objectivity is now more required than ever, so as to ensure I'm not inserting justification where it doesn't belong. I believe and trust the Bible is fully capable of defending itself, and proving all comers of it's inerrant records from so many books and letters, written independently by so many people, over so much time. These are not writers that sat down and compared notes, to decide what parts to write between them. I say that out of a sense of my own literary powers, so that I can't believe any two or three or more people at a time can so perfectly do that.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #155]

The biblical texts didn't emerge in isolated bubbles—they're products of ongoing religious communities, building on and responding to earlier writings. That's a much more complex picture than "completely independent writers who never compared notes.

Your position seems to rest on a specific theological assumption: that a perfect God would necessarily produce a text with perfect surface-level consistency. But that's not a claim the Bible itself makes about itself. It's an external doctrinal imposition.

The God portrayed in scripture works through messy human processes—different voices, perspectives, genres, even apparent tensions. The biblical writers don't present themselves as taking dictation. They present themselves as prophets, poets, historians, and letter-writers, each with their own style and concerns.

The overall actions prescribed to the bible God throughout are inconsistent with omni-like perfection. While some writers of biblical script may make such proclamations, this has more to do with their particular interpretation and relationship with the God...they gravitate to those aspects rather than to the more negative ones, or the ones which portray the God without the attached omni-language. The God is relational depending on who or what it is the God is relating to.

I'm distinguishing between what biblical writers claim about God (sometimes using omni-language) and how God is actually portrayed in the narratives - changing his mind, expressing regret, negotiating with Abraham, being persuaded by Moses, relenting from disaster. The God of the text is far more dynamic and relational than the static, perfectionistic deity of later systematic theology.

[RBD]

On Mary Magdalene's visits being "logically incompatible":

You say one account has Mary finding the tomb open early, and another has her with women wondering who will open the tomb later, and these are incompatible.

Let's test that logically.

For this to be a contradiction, you'd need:

One account to say "Mary went alone and found the tomb open, and this was her only visit"

Another to say "Mary went with women later and they wondered about the stone, and she had never been there before"

Amen exactly. The simple fact is that purposed fault finders by nature do not use objective standards of evidentiary review, including literary comprehension. But neither gospel says that. John doesn't say she never went again with the women. Mark doesn't say she had never been there earlier. Mark simply doesn't mention the earlier visit. That's an omission, not a denial.

As an historical reviewer, you are seeing the same logical blind spots that I do, as a theological reviewer.

I'm not asking you to dismiss anything or to preserve theology. I'm asking you to apply the same standards here that you would to any other set of ancient documents.

Amen again. I have found this among most all of those who seek fault in the Bible, not just objective critics. While they bring bias against the Bible, they all too readily accuse Bible believer of bringing pro-bias. Since my faith in the God of the Bible began as a result of objective skeptical review, my faith depends on maintaining it.

Some people may be guilty of sloppy reading, but the zealously biased are guilt of purposeful bad reading.

Historians don't call accounts "incompatible" just because one includes something another leaves out. They reserve that term for cases where Account A says X and Account B says not-X. That's not what we have with the empty tomb narratives. You haven't shown that - you've only shown that one author included a detail another omitted.

Not that I want you to see any error in any Bible records, I'd still love it if you did. It would be be instructive. Hopefully, the main thing we would see is strictly objective review from opposing sides. I only say opposing, because I openly admit by confirmed belief, that even when I still think I see error, I continue reading and considering, until I see the possible elimination of error. My discipline of course, must be self-objectivity.

One example comes to mind: Would you comment in the supposed Bible account error between Acts 9 and 22? Did the others with Paul hear the voice or not?

By the normal standards of ancient historiography, multiple accounts with differences around the edges but agreement on a core event are stronger evidence than a single uniform account.

I like that, around the edges. Well said. Are you a professional historian, or trained layman?

To summarize:

You're applying a standard to the gospels that you wouldn't apply to any other ancient text.

To be fair. He was dealing with a Bible believer, that welcomes all challenges to any specific error in detail. I find none acceptable for faith in the Bible Author declaring that He is the LORD God Almighty.

He just doesn't know how to change gears to deal with historical literary analyses in general. Too caught up in the gotcha matrix.

You're asserting "incompatibility" where you haven't shown logical contradiction - only omission. And you're using a theological prooftext to judge historical reliability.

If we had four independent accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination that agreed he was stabbed in the Senate, but differed on minor details like whether it was fully dark or just dawn, whether one or multiple senators spoke first, or whether his wife had a dream the night before - no historian would reject the core event.

Or, whether he said et tu Brute, or ekballe eis korakas Brutus.

[RBD]

You're essentially saying the claim is so extraordinary that no amount of attestation could make it credible. That's a philosophical commitment, not a historical method.

Well done. This is the nub. People are so fervently against the claim, that they set aside any reasonable review of the evidence. It's a personal issue, not objectively critical. Which is fine, except when they also try to claim being objective critics, when their efforts are beyond reasoning.

If your position is that no historical evidence could ever make a resurrection credible, say that clearly. But don't pretend you're applying neutral standards while doing it.

Amen again.

I always refuse proving the unprovable, such as supernatural events by natural evidence, is impossible. It's not the purpose. It's proving the reviewable things are always unerring, so that the unprovable things can be reasonably accepted, outside of direct disprove. It's not about proving the Bible factually in all things, but about proving intelligent believability.

Even the God of the Bible seeks faith in Him as who He says He is. He purposely, at this time, does not show Himself, just so people will be forced to believe Him:

Jhn 20:27
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight

[RBD]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #138]

If someone claimed that Osiris, Attis, Tammuz or Mithra had been resurrected, wouldn't you demand some substantiation before accepting the claim?

Do those claims have the same kind and quality of attestation as the gospel accounts?

My own understanding of the Biblical accounts is that I don't believe or disbelieve. I have not claimed otherwise so I am not sure why you are making these comments at me...

Ahh. An objective critic indeed! Which is rare indeed.

Jhn 1:46
And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

As the Duke might say, You remind me of me. In the past.

[RBD]

My own understanding of the Biblical accounts is that I don't believe or disbelieve. I have not claimed otherwise so I am not sure why you are making these comments at me...

If you don't commit to belief in biblical accounts, I'm not sure why you've been fighting tooth and nail to defend them against all critical analysis.

Simple. You have no clue about the honor of analytical integrity.

Your personal life is so engrossed in disproving something, that you can't raise your head long enough above the ditch you're digging, to breathe some fresh objective air.

Aren't you the one that lays claim to past Christian ministerial greatness, that you've now utterly rejected, and are so against? If so, That of course would explain much about your current anti-ministerial zeal.

Phl 3:17
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, that they are now the enemies of the cross of Christ:)