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]

[Replying to RBD in post #146]

and there is no account of Magdalene withholding information from the others about finding the tomb open earlier.

Correct. And if she was by unbelief, or spiritual superstition, unconvinced of her own eyes in the dark, then she all the more wouldn't have said anything about the opened tomb.

For review:

John says that Mary goes to the tomb, finds it empty and runs to tell the disciples. John then tells us that Simon and the other apostle run to the tomb and that Mary follows them. So Mary wouldn't have been able to be with the other women in Mark wondering who would open the tomb for them until after she had been to the tomb twice, seen it open twice AND seen the risen Jesus himself. I think it's fair to say that Mary not mentioning all that to the other women would be unrealistic (she would certainly have no reason to conceal that the tomb was open, because by then even two of the apostles had confirmed that).

This is certainly correct, if Mary had followed them and saw what they saw.

John then tells us that Simon and the other apostle run to the tomb and that Mary follows them.

Once again, this is one of those assumptions, fraudulently given as a recorded fact. I had to make a double take, before realizing the assumption make a lie. John does not tell anyone that Mary follows them. And she would not have been following, but running after them with her skirts held high. They were sprinting in a race.

John only records that after the two disciples had left, Mary was back again at the tomb:

Jhn 20:10
Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
Jhn 20:11
And Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

There is no need to conclude an immediate narrative, without a time break. Bible narrative is full of time breaks, that can span hours, days, years, and centuries, between two verses of Scripture. That's why study is required, and not just assumptions made to fraudulently appear as recorded fact.

We both know you purposely do defraud the narrative, because you do not take time to explain your conclusion, since John does not 'tell' anyone that Mary follows them. It's your standard MO. Which is fine, since even in deceit, others can learn things, that may not have come up otherwise.

What's more, John then has Mary go back and tell the disciples that she has seen the risen Jesus, so by the time she gets back from her second trip to the tomb in John's account she is not in doubt.

Rehashed self-repetition with sufficient answer already given.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #152]

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.

Can you prove that they got the record wrong? We're not told all that they said, so how do you demonstrate that they weren't just telling the same story from different "perspectives"?

That excuse is made often enough for the discrepancies between the gospel accounts, isn't it?

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."

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

"Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”
(Mark 14:30)

Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
(Mark 14:72)


Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
(Luke 22:34)

Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times."
(Luke 22:60-61)

But neither so did their witness agree together.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #161]

Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
Jhn 20:11
And Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

There is no need to conclude an immediate narrative, without a time break. Bible narrative is full of time breaks, that can span hours, days, years, and centuries, between two verses of Scripture. That's why study is required, and not just assumptions made to fraudulently appear as recorded fact.

Then why doesn't the recorded fact say that Mary waited hours, days, years or centuries to follow the disciples to the tomb?

We both know you purposely do defraud the narrative, because you do not take time to explain your conclusion, since John does not 'tell' anyone that Mary follows them. It's your standard MO. Which is fine, since even in deceit, others can learn things, that may not have come up otherwise.

John most certainly does tell us that she followed them, because how else would she get back there after they headed that way? You even conceded this in the OP:

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.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #155]

The biblical texts didn't emerge in isolated bubbles

True. They all join together in agreement to be one whole word of revelation. Isolating any verse takes it out of context of the Book as a whole. It's called Scripture teaching/interpreting Scripture. Adding or taking about from any words of the Book, corrupts the whole Book.

Deu 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Doing so produces false personal commandments, teachings, traditions, of the readers, not of the writers themselves.

This is where internal inerrancy is either proven or disproven by the words themselves.

. That's a much more complex picture than "completely independent writers who never compared notes.

Not what the writers themselves say:

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Num 16:28
And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

You appear to be vacating your own objective stand as a reader of history, and only giving contrary opinions about the Book, rather than what the Book says for itself.

Your position seems to rest on a specific theological assumption: that a perfect God would necessarily produce a text with perfect surface-level consistency.

Not just surface, but all the way through. But, as you would say, disputes about what and how the perfect God would write, is another topic. For now, all that matters is proving errors and contradictions in the Book itself: By quoting with necessary conclusions.

But that's not a claim the Bible itself makes about itself. It's an external doctrinal imposition.

It's the Bible position:

Psa 19:9
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Job 36:4
For truly my words shall not be false: he that is perfect in knowledge is with thee.

Psa 18:30
As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Psa 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

The God portrayed in scripture works through messy human processes—

Once again, are we quoting and concluding from the Bible itself, or only giving personal opinions and traditions about it? Otherwise, quote the Bible and show how messy the words are.

different voices, perspectives, genres, even apparent tensions.

As well as over generations of stability and upheaval.

1Co 9:19
I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Speaking to men in their own situations, does not prevent speaking eternal truth to each one independently.

The biblical writers don't present themselves as taking dictation.

False again. Refer back to claims of divine inspiration per writer. We can also add:

Psa 45:1
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

Not just dictation, which is a good description, but the very pens of the one and same Author.

They present themselves as prophets, poets, historians, and letter-writers, each with their own style and concerns.

Each pen being of different shape, color, and ink according to the times, but always written independently in the hand of the same Author. Without the same truth changing with the times...

The overall actions prescribed to the bible God throughout are inconsistent with omni-like perfection.

If you're going to now judge the Bible God by your own morality, then it's a nonstarter.

As you would say to others, quote where the Bible God contradicts His own righteousness, by His words of righteousness.

The God is relational depending on who or what it is the God is relating to.

Quotes and proof.

Having a personal relationship with each writer, does not mandate changing the message to satisfy different people.

Gal 1:10
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

I'm distinguishing between what biblical writers claim about God (sometimes using omni-language) and how God is actually portrayed in the narratives

Not in the instances above, where you only give opinions and traditions of readers.

You'd never accuse Thucydides of claiming independent objectivity, and then delivering subjective narrative to side with Athens or Sparta.

- changing his mind, expressing regret, negotiating with Abraham, being persuaded by Moses, relenting from disaster.

Quotes and proof of the Bible God being inconsistent, indecisive, bowing the knee to man, and second guessing Himself.

Planned change is not double mindedness. Sorrow for others' use of free will, is not taking back free will. Reasoning with the righteous, is not cutting deals with the wicked. Mercy is not changing the law to excuse transgression. Grieving over the death of the wicked, is not consenting to wickedness.

The God of the text is far more dynamic and relational than the static, perfectionistic deity of later systematic theology.

Correct. It's because the Bible God is a merciful, wise, and righteous lawgiver and judge.

Unmoving bureaucratic perfectionism, is for deaf and dumb idols, or AI deification.

2Co 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #152]

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.

Can you prove that they got the record wrong?

Not to someone that doesn't believe the record. The record of what Jesus said, vs the recorded accusation of what He said, speaks for itself.

It's one thing to try and find error in the record, but to argue for lying about the record? What's the point?

Like I said, I've never heard anyone say that a record of false accusers, means the record they lied about, must itself be false.

We understand you accuse the Bible record of being false. No problem. And even siding with false accusers of Jesus' words. Simple allegiance. But to then say they may be speaking the truth, and not the recorded words themselves? That's not arguing about contradiction within the written record. That's arguing for anyone contradicting the recorded words, even them recorded in the Bible doing so.

We're not told all that they said, so how do you demonstrate that they weren't just telling the same story from different "perspectives"?

As here. You argue for perspectives that prove the Bible record is false. Now you argue for false accusers having perspectives, that make the recorded words false.

You claim the Bible ought hold the same account of peoples' testimonies. And so, when you quote the Bible judging, that any of the writers do not agree with themselves, then we can agree that the Bible proves they disagree with each other.

This is quite an exercise in turning a Book upside down, in order to complain it can't be read rightside up.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #164]

You are debating from within an assumption of biblical authority, while the Christianity and Apologetics forum rules require a neutral playing field where no text gets privileged status.

This means that you either address my post on its own terms without the additional flarings of supposed biblical authority and subsequent interpretations, OR there is nothing for me to argue with and my posts points remain unchallenged.

Here is my post again. See what you can challenge about it without resorting to assumption on biblical script authority.

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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #165]

You claim the Bible ought hold the same account of peoples' testimonies. And so, when you quote the Bible judging, that any of the writers do not agree with themselves, then we can agree that the Bible proves they disagree with each other.

"Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”
(Mark 14:30)

Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
(Mark 14:72)


Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
(Luke 22:34)

Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times."
(Luke 22:60-61)


“Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”
(Matthew 26:34)

Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.
(Matthew 26:74-75)

Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? Very truly I tell you, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!"
(John 13:38)

Peter then denied again, and immediately a rooster crowed.
(John 18:27)

[RBD]

Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”
(Mark 14:30)

Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
(Mark 14:72)


Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
(Luke 22:34)

Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times."
(Luke 22:60-61)

But neither so did their witness agree together.

First off, any effort to say Jesus did not necessarily prophecy Peter's 3 denials before the cock first crows, is false.

Jhn 13:38
Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

Jesus prophesied both before the cock crows at all, and before the cock crows twice. And not crowing twice at the same time. But two different times as recorded by Mark. Which in itself is not a contradiction, because Jesus prophesied twice to Peter: First at supper, with before the cock crows, and then at Mt Olivet, with before the cock crows twice.

And so, the simple answer normally could be, that three denials before the first crowing, remains at least three denials before the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... The only contradiction then would be less than three denials before the first crowing. However, that's still a bit of a reach with two separate prophecies being fulfilled by the same denials.

Therefore, the fullest fulfillment of both prophecies would be: 3 denials before the cock crows at all, and then 3 more denials before the cock crows again. And, of course, that's what is recorded, where Peter denies knowing Jesus 6 times before finally swearing and cursing to prove he was not a follower of His.

Peter denied the Lord 3 times in the palace, before going to the porch when the cock crows once: Because of the damsel at the door going in, the High Priest maid while in, and then the servants at the fire inside. He goes to the porch, and the cock crows.

Mar 14:68
But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

Peter then denies the Lord 3 more times outside the palace: Because of another maid on the porch, a little while later by a manservant witness at the garden, and 1/2 hour later by others hearing his Galilean speech. That's when he finally curses and swears not, the cock crows again, the Lord looks upon him, and he goes away weeping bitterly.

Mat 26:74
Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

And so, both of Jesus' separate prophecies are fulfilled, that Peter denies Him thrice, before the cock crows at all, and then denies Him thrice, before the cock crows twice.

Once again, a surface word gotcha accusation, falls apart at a simple study of how many times Jesus prophecies Peter denying Him, and how many times Peter denies Him.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #161]

Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
Jhn 20:11
And Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

There is no need to conclude an immediate narrative, without a time break. Bible narrative is full of time breaks, that can span hours, days, years, and centuries, between two verses of Scripture. That's why study is required, and not just assumptions made to fraudulently appear as recorded fact.

Then why doesn't the recorded fact say that Mary waited hours, days, years or centuries to follow the disciples to the tomb?

The why doesn't every record fill in every detail every time it's written about? Because it would take more hours, days, or years.

2Ti 2:23
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

It's an uneducated demand for every recorded event, to have every detail, every time that event is written or spoken of. If every speaker receives money every time some dummy demands more details, before getting to the main point, then speakers wouldn't mind so many dumb interruptions.

The Bible is not written for the dumbed down, but for the studied up:

2Ti 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the words truly...But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

[RBD]

John most certainly does tell us that she followed them, because how else would she get back there after they headed that way?

By going back there again of course.

But the record does not say she followed them back, as though she was there with them. That would have required here to run after them in their race to get there first.

Jhn 20:10
Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

The record does not have the disciples there tarrying for a while. Any effort to have Mary there before they leave, is forcing a personal scenario into the event.

You even conceded this in the OP:

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.

Good correction for me, thanks. Since I wasn't thinking of Mary running with or after the disciples in their race to the tomb, then it's a sloppy rendering of the account.

Magdalen returns to the tomb again, and sees two angels therein, and then Jesus Himself, whom she first mistakes for a gardener.