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.

[JehovahsWitness]

Given the Saratoga accounts I gave above, would you believe all those details if that's what the accounts actually said?

I'm not here to speak about my personal belief system (or your creative writing skills), do you have any objection to simply sticking to discussing established historical methodology and looking at the your focus point from an evidence based point of view?

[AchillesHeel]

Given the Saratoga accounts I gave above, would you believe all those details if that's what the accounts actually said?

I'm not here to speak about my personal belief system (or your creative writing skills), do you have any objection to simply sticking to discussing established historical methodology and looking at the your focus point from an evidence based point of view?

Yes, that's exactly the point of what I posted. You would either believe all the details regarding the Saratoga accounts or you would not. If not, then the inconsistency in your historical methodology is exposed because you believe the exact same thing when it comes to the stories about Jesus!

[JehovahsWitness]

... the inconsistency in your historical methodology is exposed ...

Can you point to the exact part of my post (quoting if possible) that you feel is methodologically inconsistent; along with a sentence or two of what that inconsistency is (along the lines of "this is methodologically inconsistent for the following reasons (a) , (b) and (c) ...)

NOTE Methodology is not about belief, its about the process by which something is analysed.

JW

[AchillesHeel]

... the inconsistency in your historical methodology is exposed ...

Can you point to the exact part of my post (quoting if possible) that you feel is methodologically inconsistent; along with a sentence or two of what that inconsistency is (along the lines of "this is methodologically inconsistent for the following reasons (a) , (b) and (c) ...)

NOTE Methodology is not about belief, its about the process by which something is analysed.

JW

You came to believe the stories of Jesus through some method or process. I can play this ping pong game all day.

[JehovahsWitness]

... the inconsistency in your historical methodology is exposed ...

Can you point to the exact part of my post (quoting if possible) that you feel is methodologically inconsistent; along with a sentence or two of what that inconsistency is (along the lines of "this is methodologically inconsistent for the following reasons (a) , (b) and (c) ...)

NOTE Methodology is not about belief, its about the process by which something is analysed.

JW

You came to believe the stories of Jesus through some method or process. I can play this ping pong game all day.

Let's just concentrate on the methodology rather than theology, would that be acceptable to you given the OP?

methodology

noun: methodology; plural noun: methodologies
a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity.
"a methodology for investigating the concept of focal points"

[RBD]

Alone isn't an issue. If others came with her at night before dawn, then they simply aren't mentioned.

right so we have all the women ("together") arriving just before (Mary) or just after (the others) dawn*.

Wrong, you have all the women together arriving just before Mary. The record never has Mary arriving after other women at dawn. Only in the dark before other women at dawn.

Mary arrives at the tomb twice, once alone before dawn, and again with other women at dawn.

What you personally want to have is your own business.

A single initial (first) journey on the Sunday morning;

In the dark, is not in the morning.

I'll no longer argue the difference between in the dark vs in the morning light. There is a clear separation between the dark, and the first hint of morning on the horizon.

In the dark is in every direction. In early morning light is in one direction, with darkness remaining in the other.

all (including Mary) ignorant of the stone rolled away, all (including Mary) intending to retreat the body.

Mary not voicing otherwise, is not Mary ignorant. Mary travelling with others intent, does not prove Mary's intent.

And of course, even if Mary began to disbelieve her own eyes, due to the scoffing of the disciples, then she would soon learn her lesson in listening to scoffers over her own eyes and faith. Even if they are scoffers of repute.

Mary arriving in pre-dawn "darkness" (and promptly leaving to inform the Apostles of the empty tomb) and the others arriving at her heels (as the sun was rising)

Nothing about anyone else at Mary's heels, when seeing Jesus alive at the tomb. Nothing about her heels at all in the record of her being the first to see Him alive.

The real question is, where were the guards at her nighttime visits and seeing Jesus alive. As well as when John and Peter came barging into the empty tomb without restraint from the guards, that were supposed to keep the tomb from being entered.

That's another fun hashing out of the specific record.

the difference would be minutes and the "problem" of how Mary would arrive in darkness and the women in the same party arrive at dawn is solved if we shift Mary from the middle of the night to just before dawn.

Your problem is trying to shift the record around, into some misshapen record of your own. The Bible warns against witchcraft. I could include shape-shifting of Scripture?

Gal 3:1
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?


The record does not say how much time all transpired in the dark, but only that it did, and that Mary for the 3rd time was travelling back to the tomb in the early morning light o fdawn.

This avoids all the need to explain Mary's silence to her friends and her returning in the night only to depart again a few hours later.

I don't avoid studying to show reasonable explanation that fits the exact record of Scripture.

What must always be avoided is changing the record, for some other shape-shifted explanation.

2Pe 3:15
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

.... No one says anything about midnight, but simply in the dark before dawn. ...

Exactly, before dawn (for Mary) could have been 5.25 am and dawn (for the women) 5.30 and sunrise 5.45.

Well, Peter and John ran in a race in the dark to get to the tomb. But I doubt Mary hitched up her skirts in a race to join the women at dawn. We can give a more reasonable amount of time, that is based upon first arrival, investigation, travel to the disciple's house, return to the tomb after them, meet Jesus, depart, and join the others arriving at dawn.

Where the disciple's house was, would be important for a reasonable timeline.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'll no longer argue the difference between in the dark vs in the morning light. There is a clear separation between the dark, and the first hint of morning on the horizon.

Yes but unless you are going to take an "anti-science" position, the fact is the distinction is not hours it's literally minutes.

[RBD]

Alone isn't an issue. If others came with her at night before dawn, then they simply aren't mentioned.

right so we have all the women ("together") arriving just before (Mary) or just after (the others) dawn*.

Wrong. No Bible record of other women arriving before Mary, only of Mary arriving in the dark, and then with other women at dawn.

A single initial (first) journey on the Sunday morning; all (including Mary) ignorant of the stone rolled away, all (including Mary) intending to retreat the body.

First journey at dawn of the other women. No record of Mary speaking of rolled away stone, does not mean she did not. And if she did not, means she did not.

Speculation of why not is interesting, and can even be a teaching, such as never allow doubters, even those of reputation, dissuade personal faith and seeing something with one's own eyes.

Mary arriving in pre-dawn "darkness" (and promptly leaving to inform the Apostles of the empty tomb) and the others arriving at her heels (as the sun was rising)

Nothing about women arriving at Mary's heels at any time.

A timeline of events before she arrives with other women at dawn, would be determined mostly by how far the disciple's house was from the tomb.

This avoids all the need to explain Mary's silence to her friends and her returning in the night only to depart again a few hours later.

Explaining recorded events is good for study according to the recorded events. Explaining away events for another conclusion, is always bad by changing the record.

QUESTION Is it dark at dawn?

• The chart illustrates that if we take "dawn/sunrise" to be a general term describing the period during which night transitions to day, the degree of light actually goes through several stages at least two of which would probably be described generally as "dark" ie there not being enough natural light to go without some kind of artificial lighting for some activities.

Source: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/d ... light.html

"darkness" for Mary does not have to be a different (night) trip, (there is a common saying "the darkest hour is before the dawn") it is entirely plausible that all the time references are speaking about a single party (the women including Mary) and harmoniously refer to the collective events which span just before dawn (darkness) to just after (sunrise)

And so, unless there is something new, then the debate has become circular and pointless.

[RBD]

* The reference to Mary seeing the Lord "first" is in the long conclusion of Mark only and it is generally accepted that both the long and the short conclusion of Mark were not part of the original text. It seems reasonable not to make that verse pivotal to the chronology of the inspired record

Of course it would, to unbelievers in the written text.

Manuscript squabbles have nothing to do with the fact, that all the written text of the Bible perfectly agree with one another. So long as they do, there is no believable reason to cull the Bible of certain text.

Except, of course, to change the Bible to suit a reader's unbelief.

[JehovahsWitness]

And so, unless there is something new, then the debate has become circular and pointless.

Only if you refuse to acknowledge evident facts. How one fits the facts in to the narrative is a matter of opinion, but FACTS do not vary under the weight of personal opinion. The fact is that the women could have made a single initial visit, arriving literally minutes apart to fit the various gospel narratives about darkness and light . Your refusal to even acknowledge and properly address this fact indicates you haven't given due weight to the astronomical framework within which a proper analysis should normally take place.

JW