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 #9]

How are we to ascertain that this whole story wasn't a useful fiction created through a combined effort of Roman and Jewish intellectuals designed to influence the masses?

One way to "ascertain" this would be to realize that the overwhelming majority of the New Testament can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time who would have already been believers, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern as to whether anyone else would ever read what they had to say other than the intended audience at the time, and the authors certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible. Since this is the case, we can be sure the authors had no concern whatsoever "to influence the masses."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #11]

One way to "ascertain" this would be to realize that the overwhelming majority of the New Testament can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time who would have already been believers, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern as to whether anyone else would ever read what they had to say other than the intended audience at the time, and the authors certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible. Since this is the case, we can be sure the authors had no concern whatsoever "to influence the masses."

One thing which seems to work against that conclusion is John 20:30-31----

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #12]

First, if you will notice, I said "the overwhelming majority of the New Testament." There are 3 writings in the NT which do not identify the intended audience. This leaves us with the overwhelming majority of the NT which can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time who were already believers, with the authors being unconcerned as to anyone else ever reading the material other than the intended audience at the time, and the authors could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible. The passage you refer too is coming from one of the documents which does not identify the intended audience, but this does not in any way demonstrate the audience would have been anyone other than those who already believed. In other words, we cannot know the intended audience so we cannot assume one way or the other concerning the material which does not identify an intended audience. However, this does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time who were already believers, with the authors being unconcerned as to anyone else ever reading the material other than the intended audience at the time, and the authors could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #9]

How are we to ascertain that this whole story wasn't a useful fiction created through a combined effort of Roman and Jewish intellectuals designed to influence the masses?

One way to "ascertain" this would be to realize that the overwhelming majority of the New Testament can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time who would have already been believers, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern as to whether anyone else would ever read what they had to say other than the intended audience at the time, and the authors certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible. Since this is the case, we can be sure the authors had no concern whatsoever "to influence the masses."

The reason for my question has to do with the history of the church itself.

The Church's narrative and institutional structure became inextricably linked with imperial power. Doctrines were standardized at state-sponsored councils (like Nicaea in 325) to ensure a unified "orthodoxy" for the empire. Church leadership (bishops) gained significant social, political, and legal authority.

The narrative as a tool provided doctrines like the Divine Right of Kings, the absolute spiritual authority of the Pope, and the sacramental system (control over salvation itself via baptism, penance, last rites) created an unparalleled system of ideological and social control.

The "Fiction" as coercion through the threat of excommunication (cutting one off from God and the community) or eternal damnation was a powerful political and social weapon used against kings and peasants alike. The selling of indulgences (lessening time in Purgatory) is a stark example of a theological narrative being weaponized for financial and political ends - a practice that directly sparked the Reformation.

The fracture of Christendom showed that the "official" narrative could be challenged. Both Protestant and Catholic sides used their versions of the Christian story to mobilize populations, justify wars (like the Thirty Years' War), and legitimize new political structures (e.g., Lutheranism supporting German princes against the Pope).

What RBD wrote, signifies something which is a story about a supposed event which regardless of whether fiction or fact or a mixture of both, leaves the reader with believing it through faith based on the assumption that it must have happened the way it was written, or chosing to work with the known evidence of church history and ask why it actually matters whether one believes the story through faith.

What is the demonstrable effect of this belief?

If we define a "useful fiction" as a foundational narrative that, regardless of its historical veracity in detail, organizes human perception, motivates behavior, and sustains a social order, then Western Christendom is arguably the most successful and durable example in history.

It was not a crude lie, but a profound synthesis of memory, story, power, and aspiration. It directed the energy of continents for a millennium. Its usefulness was in providing order, meaning, and a vector for civilization in the vacuum left by Rome's collapse - but not the disappearance of Roman influence.

To ask, "Is it true?" is a theological question.
To ask, "How did it function?" is a historical and sociological one.
I am asking the latter, and the answer is: It functioned as the core narrative software for a civilization, and its code is still running in the background of our modern world, whether we acknowledge it or not. The struggle of our age is to decide what, if anything, we have overwritten it with, and whether our new stories are any less "useful fictions" for directing the human project.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #14]

The reason for my question has to do with the history of the church itself.

This seems sort of strange. If I am not mistaken you were responding to post #1 which is the OP and the OP does not mention Church history at all. Rather, as far as I can see, it only references what is contained in the NT. You then go on to ask, "How are we to ascertain that this whole story", emphasis on "whole story." This "whole story" would seem to be referring to what is contained in the OP, which again says nothing of Church history, but rather only references what is contained in the NT.

At any rate, you are correct in that the Church and Christians have used Christianity in order to control the populace and grab power. The fact of the matter is this is occurring right now before our very eyes, as we have those who identify as Christian nationalists who have taken over the republican party whose aim it is to overthrow our democracy and replace it with a theocracy. However, what occurred in ancient times with the Church, nor what is occurring today with the Christian nationalists has a thing in the world to do with the intent of the authors who are contained in the NT.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #13]

First, if you will notice, I said "the overwhelming majority of the New Testament." There are 3 writings in the NT which do not identify the intended audience. This leaves us with the overwhelming majority of the NT which can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time who were already believers

Fair enough, but I was going by

Since this is the case, we can be sure the authors had no concern whatsoever "to influence the masses."

The passage you refer too is coming from one of the documents which does not identify the intended audience, but this does not in any way demonstrate the audience would have been anyone other than those who already believed.

Whether or not the audience is identified is immaterial. The author's stated intention for the audience ["that you may believe"] indicates that it is someone he wants to convince.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #16]

Whether or not the audience is identified is immaterial.

We have to keep in mind here that we are only talking about one author, and one small passage from this author. This does not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to audiences at the time who would have already been believers and the authors had no concern nor any idea that anyone else besides believers would ever read what they authored, and they certainly could not have known about any sort of Bible. This demonstrates the overwhelming majority of the NT was not intended to be religious propaganda in order to persuade the masses.

Now, as we look at the passage you are referring to, what is said there does not in any way demonstrate the intended audience were not already believers. To demonstrate this let us look at what the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus has to say in his first letter. Theophilus is addressed as a believer and the author explains to Theophilus,

"it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the certainty about the things you have been taught."

So then, as you can see, the author is addressing one who is already a believer, and he tells Theophilus that he is writing out these things in order for Theophilus to "know the certainty." In the passage you are referring to, the intended audience as well could have already been believers. In other words, it may have been that the author was addressing a particular Church and like the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus he is explaining to the audience that he is writing to them in order for them to know the certainty of what they already believe.

The bottom line is, we do not know who the intended audience was, and neither of us can insist one way or the other because it cannot be demonstrated. What we can insist is the fact that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time who were already believers and the authors had no concern nor any idea that anyone else would ever read what they had to say other than believers, and they certainly could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible. Ergo, the overwhelming majority of the NT cannot be said to have been religious propaganda in order to persuade the masses since the intended audience was those who already believed. The very little which is left in the NT cannot be insisted to be religious propaganda in order to persuade the masses since we cannot be certain who the intended audience was. The one thing we do know and can insist upon concerning the little which would be left in the NT, is that whoever the authors were of what would be left, could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #17]

This demonstrates the overwhelming majority of the NT was not intended to be religious propaganda in order to persuade the masses.

That hardly matters if any part of it was written as propaganda and if all of it is supposed to be divinely inspired.

Now, as we look at the passage you are referring to, what is said there does not in any way demonstrate the intended audience were not already believers.

It strongly suggests exactly that in declaring that it's written "that you may believe", as opposed to being written "that you may know the certainty about the things you have been taught." That coupled with John's intended audience being unspecified suggests even more strongly that he's writing to a general audience as opposed to Luke's specifically identified audience.

The one thing we do know and can insist upon concerning the little which would be left in the NT, is that whoever the authors were of what would be left, could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible.

They wouldn't have to have known about any sort of Bible to be writing their own works of propaganda.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #15]

However, what occurred in ancient times with the Church, nor what is occurring today with the Christian nationalists has a thing in the world to do with the intent of the authors who are contained in the NT.

You said in your post prior to this

Since this is the case,

we can be sure

the authors had no concern whatsoever "to influence the masses."

Yet we do have biblical indication that influencing the masses was a key element of Jesus' teaching.

AI Overview

"Go, therefore, and make disciples" is the core of the Great Commission from Matthew 28:19-20 in the Bible, a command from the resurrected Jesus for his followers to spread his teachings globally, involving evangelism, baptism, and teaching obedience to all he commanded, with a promise of his presence always. It's understood as the fundamental mission of the church to bring people to Christ and nurture them in faith, extending beyond just making converts to deep spiritual formation

How do you explain your apparent contradicting opinion that the authors had no concern for this whatsoever?

At any rate, you are correct in that the Church and Christians have used Christianity in order to control the populace and grab power.

How do we know that it isn't the case that Christianity has used the Church and Christians in order to control the populace and grab power? Certainly the evidence supports this being the case, which allows for the question to be asked "Are these stories a useful fiction?"...

Assuming that the intent of the authors was any different than creating what actually occurred appears to be an overreach, especially since there is no evidence given to support that being the case. The evidence that we do have, leans toward the possibility of useful fiction producing the actual history of Christianity that occured.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #18]

and if all of it is supposed to be divinely inspired.

I have to run at this point, and it may take me a day or so to get to the rest, but I wanted to attempt to tackle the above with the little time I have right now because this is one of the most comical things I have seen here on this site. I am going to assume you are not a Christian, which I will have to assume would mean you do not believe the Bible was "divinely inspired" and here you are appealing to this argument in order to win an argument? I mean, you cannot make this stuff up!

The problem is the fact that I am on record even here on this site talking about how I wish the Bible had never been composed. I read what has been contained in the Bible just as it was written by the original authors. With this being the case, the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus tells Theophilus exactly why he is writing this information out to Theophilus, and exactly how he obtained his information, and he never mentions that he obtained any of the information from God, nor does he claim to have been inspired by God.

Most of the letters of Paul are addressed to the Churches in which he is addressing concerns in those Churches. Other than that, what is left of the letters of Paul would be addressed to individuals at the time who were already Christian. This alone demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was not intended to be religious propaganda intended to persuade the masses. All you need to do is to think about what all it took to write things out at the time. I mean writing things out in those times would have been a very painstaking process. Once the author had completed the writing, this would have been the only copy, and it would be painstaking to have other copies made. Again, this sort of demonstrates that the writings could not have been to persuade the masses since very few folks would ever read what was said. Rather, what would have occurred, is just like the letters of Paul. The author would address particular audiences at the time and could not have been concerned about those other than the intended audience. The audiences such as a Church would have the letter read to the congregation, and keep the letter, and they may in fact have it copied, but it would not have been in order to circulate to the masses, since that would not be possible, but rather simply to save the writings.