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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #20]

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!

I'm presenting a claim often used to argue for the Bible's authenticity.

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.

If Christian scripture isn't divinely inspired, how is it to be believed over any work of any other organized religion?

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.

You keep focusing on the epistles as "the overwhelming majority" of Christian scripture, apparently having no argument to make against the evidence indicating that the book of John was written for the purpose of spreading the Christian faith.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #21]

If Christian scripture isn't divinely inspired, how is it to be believed over any work of any other organized religion?

Since no one can show either way, it is a matter of faith. What I do not understand is why (Christian or any other religions) apologetics exist at all, re matters of faith.

Putting that all to AI we have

Your point touches on a core tension in religious thought: the relationship between faith and reason.

If we start from the premise that no one can definitively show whether any scripture is divinely inspired, then indeed belief becomes a matter of faith — an individual’s trust or commitment not based on irrefutable empirical proof.

From that standpoint, the existence of apologetics might seem paradoxical — why try to rationally defend something that ultimately rests on faith?

However, apologetics generally serves several purposes, even within a framework that acknowledges faith as essential:

Internal reinforcement — Providing believers with reasoned answers to doubts or external criticisms can strengthen their confidence that their faith is intellectually respectable, even if not empirically proven.

Engagement with outsiders — Offering arguments to non‑believers to show that the faith is not irrational, and perhaps to remove perceived obstacles to considering it.

Systematizing belief — Making the teachings of the religion coherent and consistent with known facts (or at least not in outright contradiction).

Defensive role — Countering claims that the faith is demonstrably false or morally indefensible.

In other words, apologetics doesn’t always claim to prove divine inspiration conclusively, but rather to show that belief is reasonable given certain premises (like the possibility of the supernatural, the reliability of certain texts, philosophical arguments for God’s existence, etc.).

You might still argue that, in the absence of proof, all such reasoning is circular or insufficient — and many religious thinkers would agree that reason alone can’t compel belief in divine revelation.
But in practice, people operate with cumulative case arguments and personal experience, not just blind leaps. Apologetics tries to build that cumulative case.

The parallel in other religions would be their own theological defenses — Islamic kalam, Buddhist epistemological debates, Hindu philosophical systems, etc.
Each tradition offers reasons to prefer its scriptures and teachings over others.

So the deeper question might be: Is faith meant to be entirely separate from reason, or is it supposed to be reasonable even if beyond reason’s full grasp?
Different religious traditions — and different thinkers within Christianity — answer that differently.

I think this is where atheists (like Hitchens) assume the position along the lines that "by all means have your faith, but don't put it on others" which of course defeats the cause of (in this case) Christianity, which - regardless of denials by some Christians) is indeed focused upon convincing the masses...

You've identified a key point of contention in the public debate about religion. Let's break down that dynamic.

Hitchens' position (representative of a common secular critique) rests on a few core premises:

Faith is private – It's a personal conviction without empirical verification.

Public imposition is problematic – Using faith as a basis for laws, policies, or social norms imposes private beliefs on others who don’t share them, violating pluralism and individual autonomy.

The burden of proof – In the public arena, claims that affect others should be justified by publicly accessible reasons (evidence, logic, shared values), not private revelation.

The Christian evangelistic impulse, however, is central to the faith's identity. It stems from:

The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) – A direct command to "make disciples of all nations."

Theological urgency – The belief that salvation is found in Christ alone creates a moral imperative to share the message.

Love of neighbor – From the Christian perspective, not sharing the Gospel could be seen as the ultimate lack of compassion, given the eternal stakes.

This creates an inescapable tension:
For the secular critic, evangelism looks like imposing a private belief system.
For the devout Christian, not evangelizing looks like withholding the cure from the terminally ill.

Where this gets philosophically interesting:

Some Christian thinkers (like John Locke in A Letter Concerning Toleration, or modern pluralistic theologians) have tried to navigate this by separating:

Personal conviction (faith, based on revelation and personal experience).

Public justification (arguments based on "natural law" or shared reason, accessible to all).

But this is where the apologetics you questioned earlier often hit a wall. If the ultimate foundation ("the Bible is divinely inspired") requires faith, then any public policy derived solely from that specific revelation will be seen as imposition by those who don't share the faith.

The common Christian counter to Hitchens would be:

"You make faith-based assumptions too" – e.g., secular humanism rests on unproven axioms about human dignity and ethics.

"All worldviews evangelize" – Atheism, secularism, political ideologies also seek to persuade and shape society.

"This is about truth, not just preference" – If Christianity is objectively true, then it's not merely a private taste but a reality everyone should acknowledge.

But the secular reply is sharp:
Yes, all worldviews have axioms, but religious ones based on specific revelation are uniquely non-falsifiable and non-accessible to outsiders. And while everyone may try to persuade, using state power or social coercion to enforce religious doctrine is what violates the democratic contract.

In practice, this tension plays out in debates over:

Religious symbols in public spaces

Laws on marriage, abortion, education

Science curricula in schools

Religious exemptions from generally applicable laws

Your original question about apologetics connects here:
Apologetics often tries to bridge the gap by constructing arguments that don't start with "The Bible says..." but with "As we can all observe..." – attempting to move the discussion from private faith to public reason.

Yet, as you noted, at some point the leap to divine inspiration of a specific text remains a matter of faith.
That's why, for many secular observers, the most acceptable form of religious expression is the fully privatized, voluntary kind—which, to the traditional Christian, undermines the faith's core mission to transform not just individuals, but the world.

So yes - there is enough meat on the bone so to speak. I would argue though that even is ANYONE (regardless of having or not having faith in religious doctrine) were to love their neighbour and this was undeniably observable, such would not be motivated by FAITH at all, but perhaps more by common sense...which is why I asked the question in Post#09 "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?"

In this case, the design was to influence the masses to love one another...through an agency humans are more prone (habitually and by the numbers) to be enticed through - religion itself...

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #21]

I'm presenting a claim often used to argue for the Bible's authenticity.

I understand this, which is what makes it comical. I mean, I know, and you know that you do not believe what is contained in the NT is divinely inspired, but you are making the argument. The problem is the fact that you did not count on the fact that a Christian would agree with you.

If Christian scripture isn't divinely inspired, how is it to be believed over any work of any other organized religion?

I'm just telling you that the above demonstrates one who has no idea about what is contained in the NT, nor what they are so critical of. I do not believe, nor do I have to believe something is divinely inspired to believe the content. I mean, do you have to believe something to be divinely inspired to believe it? The fact of the matter is the majority of critical scholars, (those who are not Christian and do not believe it to be divinely inspired) are convinced by the content of the NT that the early followers were truly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. Again, these are scholars who do not believe the NT is divinely inspired who are convinced the followers of Jesus were convinced they saw Jesus alive just a few days after the crucifixion. Why are they convinced this is the case? Well, it is not because they believe the content to be divinely inspired, but rather because the evidence from the NT is overwhelming. This absolutely demonstrates you have been influenced by Christians to believe that if something is not divinely inspired there would be no reason to believe it. Again, you cannot make this stuff up.

You keep focusing on the epistles as "the overwhelming majority"

This is "fake news." If you take the two letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, along with the letters of Peter, you are at the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to audiences at the time who were already believers, with the authors having no concern nor any idea that anyone else would ever read what was communicated other than the original audience, and the authors certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible. This alone demonstrates the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT could not have been an attempt to persuade those who were not already Christian.

apparently having no argument to make against the evidence indicating that the book of John was written for the purpose of spreading the Christian faith.

My argument is you have one small passage by one author in a very small portion of the NT which you can refer to as MAYBE being evidence of appealing to a wider audience. You cannot know, nor can you demonstrate the author was not addressing a Christian audience. So then, you have one small part which does not demonstrate anything at all, while I have the overwhelming majority of the NT which can be demonstrated to be intended for those who were already Christian. Again, you need to keep in mind that it would be almost if not impossible for an author at the time to be appealing to a wide audience. There was just no way to do such a thing in those days since any copies would have had to be hand made. So then, you have two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual by the name of Theophilus who was already a believer. Then you have all the letters of Paul addressed to the Churches who were already believers, and then you have the letters Paul addresses to individuals all who were believers, you have the letters of Peter, Jude, and the epistles of John which were all addressed to believing audiences. This demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be intended for believing audiences and was not intended in any way by the authors to be propaganda intended to persuade the masses.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #23]

The fact of the matter is the majority of critical scholars, (those who are not Christian and do not believe it to be divinely inspired) are convinced by the content of the NT that the early followers were truly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

This is irrelevant, since being convinced that something happened doesn't mean that it did.

Why are they convinced this is the case? Well, it is not because they believe the content to be divinely inspired, but rather because the evidence from the NT is overwhelming.

What early Christians were convinced of is still irrelevant. This whole line of argument is really a bit of a red herring.

If you take the two letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, along with the letters of Peter, you are at the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to audiences at the time who were already believers

I'm not suggesting that Luke and the epistles don't make up an overwhelming majority of Christian scripture; I'm just pointing out the irrelevance of it in light of the implication in John. You stated that....

we can be sure the authors had no concern whatsoever "to influence the masses."

....and that blanket statement is not in evidence from the text.

My argument is you have one small passage by one author in a very small portion of the NT which you can refer to as MAYBE being evidence of appealing to a wider audience. You cannot know, nor can you demonstrate the author was not addressing a Christian audience.

I believe that a fairly strong case can be made for that conclusion. Why would he be writing so that his readers "may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" if that was something they already believed?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

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?

We as in you can ascertain whatever you want.

I only show there's no inconsistently between the records, which is conceded by seeking to ascertain some fantasy instead.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #8]

You're the one who puts John's account before Mark's, but Mark's account still suggests that she hasn't been to the tomb.

John's account puts her first at the tomb in the dark before the morning light. Therefore John's order is before any other record.

If you're not going to refer to the record itself, then what's the point?

Nothing is said of the unbelieving apostles talking Mary into or out of anything. Their unbelief alone could have persuaded her to hold her own counsel, until the events prove themselves.

That's what I actually meant,

Which at best shows you're sloppy with the argument, which at best proves you're sloppy with the record.

Otherwise, you're just misrepresenting both to keep a failed charge afloat.

but it makes no difference.

Right. Like accusing someone of changing the order of an account, by putting the recorded first event in order.

We'll conclude you just don't care, because your only interest is in the charge.

You're saying that their lack of belief caused her to doubt her own direct experience, which would be equivalent to talking her out of it.

Not afloat, but floundering in the deep.

When you or anyone else actually finds a contradiction of the factual reports, then I'd be glad to look at it.

[RBD]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #21]

I'm presenting a claim often used to argue for the Bible's authenticity.

I understand this, which is what makes it comical. I mean, I know, and you know that you do not believe what is contained in the NT is divinely inspired, but you are making the argument. The problem is the fact that you did not count on the fact that a Christian would agree with you.

If Christian scripture isn't divinely inspired, how is it to be believed over any work of any other organized religion?

I'm just telling you that the above demonstrates one who has no idea about what is contained in the NT, nor what they are so critical of. I do not believe, nor do I have to believe something is divinely inspired to believe the content. I mean, do you have to believe something to be divinely inspired to believe it? The fact of the matter is the majority of critical scholars, (those who are not Christian and do not believe it to be divinely inspired) are convinced by the content of the NT that the early followers were truly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. Again, these are scholars who do not believe the NT is divinely inspired who are convinced the followers of Jesus were convinced they saw Jesus alive just a few days after the crucifixion. Why are they convinced this is the case? Well, it is not because they believe the content to be divinely inspired, but rather because the evidence from the NT is overwhelming. This absolutely demonstrates you have been influenced by Christians to believe that if something is not divinely inspired there would be no reason to believe it. Again, you cannot make this stuff up.

You keep focusing on the epistles as "the overwhelming majority"

This is "fake news." If you take the two letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, along with the letters of Peter, you are at the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to audiences at the time who were already believers, with the authors having no concern nor any idea that anyone else would ever read what was communicated other than the original audience, and the authors certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible. This alone demonstrates the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT could not have been an attempt to persuade those who were not already Christian.

apparently having no argument to make against the evidence indicating that the book of John was written for the purpose of spreading the Christian faith.

My argument is you have one small passage by one author in a very small portion of the NT which you can refer to as MAYBE being evidence of appealing to a wider audience. You cannot know, nor can you demonstrate the author was not addressing a Christian audience. So then, you have one small part which does not demonstrate anything at all, while I have the overwhelming majority of the NT which can be demonstrated to be intended for those who were already Christian. Again, you need to keep in mind that it would be almost if not impossible for an author at the time to be appealing to a wide audience. There was just no way to do such a thing in those days since any copies would have had to be hand made. So then, you have two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual by the name of Theophilus who was already a believer. Then you have all the letters of Paul addressed to the Churches who were already believers, and then you have the letters Paul addresses to individuals all who were believers, you have the letters of Peter, Jude, and the epistles of John which were all addressed to believing audiences. This demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be intended for believing audiences and was not intended in any way by the authors to be propaganda intended to persuade the masses.

One thing is for certain, brother, after all the fascinating argument. No one is finding any contradiction in the given timeline.

Which of course pertains to error-free Bible accounts, that have been the target of accusations almost since first published...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #26]

You're the one who puts John's account before Mark's, but Mark's account still suggests that she hasn't been to the tomb.

John's account puts her first at the tomb in the dark before the morning light. Therefore John's order is before any other record.

If you're not going to refer to the record itself, then what's the point?

I'm referring to John's record and to Mark's record, which you place in that order. The state of mind which you assign to Mary Magdalene in Mark's account is not in any of the records, and they can't be harmonized without it.

We'll conclude you just don't care, because your only interest is in the charge.

Yeah, just keep comforting yourself with that deflection.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #24]

This is irrelevant, since being convinced that something happened doesn't mean that it did.

This is a "straw man" argument in which you create an argument I have not made in an attempt to avoid having to deal with the real issue. The relevance is not in the idea that a resurrection had to have occurred since we can know for certain these folks did not make the story up. So please do not make these "straw man" arguments. The relevance is in the fact that we can know that Christianity was not a created religion for the purpose of controlling the populace, and we can know this to be a fact. You see, it is possible to argue that Islam was created in the mind of Mohamad, and he created the religion in order to control the population. I am not making this argument so please do not go off attempting to say I am. I am just saying it would be a possible argument to make. On the other hand, this argument cannot be made concerning Christianity because we can know that Christianity began when there were folks who were convinced, they had witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Moreover, we can know they did not make the story up. Ergo, we can know that Christianity was not a made-up religion in order to control the populace.

What early Christians were convinced of is still irrelevant. This whole line of argument is really a bit of a red herring.

Explained above in that it is impossible for one to make the argument that Christianity was created as a religion in order to control the populace.

I'm not suggesting that Luke and the epistles don't make up an overwhelming majority of Christian scripture; I'm just pointing out the irrelevance of it in light of the implication in John.

I mean, this is unreal! You have not and cannot demonstrate who the intended audience was as far as the author of John, and even if we could in fact demonstrate that this author intended an unbelieving audience this would have nothing to do with the fact that you have agreed that the overwhelming rest of the NT cannot be said to have been targeting anyone else besides believers. In other words, what the objective was of the author of John would have nothing whatsoever to do with the target of the overwhelming majority of the authors. One would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Moreover, you still have not dealt with the fact that it would be next to impossible for anyone in those times to be attempting to appeal to a wide audience through writing.

When I said

we can be sure the authors had no concern whatsoever "to influence the masses.

I was referring to the overwhelming majority of authors contained in the NT whom we know were only targeting a believing audience.

I believe that a fairly strong case can be made for that conclusion. Why would he be writing so that his readers "may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" if that was something they already believed?

And what we are left with is you having to agree that the overwhelming majority of the NT cannot be said to be attempting to spread propaganda in order to persuade the masses, while you have one small sentence from one author which has not been demonstrated to be targeting the unbeliever. You can argue that you have a strong case, but this would be debatable, but this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of what is contained.

[JehovahsWitness]

1. It's first confirmed that Magdalene did come in the dark alone, as John 20 says, before anyone else.

You're setting yourself up for all kinds of difficulties that can be avoided if you don't read more into the narrative more than is necessary. John does not say Mary's first visit was "alone" ; indeed to not contradict the other narratives (or imply the difficult scenario of her deliberately keeping vital information from her female companions) we have but to accept that John only mentions Mary because he is focusing on her story.

For example, if I say "John bought a radio" that doesn't necessarily mean that John was ALONE when he bought it (I could well have been with him) but I might only mention John because he is the focus of my story.

If John had said the word "alone" then we would have to seek other means to harmonize the accounts but John does not , he is silent as to who else may or may not have been with Mary at her initial visit. Since the other accounts mention Mary M. with the women and a a pre-dawn visit of Mary alone creates more problems than it solves, it is more logical to conclude she was indeed with the women and that she had not travelled to the tomb and back again before them

If we have Mary WITH the other women and running off BEFORE the first angelic visit, we have her not withholding what she learnt from a supposed "predawn" visit , namely that the stone had already been rolled away. NOTE If she had visited earlier and noted that the stone had been rolled away (barring her being too scared to even peer inside) she would have been withholding the information that THE BODY was also gone.



HOW MANY WOMEN VISITED THE TOMB?

• Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
  Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
  Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
  John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

ANSWER: At least six: two Marys, Salome, Joanna and "other women" (plural, ie an addition minimum two others ).



What TIME of day did the women first visit the tomb?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 33#p926933

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE RESURRECTION , JESUS RESURRECTION and ... RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY