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.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #139]

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

They've been around for thousands of years; they must have been attested to by someone.

You don't know, but they "must have" by "someone"?

Perhaps, you need to do more research before making such attempts at Equivalency...

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

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

Ad hominem - questioning why I'm defending the accounts if I don't believe them. This assumes that only believers would apply critical scrutiny to arguments against the texts. But that's false. One can defend the texts against weak criticism without affirming their truth.

Anyone can critique bad criticism of anything - a historical document, a scientific theory, a political claim - without endorsing the thing itself. It's about intellectual standards, not personal faith.

The quality of arguments matters regardless of what anyone believes. Dismissing weak arguments against a position isn't the same as holding that position.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #141]

You don't know, but they "must have" by "someone"?

Perhaps, you need to do more research before making such attempts at Equivalency...

With the four anonymous gospels having been arbitrarily assigned the names of apostles, why am I the one in need of more research?

Ad hominem - questioning why I'm defending the accounts if I don't believe them. This assumes that only believers would apply critical scrutiny to arguments against the texts. But that's false. One can defend the texts against weak criticism without affirming their truth.

I've compared/contrasted between text and text. You've speculated by proposing things not in the text. How is my criticism the weaker of the two?

Anyone can critique bad criticism of anything - a historical document, a scientific theory, a political claim - without endorsing the thing itself. It's about intellectual standards, not personal faith.

Anyone can poison the well by pretending to argue that criticism is bad by labeling it "bad".

The quality of arguments matters regardless of what anyone believes. Dismissing weak arguments against a position isn't the same as holding that position.

Okay, if you're taking a neutral position toward biblical claims, then you presumably concede that there are arguments to be made against those claims as well as for them.

So educate me. If you were arguing the con- side of this topic, what would you point out as the resurrection narratives' weaknesses?

[William]

Implicitly demanding that I demonstrate my neutrality by doing the work for you?



Your replies are increasingly ad hoc - responding point by point without a cohesive framework, shifting arguments when pressed, and now pivoting to make me argue your side. There's no consistent methodology holding your position together, just a series of rhetorical moves.

I didn't join this forum or offer my points in this thread, to play rhetorical games.

[Athetotheist]

Implicitly demanding that I demonstrate my neutrality by doing the work for you?



Your replies are increasingly ad hoc - responding point by point without a cohesive framework, shifting arguments when pressed, and now pivoting to make me argue your side. There's no consistent methodology holding your position together, just a series of rhetorical moves.

I didn't join this forum or offer my points in this thread, to play rhetorical games.

I've done my own work, and if you have to accuse my arguments of being bad instead of actually countering my arguments, I'd say I've done my work reasonably well.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #111]

Going back to Mark, if you have a record of Magdalene withholding a previous trip to the tomb from the other women, then quote that.

By not quoting Magdalene telling of her previous trip, she likely withheld it.

That's confirmation bias.

That's record logic, that is more likely than not recording an invented event.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #107]

John's the one that puts Magdalene at the tomb in the dark before dawn. All accounts of her with other women are later in the early morning dawn.

Mark's the one who has Magdalene among other women asking who will open the tomb for them

Women were asking among themselves. Magdalene was with them. The specific women are not named. And if she did ask, she had come to disbelieve her own eyes seeing Jesus in the dark.

Or, as later disciples in the light of day at home believed He was only a spirit, not a man of flesh and bone, that could still be in the grave.

Luk 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Which they also believed was walking on the sea at night. The superstition of roaming spirits was not unheard of among the Jews, especially as an alternative to resurrection of the body from the dead.

Tit 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Whether she was one of the women asking about the tomb door or not, does not change the record of first seeing Jesus before morning light.

, 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.

So long as you continue to deny the difference between visit in the dark before dawn, and a visit at dawning light, then you have no honest bearing of events. When you accept dark before dawn, is not at dawning light, then you can naturally go from there.

[Athetotheist]

[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).

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.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #107]

John's the one that puts Magdalene at the tomb in the dark before dawn. All accounts of her with other women are later in the early morning dawn.

Mark's the one who has Magdalene among other women asking who will open the tomb for them, and there is no account of Magdalene withholding information from the others about finding the tomb open earlier.

THat is true but is it consequential?

Fair question.

[RBD]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #116]

There is no account in Mark that Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty earlier than the others and withheld that information. In Mark's narrative, the women arrive together and experience the discovery collectively.

The idea of Mary Magdalene running ahead or having separate knowledge seems to stem from John 20, where Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb alone while it is still dark, finds it empty, and runs to tell Peter and John before returning with them. Mark does not include this detail, portraying a single, collective visit by the women.

Anyone can certainly tell the difference between an objective reading of a record, vs one intended only to find fault. Sometimes it's just a matter of simple grammar, that doesn't take any real comprehension skill. A visit in the dark before dawn, is not a visit at dawning light.

Unless of course, someone wants to ignore or change the details of the record.

[RBD]

Ok, so now you're resorting to lying.
Your web of deceit already tangled so fast?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making the personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Understood. Thanks.