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 #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.

False. I was looking for the same objective scrutiny of the Bible text itself, with quotes and objective conclusions. Not just more traditional inuendo without quotes, that is assumed by people that do not believe what the writers themselves say.

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.

This means you're likely not the person I was hoping for, when before, you rightly countered false arguments, but adhering to the quoted text. If you ever want to quote the Book itself, and give it an objective review by normal historical and literary standards, then I'd be glad to see it. Especially if you believe they are in error.

Otherwise, thanks anyway.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #168]

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.

Mark has Jesus prophesy at the Mount of Olives that Peter will betray him three times before the rooster crows twice, but doesn't have him make any prophecy of Peter's betrayal at the supper. The authors who do have him prophecy Peter's betrayal at the supper have him say that Peter will betray him three times before the rooster crows at all. This is clear not only from the direct text, but also in that Matthew, Luke and John all have the rooster crow only once, after Peter's third denial, fitting what those three authors have Jesus say (none of them have the rooster crow after Peter's first denial, as Mark does).

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #169]

It's an uneducated demand for every recorded event, to have every detail, every time that event is written or spoken of.

It's a perfectly reasonable demand that the details which are written down not conflict with each other.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #170]

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.

The record does not have Mary doubting or concealing that she had found the tomb open. Any effort to have Mary keep that information from the other women is forcing a personal scenario into the event.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #171]

RBD has effectively declined the invitation to debate on neutral ground. Their response reveals several things:

They misunderstand (or reject) the forum rules – They claim to want "objective scrutiny of the Bible text itself" but their version of objectivity means treating the Bible's own claims about itself as conclusive. That's not objectivity; it's circular.

They frame my position as mere "traditional innuendo without quotes" – This ignores that my arguments about literary dependence, community formation, and narrative portrayal are standard observations in biblical scholarship, not personal opinions.

They issue a challenge wrapped as a dismissal – "If you ever want to quote the Book itself and give it an objective review... then I'd be glad to see it." This assumes I haven't already done so, and that quoting the Book somehow settles the matter.

RBD exits while preserving their position - "You're likely not the person I was hoping for" lets them withdraw without engaging my actual arguments.

The exchange has reached its natural end. I've held RBD to the forum standards; they've chosen not to meet them. My points stand unchallenged on the terms I laid out.

________________
RBD was the one who started the thread in this subforum. Essentially he is asking others to provide what they see as biblical contradictions. The fact of the matter is, the subforum for arguing those things is in the
"Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Exploring the details of Christianity" sub forum and evidence of biblical contradictions is observable in how Christians argue with each other over interpretations.

If the Bible were as internally consistent and clear as RBD claims, there wouldn't be centuries of denominational disagreement over what it means. The very existence of diverse interpretations from sincere believers is itself evidence that the text doesn't speak with the kind of unambiguous clarity RBD assumes.
RBD wants to have it both ways: invite challenge in a neutral forum, then respond from within a framework that assumes his conclusion.

I've called him on it mainly because of the way he responded to my post - He also makes the argument that the Bible God is an omni one, claiming that those who don't see it that way are interpreting the book from their own limited understanding.

That's a classic closed-loop argument. RBD has constructed a framework where:

The Bible presents God as omni-perfect (by his reading)

If you read the Bible and don't see that, it's because your understanding is limited

Therefore, any evidence you present against his view is simply further proof of your limited understanding

No possible counter-evidence can penetrate that circle. It's not an argument - it's a worldview shield. And it's exactly why the forum rules exist: to prevent debates from becoming endless loops of "you just don't understand."

I've done well to step back and hold him to procedural standards rather than keep spinning inside that circle.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #168]

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.

Mark has Jesus prophesy at the Mount of Olives that Peter will betray him three times before the rooster crows twice, but doesn't have him make any prophecy of Peter's betrayal at the supper. The authors who do have him prophecy Peter's betrayal at the supper have him say that Peter will betray him three times before the rooster crows at all. This is clear not only from the direct text, but also in that Matthew, Luke and John all have the rooster crow only once, after Peter's third denial, fitting what those three authors have Jesus say (none of them have the rooster crow after Peter's first denial, as Mark does).

Two writers record Jesus' personal encounter with Peter at the end of the supper, before going to Mt Olives. Peter would deny Him three times before any rooster crows. The two accounts at the Mount are of Jesus' prophecy to all the disciples forsaking Him, which they all deny. And then Jesus repeats His personal prophecy to Peter, but this time with 3 denials before the cock crows the second time.

The fact of 6 total denials is recorded. 3 before the first crowing and three more before the 2nd.

Jesus makes two separate prophecies to Peter in two different place, and they are not the same. Therefore, there is no contradiction between, and both are fulfilled in the record as prophesied.

Just another case of surface gotcha words, without any inspection of content. Because that would take actual 'study', rather than just frivolous fault finding.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #169]

It's an uneducated demand for every recorded event, to have every detail, every time that event is written or spoken of.

It's a perfectly reasonable demand that the details which are written down not conflict with each other.

That is certainly true, which is what studying the Bible for errors and inconsistency is all about.

But demanding every account include every detail, in order to see if they might contradict, is bogus. And then assuming a contradiction in details not included, is even more bogus.

"I demand that every one of you writers write down every single detail of the events, so I can see if any of you contradict the other. And if you only write down what you remember or know for sure, and someone adds more detail than you, then I will assume a contradiction."

Uh, right. No.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #170]

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.

The record does not have Mary doubting or concealing that she had found the tomb open. Any effort to have Mary keep that information from the other women is forcing a personal scenario into the event.

The record does not record Mary sharing that information with the other women, and any effort to do so is forcing a personal scenario into the event.

[RBD]

"If you ever want to quote the Book itself and give it an objective review... then I'd be glad to see it." This assumes I haven't already done so, and that quoting the Book somehow settles the matter.

There is no assumption about quotes and specific textual references for an argument, but only such quotes and textual references made in the argument.

If none are made in the argument, then there are none for the argument.

The exchange has reached its natural end.

True. No quotes nor text reference, then naturally no argument made from them.

I've done well to step back and hold him to procedural standards rather than keep spinning inside that circle.

Aside from all the circular spinning on the way out, of course. Parting shots too. Not exactly a gracious exit.

A whole lot of words, just to decline giving verse and text for an argument made about a Book, that any standard book review class would expect and demand for a passing grade.

[William]

"If you ever want to quote the Book itself and give it an objective review... then I'd be glad to see it." This assumes I haven't already done so, and that quoting the Book somehow settles the matter.

There is no assumption about quotes and specific textual references for an argument, but only such quotes and textual references made in the argument.

If none are made in the argument, then there are none for the argument.

The exchange has reached its natural end.

True. No quotes nor text reference, then naturally no argument made from them.

I've done well to step back and hold him to procedural standards rather than keep spinning inside that circle.

Aside from all the circular spinning on the way out, of course. Parting shots too. Not exactly a gracious exit.

A whole lot of words, just to decline giving verse and text for an argument made about a Book, that any standard book review class would expect and demand for a passing grade.

To explain - I mistook this thread for another one you started, so some of my remarks had to do with that thread...the one called "Proving God by proving the Bible".

That aside, you apparently haven't read the posts on THIS "The consistent events from Jesus' burial to His ascension" thread - which you created and where (while you were elsewhere) Realworldjack and I had an extensive discussion and came to our own conclusions. If you want to discuss THAT, then by all means do so.
Otherwise, what you are going on about now, is nothing I have any interest in because it doesn't take into account my earlier posts and conclusions. It is simply you quoting various tid-bits from the bible and making out that in doing so, you are the one we should be listening to. THAT is why I have nothing more to say or to add to this thread at this time.