Featured The Sequence of Events after Christ's Resurrection

I'm trying to identify the precise sequence of events from Easter Sunday morning until the risen Lord's last recorded appearance. Any reconstruction of this sequence must solve the apparent inconsistencies outlined in (1)-(4) below. Such a reconstruction is important because some educated academics take offense at these inconsistencies and accordingly reject the Gospel resurrection narrative. I believe in Jesus' bodily resurrection and want to solve these problems as much as I can for apologetic reasons. Seminarians are warned not to expose the laity to these issues, but I think we need to be honest with the laity for effective witness. Please make your case for a correct sequence of Easter events and then I will make mine. Please refer by number below (e. g. 1c, 3b) to the issue you are addressing.

1. Conflicting Accounts of the women's first Easter visit to the tomb:
a. They find it empty and conclude that Christ's body has been removed (John 20:1-2)
b. They find the stone already rolled away and encounter an unnamed "young man" sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:7). Is this the same unidentified "young man" as in mentioned in Mark 14:51-52?
c. They experience an earthquake and see only one shining angel roll back the stone and sit on it outside the tomb (Matthew 28:2).
d. 2 shining angels appear to them only after they discover the empty tomb (Luke 24:2-5).

2. Conflicting accounts of what the women do next?
a. They flee from the tomb and tell no one what happened (Mark 16:8).
b. They tell the disciples that they have seen Jesus (Matthew 28:10).
c. They promptly report their vision of angels (but not of Jesus!) to the disciples (Luke 24:9, 23.

3. Conflicting accounts of what the women tell the disciples:
a. They relay the angel's and Jesus' instructions to go to Galilee to see the Lord and the disciples obey (Matthew 28:10, 16).
b. By contrast, Luke shows no awareness of any Galilean resurrection appearance; indeed, he rewords the angel's instruction to the women to send the disciples to Galilee (Luke 24:6) to prevent any reference to such a journey. Instead, Luke has Jesus tell His disciples to remain in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4) and they are still there 8 days later (John 20:26).

4. How do you reconcile Paul's sequence of resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 with the Gospel resurrection appearances.

 

Nice way of ducking the issue posed by the thread. Put up or shut up!

 

Spiritual integrity requires a willingness to investigate specific texts in which historical errors seem to occur and then a willingness to offer a rational account of how serious discrepancies can be reconciled. Your failure and that of your Baptist chronies to season your penchant for bluster with a willingness to get into the Word and identify the requested sequence of events on and after Easter Sunday demonstrates how groundless your claims about biblical inerrancy really are. I actually started this thread to expose the inevitable deafening silence to the crucial issues I've raised, issues that have prompted honest educated seekers to reject the bodily resurrection of Jesus. As for me, my devotion to the Lord has compelled me to endure the anguish of doubt to determine whether and in what sense biblical authors might actually have been inspired. Many loose ends remain in my quest, but I have deep inner peace that God is pleased with my quest for an honest defense of His revelation.
Unless you and your ilk actually provide the requested sequential narrative of events, I will assume that deep down you are terrified by the prospect that biblical inerrancy can be refuted and therefore refuse an honest engagement with the texts that seem to challenge that doctrine. I will let this deafening silence linger for a few more days to make my point, but will then step in reconcile the apparent inconsistencies myself.

 

Well, if we didn't laugh, we should cry at the inept unwillingness of yourself, Yeshua, and other Baptists here to explain point by point why something as basis as Gospel resurrection reports are not gravely inconsistent. I have called their bluff in the OP's documentation and they are unable to rally to the challenge of defending the Word on this issue. Sigh! I'll eventually try to solve these problems myself.

 

Your response shows that I have indeed effectively called your bluff because, like the other Baptist respondents to this thread, you have no clue about how to negotiate the inconsistencies the OP summarizes and defend a sequence for the Resurrection narrative. If that narrative has no specifiable sequence, then how is it even credible to believe in Jesus' resurrection? I have now exposed the truth: Baptist claims on this site to be able to solve such discrepancies and thus defend biblical inerrancy have proven false. So in my next planned post, I need to demonstrate how this can be done.

Have you noticed how few Christians from other denomination have the stomach to wade through all the unsubstantiated Baptist pontifications and insults to defend their faith on this site? Think about it.

 

If you read my OP carefully, you would realize that modern scnolars are often unimpressed by Gospel resurrection narratives because of so many perceived contradictions. A fellow professor colleague told me he was once "saved" in a Methodist evangelistic service, but now rejects the Gospel resurrection narratives because of these contradictions. My Harvard thesis advisor rejected the Easter appearances to the female disciples because of these contradictions and because Paul excludes any mention of an appearance to women in his list of Easter appearances in 1 Cor 15:3-8. These professors had great influence over their students. As a devout evangelical I want to give them a reason to believe other than a mindless appeal to NT claims about divine inspiration. So wake up and smell the coffee!