The Sequence of Events after Christ's Resurrection

[Deadworm]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

NONE are evr lost due to not accepting the truth of scriptures, as their real issue is that they are dead in theire sin natures, and the things of God are foolish to them!
If the Gospel accounts are so historical wrong, why even trust them when the say that Jesus has risen then?

 

[Deadworm]

NONE are evr lost due to not accepting the truth of scriptures, as their real issue is that they are dead in theire sin natures, and the things of God are foolish to them!
If the Gospel accounts are so historical wrong, why even trust them when the say that Jesus has risen then?

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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

The redeemed who accept inspiration of the scriptures see no real contridictions in the Gospel accounts though , so the problems of your friends are not the faulty scriptions, but their faulty views on them!

 

[Deadworm]

The redeemed who accept inspiration of the scriptures see no real contridictions in the Gospel accounts though , so the problems of your friends are not the faulty scriptions, but their faulty views on them!

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh goodie, a charismatic telling a Baptist about how to get into the word. Pretty laughable.

 

[Deadworm]

Oh goodie, a charismatic telling a Baptist about how to get into the word. Pretty laughable.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm trying to identify the precise sequence of events from Easter Sunday morning until the risen Lord's last recorded appearance.

There is a number of apologetics books that cover these events. I have one called Easter Enigma by John Wenham, published in 1984. I haven't looked at it for some years, but my recollection is that it is quite convincing.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

You have not called anyone's bluff, as no one has bluffed you. You have come on this board with this I am going to defeat you attitude, have show a high level of arrogance, and you have unnecessarily made inflammatory accusations to other board members. I have been on this board for quite some time and if history is any indication I predict you will not last long here.

 

[Deadworm]

You have not called anyone's bluff, as no one has bluffed you.

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.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

Yes, we've noticed the vast number of people from other denominations that have decided not to defend their beliefs by not visiting a Baptist debate web site.

It's just as easily noticed as the vast numbers of unbelievers that would convert if only we would incorporate the irrefutable truth that the Shroud of Turin is Christ's grave clothes into our witness.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The thing that strikes me about the four accounts is how closely they tally. If they were identical, @Deadworm would be telling us that they all copied off each other.
All four accounts tell us that our Lord was buried in a tomb and that it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. It is Mary Magdalen (all four accounts) who with another Mary (Matthew and Mark) come early (all four) on the first day of the week (all four) and find the stone (all four) has been rolled away (all four). One or more angels tell them, "He is risen" (Matt, Mark, Luke). They go and tell the disciples (all four) after a little delay because of fear (Mark). Mark agrees with Luke about the appearance on the road to Emmaeus.

It is a mark of authenticity that the four reports are different, yet remarkably similar. How strange that women should have been the first witnesses. As I have said, John Wenham weaves the stories together quite convincingly, though there may be some outstanding questions-- I can't remember. I have no intention of ploughing through his book to answer the questions in the O.P. Those who are interested can buy the book.

 

[Deadworm]

The thing that strikes me about the four accounts is how closely they tally. QUOTE]

That would be a "nice" observation if there were not so many apparent contradictions that Baptists here have been unable or unwilling to address during the many days of my challenge to do so. Most who view this site are "guests." Baptists should be concerned that to these guests Baptists here look like Bambi freezing in the headlights when confronted with one of the most important questions for apologetics. Baptists need to take more seriously Peter's plea, "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands an accounting for the hope that is within you (1 Peter 3:15)."

 

[Rob_BW]

Will your next thread be on the inconsistency of no babies being baptized in the Bible?

 

[Revmitchell]

Will your next thread be on the inconsistency of no babies being baptized in the Bible?

He doesn't believe the creation account, which by the way begins the gospel, so no telling what else he believes.

 

[InTheLight]

That would be a "nice" observation if there were not so many apparent contradictions that Baptists here have been unable or unwilling to address during the many days of my challenge to do so. Most who view this site are "guests." Baptists should be concerned that to these guests Baptists here look like Bambi freezing in the headlights when confronted with one of the most important questions for apologetics.

I presume by most important question for apologetics is whether or not Jesus is risen and alive today. Well, there is no inconsistencies regarding the resurrection. All four gospels affirm it. You are picking at threads around the resurrection story--what did the women do after discovering the empty tomb, how many angels were at the grave site and when were they there, etc. All can be explained and are ultimately not as important as the risen Lord.

 

[tyndale1946]

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.

Can I pose a question, why are the there different views to the same event?... Lord why don't you just tell us plainly?... There are many witnesses to this event and different viewpoints but I believe that the different viewpoints make us appreciate the whole... The Lord could have chosen one disciple to pen down the whole event but he wanted us to search it out, take it apart and learn something... Each and everyone that was there and Lord blessed certain men to write it down reported it from their point of view... Btw Martin I would like to look at that book you recommended... ARE THERE DISCREPANCIES IN SCRIPTURE?... NO WAY, NO HOW!... On your answer to question four I do not know, but if you would take it apart, burn the midnight oil and put it under your biblical microscope and with the help of the Holy Spirit maybe you would come to a conclusion that would satisfy you... After looking at it I just accept it for what it says... As I do all the resurrection accounts, and all the witnesses that reported it... Brother Glen

 

[Deadworm]

I presume by most important question for apologetics is whether or not Jesus is risen and alive today. Well, there is no inconsistencies regarding the resurrection. All four gospels affirm it. You are picking at threads around the resurrection story--what did the women do after discovering the empty tomb, how many angels were at the grave site and when were they there, etc. All can be explained and are ultimately not as important as the risen Lord.

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!

 

[InTheLight]

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!

I see that anecdotal evidence is strong with this one...

 

[tyndale1946]

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!

Quit looking at the contradictions and look at the Resurrected Christ, where your Salvation is!... Brother Glen