Thanks.

A group of people (usually containing dependents/friends/disciples) can be referred to by the leader(s).
eg. Abraham, Jesus

2- Before the women got to the tomb, the stone was rolled away. This involved an angel descending, an earthquake happening, and guards being stunned. The guards recovered and ran off.

Possibly after reaching the entrance of the garden. In John it states that Jesus asked Mary not to touch him

3- The women arrived at the tomb.

4a – (Matt) The women saw an angel outside the tomb and he told them to go in a see that it was empty.

4b – (Mark) The women saw an angel inside the tomb and he told them it was empty.

4c- (Luke) The women went into the tomb, saw it was empty and then two angels appeared and told them it was empty.

4d – (John) The women saw the empty tomb and nothing else. (That saw “nothing else” is indicated by the fact that in the John account they told the disciples, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” If they’d seen those angels, they would have known at least that no one had taken Jesus, and they’d have known he was risen and said so; which is just what the other accounts say they did.)

On seeing the stone rolled away Mary alone runs to disciples(They may have accompanied the women and was waiting in Jerusalem – Gates). John and Peter runs through a short way to the tomb

5a – (Matt, Luke) The women went to tell the disciples.

5b – (Mark 16:8) The women didn’t tell anyone.
Mark says it is actually Mary (one of the women) who told the disciples

6a – (Matt) Between the tomb and the where disciples were, the women met Jesus.

6b – (Mark) Jesus appeared to Mary and she went to tell the disciples. (Wait a sec. Didn’t verse 8 just say the women told no one?) (Oh. I see. This is an unreliable passage that snuck into the Bible.)
In John the light is on Mary. and in others, the light is on the women(including Mary)
The Women entered the tomb and saw the angels. Afraid and happy runs to disciples
Mary, John and Peter comes back (and the narrative of John)
Mary saw Jesus
Jesus ascends to heaven (just takes a little time)
By this time the women reaches city gates and Jesus greets them (They ran, Suddenly Jesus met them)
They goes and tells no one (afraid and happy)

7- (Luke, John) Once the women told the disciples (assuming they did tell them) what happened (whatever that was), Peter and John ran to the tomb, snooped about a little and left.

Luke says this verse in sense that Peter did go but not happening after. After all it is put in brackets in my bible in native language (I don’t no why)

8- (John) Once Peter and John left, Jesus appeared to Mary. Now supposedly he had already appeared to the women, but maybe Mary had gotten ahead of the others and missed him. But, Mark says Jesus appeared first to Mary. But Paul (I Cor 15:5) says Jesus appeared first to Peter (…and then to the 12, except there were only 11. Guess Paul forgot that and the Holy Spirit didn’t remind him.)
mentioned above

In between this Jesus appears to Peter. (Only mentioned in one of the Gospels as a reference – Luke)

9a – Later that day Jesus appeared to two guys along the road. A little later he appeared to the disciples in the “upper room”, talked with them, then led them to Bethany and ascended to Heaven.
End of the Day the Lord resurrected. (Ascended not visibly – equivalent as saying went to the place he came from)

9b – (Matt) The disciples went to a mountain in Galilee to meet Jesus.
They were about 150

9c – (John) Jesus waited a week to show up for Thomas.
(11/12 disciples including Matthias and others – refer first argument)
9d – (Acts) Jesus hung around for 40 days and showed up before 100’s of people before ascending.

Read bible as one of your dearest has resurrected. You will be full of adrenaline

“I found myself virtually screaming out the words, “Will someone please help Professor Bart Ehrman figure out how many angels were at the tomb!” It is a problem he brings up ad nauseum and ad infinitum as his way of showing the Bible is riddled with discrepancies. This problem is cited in his book “Jesus Interrupted” and involves again the angels at the tomb of Christ.

After reading the synoptic gospels, Ehrman was unable to figure out whether the women saw a man, as Mark says (Mark 16:5), or two men as Luke says (Luke 24:4), or an angel as Matthew says (Matt. 28:2). I’m left to wonder why one of professor Ehrman’s students didn’t pause for a brief moment to unpack the mystery for him because as Professor Ehrman himself has figured out, wherever there are two angels there is also one angel, always, always, always, without exception. The fact that Mark only references the angel who addressed the women shouldn’t be problematic for someone who has made a virtual art form out of exploiting discrepancies and secondary details of the Gospels.

Furthermore, even though Luke does not specifically refer to the two men as angels; the fact that he describes these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting” should have been a dead give away. Moreover, as a historian addressing a predominately Gentile audience, Doctor Luke—no doubt—measured his words carefully so as not to give rise unnecessarily to pagan superstitions.

Finally, as with Mark, the fact that Matthew only references one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present. After reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke or John, for that matter, there is ample data by which a real historian can determine that the man described by Mark was indeed an angel and that “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting” were angelic, and that though Matthew only mentions an angel, he clearly does not preclude the possibility that another was present.

Contra Ehrman then, what credible scholars look for is a core set of reliable facts that either validate or invalidate historical accounts. Here, as elsewhere in the Gospels, one can objectively conclude that the core set of facts presented by the Gospel writers are authentic and reliable.

And there are reasonable and scholarly explanations for all of the “problems” that occur, if one is able to look at them point by point, rather than accepting they are invalid due to arguments from those who “generalize” in their interpretation of the events.

I’m glad you approached it this way. I had been asking why if there were “problems” with the story, why one didn’t go point by point through the problems and address them one at a time. That makes far more sense than saying “I tried to put he story together, but I couldn’t do it”.