Jesus appeared to the disciples and many others after the resurrection. They had seen him dead and then they saw him alive again.
The gospels were written decades after the resurrection.
They were written from personal experience in the cases of the disciples Matthew and John and from what was told to them from Mark and Luke.
The differences reflect the various perspectives of the witnesses and how accounts can naturally differ.
Had they been exactly the same, that would indicate an attempt to manipulate the accounts.
All the disciples but John gave their lives to spread the gospel. They knew a better life awaited them and they served a God with the power to give it.
It might help you to do an open minded study of the Shroud of Turin. Jesus left a photographic negative of the resurrection.
This is a short video. There are many lengthy ones.
Oh, and you have an eyewitness who was there and can confirm that they were not eyewitnesses? ;)
Whether the events that were witnessed included an actual resurrection or only some kind of delusion is obviously the entire question in debate, but there is a pretty strong case that the gospel writings are based on direct experience by either the authors or by other witnesses who told the authors what happened. (Luke-Acts, for example, has way too many historical details to have been written by someone who hadn't been present in the places it describes.)
"Differences between the accounts" is much too big of a topic to get into here, only to say that different witnesses recording things differently doesn't prove that the thing they recorded didn't happen. (Especially when they might have a literary purpose for how they wrote it -- they were not following the genre conventions of modern documentary/biographies that didn't exist yet in their time.)
To be clear, I'm not claiming that we can now, still, personally verify it. What I'm saying is that Christians claim it to be a verifiable event at the time, which is why they don't consider it the same as "superstitions and magic" (your original question).
None of the gospel writers were witness to a resurrection,
and many of the details of their accounts differ from one another.
None of it is demonstrable or verifiable.
Jesus appeared to the disciples and many others after the resurrection. They had seen him dead and then they saw him alive again.
The gospels were written decades after the resurrection.
They were written from personal experience in the cases of the disciples Matthew and John and from what was told to them from Mark and Luke.
The differences reflect the various perspectives of the witnesses and how accounts can naturally differ.
Had they been exactly the same, that would indicate an attempt to manipulate the accounts.
All the disciples but John gave their lives to spread the gospel. They knew a better life awaited them and they served a God with the power to give it.
It might help you to do an open minded study of the Shroud of Turin. Jesus left a photographic negative of the resurrection.
This is a short video. There are many lengthy ones.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Lwrso8fA62I?si=PIEuB8CvDcW3Ld-T
And maybe Bishop Barron can help. I hope you will consider this. There’s nothing more important than where you will spend eternity.
https://youtu.be/obDYEqVq2Kc?si=qJn8pgbVY9vnYSdh
Oh, and you have an eyewitness who was there and can confirm that they were not eyewitnesses? ;)
Whether the events that were witnessed included an actual resurrection or only some kind of delusion is obviously the entire question in debate, but there is a pretty strong case that the gospel writings are based on direct experience by either the authors or by other witnesses who told the authors what happened. (Luke-Acts, for example, has way too many historical details to have been written by someone who hadn't been present in the places it describes.)
"Differences between the accounts" is much too big of a topic to get into here, only to say that different witnesses recording things differently doesn't prove that the thing they recorded didn't happen. (Especially when they might have a literary purpose for how they wrote it -- they were not following the genre conventions of modern documentary/biographies that didn't exist yet in their time.)
To be clear, I'm not claiming that we can now, still, personally verify it. What I'm saying is that Christians claim it to be a verifiable event at the time, which is why they don't consider it the same as "superstitions and magic" (your original question).