They also were willing to suffer scorn, ridicule, mockery and become outcasts from their friends, families, and culture. They were also willing to throw out and leave behind they're MOST CHERSIHED beliefs and rituals and cultural IDENTITY as Jews to accept that Jesus was literally resurrected and had appeared before them... and ate with them... and walked with them... and fished with them... and talked with them... and spent 40 days with them.
I mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating. MOST SOURCES CLAIM FAR, FAR LESS THAN FOTY DAYS.
In John, Mary sees a man "and knew not that it was Jesus" until he told them so.
Then someone appears to the disciples - who do not recognise him until he shows them his wounds.
Eight days later, "Jesus" appears again to Thomas and the others.
Some time later, someone again appears "but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus" until he told them he was, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD ALREADY APPEARED TO THEM TWICE BEFORE. (John also mentions "many other things" this new man (who looked nothing like Jesus) did....but without any detail.)
Matthew reports only that he sees them twice, once near the tomb and once on a mountain. There is no mention of eating with him - though they do (in this account) all seem to recognise him. How long does he stay? We don't know.
In Mark he appears to 2 disciples, then soon(?) after to eleven, and then goes to heaven. Again, there seems no confusion as to what he looks like.
In Luke, two disciples walk with him and talk with him for some time, not recognising him at all. Then all of a sudden they recognise him, and he vanishes. He was clearly unrecognisable as the same man, even with prolonged contact and conversation. Shortly(?) afterwards he appeared to them all - and has to reassure them that he IS flesh and blood, despite vanishing earlier on. This is the only account where he actually eats, by the way. He then leads them out of the city, and was carried to heaven. Again, no mention of "40 days", and the impression is that it was pretty much instant, given the context.
Only in Acts do we suddenly hear about "40 days" - and, again, I hope nobody is seriously considering this a LITERAL 40 days? Consider also that this "40 day period" is disposed of in just 9 lines of text - an incredible contraction, given how outlandish this experience of a resurrected being must have been.
So we have 5 mentions of Christ after the cruxifiction. One says 40 consecutive days. Another has wo brief appearances before his "ascention", another appears to speak of events happening in a day or two at most. In many, he is unrecognicable until he actually says who he is. Only in one is he specifically recorded as eating.
To claim therefore that Jesus "ate with them... and walked with them... and fished with them... and talked with them... and spent 40 days with them
" is, at best, a stretch.
Was this person observed for just a couple of occasions (Mark), for a consistent 40 days (Acts), or somewhere in between (Matthew, John, Luke)? Was he immediately recognisable (Matthew, Mark), or a complete stranger up until the point he revealed himself (Luke, John)?
John and Acts tally for time...but shed doubt on how obvious it was this was the same man they knew before. Matthew and Mark make him recognisable, but cut the length of time he was observed very short. Luke makes him unrecognisable, AND gives them only one meal and a walk to observe him.
Fran picks the "best" parts of the five accounts, to give the "he was obvious and stayed with them for ages". But why is that a more plausible bit of cherry picking than to say that John and Luke were right when they say he was unrecognisable, and Luke and Mark correct that he stayed only a short time?