It is said that the legal rule of the Torah was that two witnesses must establish any claim. However it does not say that it is only a legal rule. Jesus himself appealed to it in daily life according to the John gospel and it is advised in the letters of St Paul if a minister is accused. And it is only a legal rule because it is a good social rule as well.
Mark's gospel has no Jesus resurrection appearances.
Matthew has the appearance on the Galilee mountain.
Luke has an apparition in Jerusalem and so does John - twice - but they are not speaking of the same vision. The Galilee vision in John does not read as if is the one Matthew has in mind.
Matthew has Mary Magdalene and other women see Jesus. John has Mary Magdalene alone sees Jesus. There is no overlap and it could be separate visions.
The claim that there are overlaps is nonsense. The gospels never claim to complement each other and even if they did the overlaps would not be very apparent and could be dismissed. It is based on the notion that the stories are embellished and perhaps confused but have the same core truth. Even if that were true it is a very bad foundation for such as strong claim as that Jesus came back alive from the dead. If any witnesses wanted us to be that foolish it would be a red flag.
None of the appearances satisfy the evidence of two rule. Plus we don't know if the alleged witnesses knew what was written about them or what they had to say if they did.
The Gospels do not explicitly rank the resurrection appearances as “more important” than the Transfiguration or other miracles using a stated hierarchy. They don’t say something like “this miracle is the most important.” The fact that some things do overlap in the gospels such as the entry into Jerusalem and the baptism by John would hint that the gospels considered some things to matter as much or if not more.
The Gospels state that Jesus rose “on the third day,” presenting the
resurrection as a specific event in time. But it does not follow that the Jesus
who appeared that day had only risen that day.
Nobody holds that the Bible clearly supports the notion of eternity. It is held
that the idea really comes from rationalist philosophy. Catholicism
depends heavily on eternity. It says that if you pray to a saint who has in time
not risen from the dead yet you reach the saint across time and eternity to when
she or he actually is. And then there is the teaching that through eternity, the
Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the cross.
If we assume the Bible has eternity at least at the back of its mind then some
interesting ideas appear.
In the Transfiguration of Jesus, both Moses and Elijah appear in visible,
embodied form and converse with Jesus before Peter, James and John. Yet neither
figure is described as having just risen. Moses had long been dead, and Elijah
was taken up into heaven without a recorded death. Their presence demonstrates
that figures understood to be “alive with God” can manifest in tangible,
recognizable ways without any accompanying claim of a recent resurrection. Peter
suggested they needed holy houses, tabernacles to reside in.
This aligns with Jesus’ own teaching that God is “not the God of the dead, but
of the living,” referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These patriarchs are
presented as already alive to God. Taken together, these passages suggest a
framework in which the righteous continue to live with God bodily and may, under
certain conditions, appear in embodied form.
Within this framework, the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus could be
understood as manifestations of one already alive with God and remember God is
not limited to time. The fact of appearance, even in embodied form, does not
logically establish the timing of that life. Thus, while the Gospels assert a
third-day resurrection, other elements within the same texts open the
possibility that these appearances reveal an ongoing reality of life with God
rather than a uniquely timed return from death.
The Church dislikes the suggestion for sceptics feel vindicated if the
experiences read like visions rather than something more concrete.