The inconsistencies are too blatant for minor "point of view" variation. They are actually mutually exclusive. But at this point it is clear you will do anything to stall answering directly my objections who, where, how and when saw Jesus first.
Of course, it’s God inspired through the hand of man
Of course? How do you know that? What possible objective proof can you offer for such a statement that doesn't reduce to "I just believe it's true, so it must be true"?
It might help if you consult the tsunami of biblical scholarship on the authenticity and interpretation of text.
It might indeed help if you acquaint yourself with some facts on that subject to find out that both the authenticity and interpretation are far from something universally accepted. But for now just answering my question who, where, when and how did Jesus appear to first will suffice.
Far less myself, you surely don’t expect even Biblical scholars to answer your questions in the context of a blog or internet thread without providing an enormous back-up of interpretative materials. The sources are all there for you to consult. I’ve recommended that your read two books by BXVI “The Apostles” and “On the Way To Jesus Christ.” (OWJC)
Indeed, on the issue of proof, Ratzinger has unbelieving individuals like you in mind (OWJC at pp.87-88) where he alludes to the First Temptation of Christ to “prove” himself and again in Matthew 27:40 the demand made by one of the thieves, “If you are the Son of God, come down from the Cross’
These books are not easy reading. Ratzinger essays all the major philosophical, biblical, and historical tracts in support of his arguments and refutations reminiscent of a “theological Einstein” or what TIME magazine called a “walking theological encyclopaedia.” In the Bordleian Library in Oxford, (where I studied) , the treatise of Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” is placed alongside the Bible for its profound scholarship and riveting theological insights.
You point to variations in narrative as “mutually exclusive” but do not specify the nature of the doctrinal exclusivity you seek to advance. Biblical accounts, usages, phrases, differences in oral traditions, translations, text and hypertext are not the common stock of contemporary readers understanding a modern account of events.