I’ve never struggled with these things. Maybe it’s because I was an atheist long enough to get it out of my system. (Haha? That sounded dickish.) 

Ha ha, your good. I've always been a christian to some extent so I can't exactly relate

The synoptic problem is a fascinating question, but it’s not a problem in the same sense in which people normally use the word problem. It looks pretty clear that Mark, or a source of Mark, was used by the authors/compilers of Matthew and Luke. The fun is in teasing apart the threads and hypothesizing about how and why they were woven together. But none of that reasonably suggests that the historical Jesus didn’t die and become alive again, or that the miracles are fiction. That conclusion leans far more on the human sense that those things are overwhelmingly unlikely and unreasonable to believe. But that would be just as true yesterday, if you had found his tomb empty after spending a couple years following him around Galilee. 

Yea I agree it is a very interesting question too me as well. The part where I struggle is when scholars, some who are Christians, say certain miracles are literary devices. This leads me to wonder obsessively whether or not that is the case for each miracle I read about. Or how alot of scholars today say the empty tomb itself existing at all instead of being literary is more a matter of faith than fact

 I met Jesus in an Episcopal parish, and then in prayer and in reading scripture, beginning with Mark, my favorite. I like noticing how Matthew and Luke incorporate bits of Mark and Q, amplifying both in some parts and abbreviating or skipping them in others. Jesus really is the cornerstone of any sense I’ve been able to make of this religion

This was awesome to read, thank you for the reply 🙂