In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[GrandizerII]

I think we're at some sort of consensus. The gist of what I'm saying is that the disciples were able to go back to the passage and identify post-event what it was about, while remaining very firmly within reasonable interpretative limits.

"Limits" that allowed for a lot of flexibility when it comes to reinterpreting these passages in light of later purported events. Hardly interpretive limits when you think about it.

I meant prophecy of the general resurrection, not Messainic. The Messianic came as a massive surprise to the disciples, as the Gospels are at pains to point out.
To be clear, I'm not using miraculous fulfilment of prophecy as evidence of truth. Other Xians do, I know.

If the Messianic Resurrection is not in the OT, then perhaps what you should be pondering is whether this should count as evidence against the case of the Messianic Resurrection rather than for.

General resurrection is a non-issue here as it isn't about the Messiah resurrecting from the dead.

Doesn't this remind you of how the cult that was researched by Festinger justified their failed prophecies?

No, because the cult were trying to explain something that didn't happen. The disciples were banging on loudly and clearly about something that did happen. They were celebrating success, not failure.

My understanding is that what Tim and other scholars are saying is that what actually happened with Yeshua was a disappointment for the disciples - in other words, a failure, not a success - but that, as with the cultists in Festinger's research, the disciples found a sudden hope by reinterpreting what happened.

Whether there were visions associated with these reinterpretations, the point remains that it was failure that was perceived at the start, not success. Visions, if they did happen, would have helped with amplifying a hope renewed by these reinterpretations.

They had to change things around to get their faith going. The Messiah failed to deliver from the Romans, so the belief of deliverance had to change to be more spiritual, and the belief that the Messiah has risen served as a positive trigger to do so.

But why would they want to do that? He's failed. Time to go home. If all Jesus did was wander round saying he was the Messiah, with absolutely no evidence of that, and then died, what is there left to believe in?

Obviously we can't know exactly why, but here's a potential answer:

Hope that they weren't entirely wrong about their belief. Hope that the Messiah, somehow, would miraculously save them in some way despite his death.

And in response to the rest, look, you don't have to let go of your belief that the Jesus is risen. All I'm arguing is that if you're going to base your belief in the Resurrection on what happened purportedly in history past, in accordance with the documents we do have, the basis itself is very weak. Too weak to count for evidence, especially when easily countered by other more reasonable attempts to explain the observations that we do make (i.e., the theologically biased Christian documents that we have and a good number of real-life analogies to the Resurrection in which [secular] psychological analyses do seem to make for the best explanations).

Best to base it all on pure faith.