In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[Vicki Q]

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.

Actually, I would count it as good evidence for the Resurrection. The best explanation for the massive change in direction for the disciples belief, and the necessary startling, unexpected and original interpretation, is that they were forced that way by events.

But in any case, the Messianic-Resurrection statements were there in the retrospect the early Xians now had. If the nation can be represented by the Messiah, then the earlier mentioned passages referring to the national resurrection can also be applied to the nation's representative- the Messiah. Not at all obvious beforehand, but became visible when the Resurrection happened.

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.

Let's contrast the two.

If you asked Festinger's cult, once things had settled, whether the prophesied thing had happened, they would say “no, it was cancelled”. If you asked the disciples, they would say “yes, in fact beyond what we had hoped”. The cult only made minor adjustments to their beliefs (the general reaction for this sort of CD situation) whereas the disciples completely changed their belief set. Long term, the cult gave up and went home. The disciples kept going to their often painful deaths.

The contrast is stark between the two. You cannot use Festinger's experiment as a template for how Xianity developed. In fact it's 180 degrees the other way. The contradictory differences show that this wasn't cognitive dissonance.

But it can't have been cognitive dissonance anyway. For that to occur, as Festinger concluded, the belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief. And such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. The cult's belief about the end of the world was refuted, and it stayed that way. However the disciples belief was confirmed, not refuted, so it's not CD at that point.

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.

But this is critical. What is your theory?  Do you mean the disciples knew the whole Resurrection thing was a lie, but went with it anyway (I thought earlier we'd agreed this made no sense). Or, (completely different) the disciples had  unreal visions (in which case there would have been no cognitive dissonance because their theories were being confirmed rather than denied); or something else?

Why did they think Jesus was the Messiah at all at any stage? Unlike the other claimants, he didn't go waving swords around, so how was he going to do the Messiah thing? Saying he would do it by dying on a cross would hardly distinguish him from other messianic claimants, since that's what tended to happen to them anyway.

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.

Can we get some precision for your alternative? I'm still waiting for how to get from failed Messiah to Lord of the universe. Just one clear and viable route.

And in response to the rest, look, you don't have to let go of your belief that the Jesus is risen...Best to base it all on pure faith.

Absolutely not. I'm going with the evidence.