In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[GrandizerII]

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.

By events that can be explained by a good study of human psychology.

And no, you can't just say it counts as good evidence for X when the same evidence corresponds better to an alternative position that negates X and when much better evidence could've existed for X but doesn't.

Let's not be perverse in our Bayesian thinking just because we want to stick with the conclusion we're already comfortable with.

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.

Read that last statement one more time. The OT could have clearly stated that, before the general resurrection, the Messiah himself would die and be resurrected.

But it doesn't ...

I'm pretty sure an honest Bayesian analysis would count this as some sort of evidence against the Messianic Resurrection, not for. Especially that, according to Christianity, the Messianic Resurrection is not meant to be a logical extension of the general resurrection but rather a prefigurement. So why did the OT not ever mention this special case of resurrection at all? Perhaps because there wasn't supposed to be a Messianic Resurrection.

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.

You're missing the bigger point here. The Christian cult also had to cope with a failed prophecy. You're focusing on the wrong aspects here, and arguing that because the Christian cult had to radically adjust their prophecy rather than cancel it altogether, that the prophecy must be likely true. That's not how logic works.

Long term, the cult gave up and went home. The disciples kept going to their often painful deaths.

Some cults fail long term and others succeed (such as Mormonism), so long term success isn't a good indicator of the truth of a cult/religion.

And it's not clear if the earliest disciples in general "kept going to their often painful deaths". Asserting traditions doesn't make these traditions true.

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.

You're narrowing your focus on one aspect that suits your position and ignoring the fact that the early Christians also likely had to cope with a clearly failed expectation. Sure, they may have coped with the failure differently from the cult studied by Festinger, but that's besides the point. The prophecy that the Messiah would save the Jewish people from Roman occupation was a failure and led to major disappointment among the disciples.

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?

I don't think they necessarily had to have visions, but somewhere along the way, they came to believe that Jesus must've been resurrected and that salvation were to be spiritual rather than physical.

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?

According to the apocalyptic Jesus position, he heralded the coming of a kingdom that would usurp the current Roman rule. In a sense, that would count as "waving swords around".

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.

What was unclear about what I suggested? They had to deal with a failed prophecy. They had two options basically: go back home and forget the whole Jesus-Messiah thing ever was a thing, or (like the cult studied by Festinger) make adjustments to their beliefs. Now why would they end up doing the latter rather than the former? Who knows exactly, but again, Festinger had explanations for that.

Absolutely not. I'm going with the evidence.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.