In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[Vicki Q]

Let's not be perverse in our Bayesian thinking just because we want to stick with the conclusion we're already comfortable with....
<snip>...
I'm pretty sure an honest Bayesian analysis would count this as some sort of evidence against the Messianic Resurrection, not for.

I'm very familiar with Bayes Theorem, and indeed with its application by Lane Craig and also by Swinburne to the Resurrection. However I'm not using their analyses and I'm not sure how you are using it in your post.

The OT could have clearly stated that, before the general resurrection, the Messiah himself would die and be resurrected.
But it doesn't ...
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.

I don't see the problem at all. Understanding the meaning of apocalyptic prophecy in Judaism is generally done retrospectively. The original prophecy set isn't meant to be precise. That's not how apocalyptic prophecy works.

In any case, as I keep saying, the passages referring to individual resurrection that were/are read to refer to national resurrection can also be read back to the Messiah-as-Israel.

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.

The Xian belief set them at odds with the Romans for putting Jesus as King over Caesar; the Greek cities for saying ditch the City Gods for Jesus; the Jews for saying Gentiles were now in the Covenant; the Priesthood for saying the Temple was redundant and the ruling authorities for looking much like a Messiah-movement which would bring the Roman legions in.

Everyone wanted them hurt.

Theory worked out in practice- the stoning of Stephen (Acts), the martyrdom of Peter (John, Church Fathers); James (Acts); and the appalling regular brutality towards Paul (his dark, dark comedy in 2 Cor 11).

The disciples were setting themselves up for a whole world of pain, but stuck with it, in contrast to the vanishing cult.

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.

No, I'm saying that making minor adjustments to belief is how those feeling cognitive dissonance who aren't prepared to give up their original beliefs react. That's what Psychology tells us happens in these cases.

Cognitive dissonance is the refusal to change belief despite overwhelming evidence. But the disciples made massive and radical changes to their belief. That's not cognitive dissonance. CD could only be used to explain why Jesus didn't appear to do anything, not why he did.

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.

OK, what were the explanations? How do they apply in this case?