In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[GrandizerII]

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.

I'm talking about the reasoning aspect, not the maths associated with Bayes' Theorem. In fact, the numbers don't really matter all that much because people start with different priors anyway. It's the direction of the updating process that matters. If we have evidence that corresponds to X more than to Y, then the likelihood of X being true increases while the likelihood of Y decreases.

By the way, I very well remember your proficiency with maths. So I don't doubt you're familiar with Bayes' theorem from a mathematical perspective.

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.

I, on the other hand, do see a big problem. If prophecies are ambiguous enough to be interpreted retrospectively in line with later beliefs, they are not good prophecies. If general resurrection all of a sudden implies also the resurrection of the Messiah BEFORE the general resurrection, that's adding to the OT passages something that wasn't originally there.

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.

Except it's not clear such events happened as you describe. Acts, for example, is a book that has been called to question in terms of its historicity by many scholars (you can read about this on Wiki). As I said before, asserting traditions as true doesn't make them true. For that, you need evidence pointing to the truths of these claims.

It may be the story you are told by Christian apologists, but it's one not necessarily grounded in reality.

Even so, none of these claims (if true) point to the Resurrection being true anyway. So we can grant you these stories of the early disciples dying for their beliefs, and it still wouldn't get us any closer to "Jesus is risen". This is because sincere beliefs can drive people to die for their beliefs, even if the beliefs themselves are not true.

So two problems with your argument here that need to be acknowledged:

1. Lack of evidence pointing to these claims as likely true (along with evidence calling into question the historicity of some of the sources of these claims).
2. These claims being true follow logically from having sincere beliefs that are not necessarily true.

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.

From Wikipedia:

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person's belief clashes with new evidence perceived by the person. When confronted with facts that contradict beliefs, ideals, and values, people will try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency to function mentally in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. They tend to make changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance or by avoiding circumstances and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.

Bolded mine.

I can understand why it's hard for you to see it the way I do, but really what's happening is that you're seeing something so special about the Jesus case that it couldn't have been an example of cognitive dissonance, despite the fact that when you put it in the right words, it is a situation that exemplifies cognitive dissonance.

Anyway, this discussion has pretty much run its course, so feel free to have the last word.