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?

[Pat Mustard]

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.

So no evidence=good evidence.

[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.

[mordant]

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 other words there is no actual prophecy -- just post hoc confirmation bias looking for pattern matches between some text and certain events.

In the year I spent in formal theological training I was taught that prophecy is written for future generations and makes no sense to contemporaneous readers -- it only makes sense in light of its fulfillment much later. Which is just another way of saying what you stated here. We even allowed for "multiple fulfillments", "partial and complete fulfillments", and "literal and spiritual fulfillments".

A great example of this is the claims of the gospel authors that certain OT passages predicted Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection -- something that Jewish scholars find by turns hilarious and infuriating. Those passages weren't about Jesus, and in many cases weren't even intended as prophecy. But they can flogged into service like everything else in the scripture.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's amazing, that's what they teach in formal theological training? In comparative and sociological studies it's asserted that "prophecy"..likely...-only- makes proper sense to it's contemporaneous consumer, as a sort of op ed on current events told explicitly from within the then-present (and predominant) mythological or societal construct.

Or, at least, that construct which the author wishes were the predominant one.

[mordant]

That's amazing, that's what they teach in formal theological training?  In comparative and sociological studies it's asserted that "prophecy"..likely...-only- makes proper sense to it's contemporaneous consumer, as a sort of op ed on current events told explicitly from within the then-present (and predominant) mythological or societal construct.  

Or, at least, that construct which the author wishes were the predominant one.

Understand, I'm not talking Princeton Theological Cemetery or something. It was Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music, now defunct. Conceptually a peer of, e.g., Moody Bible Institute. And this was the view of one professor that really stuck with me because it was so obviously self-ratifying nonsense. Yeah, it was that kind of thing that planted the first seeds of doubt for me.

We were basically partial preterists, and regarded most prophecy as already fulfilled, and some (mostly Revelations) as yet to be fulfilled, which was a handy way of handling the incoherence of that book -- it's not supposed to make sense and we're somewhat guessing at its fulfillment. But it will be a powerful testament to God's foreknowledge to people who go through the Great Tribulation, etc.

Yes, I actually paid for this information ...

[Deesse23]

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.

A bunch of unknown people changing their belief (massively! ) 2000y ago is evidence for events allegedly breaking the rules of everything e know?
... and the (unusual/startling) interpretation of events is evidence for those very events?

What is so unexpected about thinking someone rose from the dead when you find his tomb empty?....giving the standard of knowledge of an average palestinian 2000y ago?

Truth is: You dont know what standard for believing they had, other than a very low one compared to today in general, because of the lack of knowledge of the world and lack of education of those rather unknown people in particular.

Truth is also: scope of change of belief has nothing to do with veracityof this belief.

So, peopel changed their beliefs radically 2000y ago most probably based on particular evens, therefore god?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

On re-reading this thread, I think I have the answer (with apologies to Sir Terry):  The Resurrection is the best answer in precisely the same way that fish are the best mountaineers.

Boru

[Vicki Q]

In the year I spent in formal theological training I was taught that prophecy is written for future generations and makes no sense to contemporaneous readers -- it only makes sense in light of its fulfillment much later. Which is just another way of saying what you stated here.

Always nice when people with differing perspectives agree on something.

A great example of this is the claims of the gospel authors that certain OT passages predicted Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection -- something that Jewish scholars find by turns hilarious and infuriating.

And yet it was a group of Jews who developed these ideas. And as discussed earlier in the thread, the interpretations, while different to the usual ones at the time, were well within reasonable interpretive bounds. That the OT meta-narrative, and associated prophecy, ends up with Jesus' resurrection is extremely do-able. The Gospels (far more than most Xians realise!) and the Epistles explain how this works at great length.

Xians trying to use fulfilled prophecy as a slam-dunk body of proof will struggle, but those who see it as the Early Church did, as a jigsaw puzzle that just got completed, can see how well it all fits together.

Those passages weren't about Jesus, and in many cases weren't even intended as prophecy. But they can flogged into service like everything else in the scripture.

You misunderstand how the OT works in relation to the NT. It functions much as the early acts of a play, for which Jesus, then the Church, are the last two acts. Thus all sorts of things that aren't formal prophecy, being part of the narrative, can still function as signposts to Jesus.

For example, the Exodus functions as a model for the liberation of God's people by Resurrection, in both Paul, and in the Gospels, despite being (supposedly) history.

In other words there is no actual prophecy -- just post hoc confirmation bias looking for pattern matches between some text and certain events.

It's what those 'certain events' might be that's such a fascinating question.

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

Hey! I was going to say that!

I'd essentially be repeating what's gone before, so I'll leave the discussions here.

However thank you for a debate carried out with respectful, yet robust argument.

[Abaddon_ire]

And yet it was a group of Jews who developed these ideas. And as discussed earlier in the thread, the interpretations, while different to the usual ones at the time, were well within reasonable interpretive bounds. That the OT meta-narrative, and associated prophecy, ends up with Jesus' resurrection is extremely do-able. The Gospels (far more than most Xians realise!) and the Epistles explain how this works at great length.

False. That group of Jews already had an established body of prophecy before there ever was a jesus. They didn't have to come up with it de novo, they simply had to retcon an existing body of work.

Furthermore, they were not the only group using the very same prophecies to very different ends. The notion that it was only that group and no other doing so is bovine

Xians trying to use fulfilled prophecy as a slam-dunk body of proof will struggle, but those who see it as the Early Church did, as a jigsaw puzzle that just got completed, can see how well it all fits together.

Sure. It is fairly obvious how it was retro-fitted. What of it?