Is cognitive dissonance a plausible explanation for the origin of Christianity?

[Pytine]

In the video above, Matthew Hartke presents an explanation for the origin of Christianity. The video is about half an hour long. Here is a short summary:

Social psychologists have done a lot of research on eschatological groups centered around a prophecy in the near future. When that prophecy fails, the groups always follow the same pattern. Some people leave the group, but the most dedicated members stay in the group. Their belief in the prophecy and the evidence that the prophecy failed causes cognitive dissonance among the members of the group. In order to reduce the cognitive dissonance, the group follows these 4 steps:

- The failure of the prophecy becomes a cornerstone of the belief after the failed prophecy
- Eschatology is divided into a spiritual partial fulfilment and a concrete final fulfilment
- The prophecies are reinterpreted along the same lines
- The difference between expectation and outcome of the prophecy is attributed to human misunderstanding rather than failure of the prophecy

The prophecy here is that Jesus is the messiah. The Old Testament describes that the messiah would be a descendant of David who would become king of the Jews, who would return the Jews to their land, who would overthrow their oppressors (the Romans), and bring world peace. The death of Jesus prevented Jesus from fulfilling these requirements, so it became a cornerstone of the belief of Christianity.
Eschatology is divided into a first coming 2000 years ago and a second coming that is still to come. During the first coming, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies spiritually. He gave a new covenant, he brought salvation, and he forgave sins. Verses like John 18:36 specifically state that Jesus is a king, but his kingdom is not of this world. In the second coming, Jesus is expected to fulfil the prophecies concretely.
The prophecies from the Old Testament are reinterpreted along the lines of the first and second coming. All of the spiritual, non-measurable prophecies are connected to the first coming, while the more concrete and visible prophecies are connected with the second coming.
The discrepancy between the expectation and the outcome of the ministry of Jesus are attributed to misunderstanding the messianic prophecies.

Can this model explain the origin of Christianity? Or are there aspects of the origin of Christianity that are incompatible with this view? Is it more plausible than other models, such as that the resurrection actually happened?

In short: is cognitive dissonance a plausible explanation for the origin of Christianity?

[Wootah]

You know if it really cognitive dissonance to see all the old testament prophecies fulfilled in Jesus on the cross?

What precisely were all those fulfilled prophecies?

Google away. But you can barely read a line of the Bible without it pointing to Jesus.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #20]

Yeah that might not be the most innocent source but I 'loved' this line:

"Out of respect for Judaism and for the Bible, therefore, I propose that Christians have an intellectual and moral duty to abandon this obsolete, self-serving, and dangerous belief."

[Pytine]

You know if it really cognitive dissonance to see all the old testament prophecies fulfilled in Jesus on the cross?

It doesn't seem like the accident you are proposing.

I don't think there is a single Old Testament prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. If you have any examples of fulfilled prophecies, please share them. Many people have give me lists of what they believed to be fulfilled prophecies, but usually the 'prophecies' on those lists are just verses taken out of context.

Some learn new material more readily or efficiently by reading rather than thru video. Would you suggest an online, written presentation of this idea?

Here is a transcript of the video.

[brunumb]

You know if it really cognitive dissonance to see all the old testament prophecies fulfilled in Jesus on the cross?

What precisely were all those fulfilled prophecies?

Google away. But you can barely read a line of the Bible without it pointing to Jesus.

You made the claim here, so you should support it here.

[AchillesHeel]

Here is how to explain the origin of belief in a dying and rising Messiah in the first century without a resurrection actually taking place. All you need to do is combine the empirically observed phenomenon of cognitive dissonance with the specific historical circumstances and beliefs of first century apocalyptic Jews.

Step 1: The tradition found in 4Q521 tells us the time of the Messiah will coincide with "wondrous deeds," one of which was raising the dead. So this establishes a connection (in some form or another) of the Messiah with the end times Resurrection. This tradition actually ends up being quoted in Lk. 7:22 and Mt. 11:2-5 so we know the Jesus sect had this expectation. https://jamestabor.com/a-cosmic-messiah ... lls-4q521/

Step 2: Jesus was a Messianic figure who preached and predicted the Resurrection. Apologists cannot deny this since their own Scripture says so. This shows that the idea would have been implanted in his followers minds.

Step 3: Both Jesus and his followers believed they were living in the end of times which is exactly when the Resurrection was thought to take place. This is supported by the gospels themselves, Paul's letters and other apocalyptic literature that we can compare the gospels to.

Step 4: Jesus was suddenly executed.

Step 5: Enter cognitive dissonance (which has been empirically observed in other religious groups), plus a little bit of theological innovation and a biased reading of the Old Testament looking for an answer and voila! It was "foretold" all along - 1 Cor 15:3-4, Rom. 16:25-26! Thus, we can now see how the Jesus sect applied their already anticipated belief in the Resurrection to Jesus and he became the "firstfruits" of it - 1 Cor 15: 20.

Step 6: Soon some of his followers claimed to have visions or spiritual experiences of Jesus which is supported by the fact that Paul calls his experience a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) and a "vision from heaven" (Acts 26:19) which he does not distinguish in nature from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15: 5-8. This provides a proof that physical experiences on earth with a resurrected body were not required in order to believe a person had been resurrected.

Steps 5 and 6 may be interchangeable. If the imminent anticipation of the end times Resurrection was already part of Jesus and his followers background beliefs then it's no wonder some came to the belief Jesus had been resurrected just a "tad bit early." It's straightforward logic - expecting the Resurrection to occur any day now -> Jesus was preaching the Resurrection -> Jesus suddenly dies -> Jesus must have been resurrected!

Apologists who maintain that the followers of Jesus would have abandoned the movement should check out other examples where religious/apocalyptic groups have their expectations falsified but then somehow reinterpret the events and update their beliefs in order keep on believing. See Festinger's book "When Prophecy Fails" as well as the origin of the Seventh Day Adventists (The Millerites), Sabbatai Sevi, and the Lubavitch. https://www.westarinstitute.org/resourc ... ion-jesus/

*As a side note, the "wondrous deeds" in 4Q521 would also explain why we have stories of Jesus performing the same exact miracles in the gospels. Obviously, if you are trying to present Jesus as the expected Messiah, then you better make sure you depict him performing the miracles the Messiah was expected to perform! Understood this way, the Jesus stories are just Jewish Messianic propaganda. The data of the miracle stories is equally expected even if Jesus never performed them in historical reality.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AchillesHeel in post #25]

That's rather how I see it. It's a personal view and i could be wrong but i see the whole thing going back to the Maccabean revolt and the zealot movement, which threw up messianic revolts against the Herodians and Romans, when they took over. Whether his mission was messianic or not, the baptist looked like he was fomenting revolt and Antipas may have been right to suspect him. So far from John protesting he wasn't the messia and grovelling to Jesus, I think that Jesus took over his mission and it looks like it was messianic. In fact on the evidence it had to be, and appears to have aimed at a restoration of Jewish temporal rule as well as spiritual. It is no accident that hints of zealotry keep cropping up and require "Mr. protest - too - much" denial.

I reckon that the crucifixion did look like failure until Peter appears the first to get the idea (and perhaps vision) in his head that 'Jesus' body lay a mouldrin' in his cave, but his soul had gone to heavn'. So they all bought into the idea, believed or proposed as a motivation, that he would return before all those standing there had gone to be stars studded in the inside of the sky dome and usher in the Last Days, with descending on clouds, trumpets, graves opening and the 12 judging the 12 tribes, seated on thrones.

I suspect that Paul's gentile - friendly version of Jewish Messianism needed more than a Jesus in the head. A solid body was needed. Which after all was what Pharisee resurrection suggested. So Jesus - for Gentile Christians, if not for Paul and the disciples - had to have got up and walked. Proof? The tomb was of course empty, was the claim.

"How do you know?"

"Well, someone saw it was empty."

"Whom?"

(Thinks - not the disciples; that might look fishy) "The women." (and let them come up with reasons to go there).

That was still not enough, so an angel had to be posted there waiting to explain everything. Not in John, but in the synoptic version.

But even that wouldn't do, and Jesus himself had to put in an appearance and, as each was making up his own story, they all contradict. Worse still, Luke read Paul's letters and had to revise the synoptic gospel to agree with them. Thus there is no command to go to Galilee, but they are told to stay in Jerusalem, and Jesus appearing first to Simon. is added, the action shifted to Emmaeus so we needn't expect to hear exactly what happened.

I reckon the hand, and foot, sometimes in mouth, of amendment and editing and of addition and invention, is seen all through the NT and nowhere more so than in the resurrection.

[TRANSPONDER]

Watching the video (finally) i can see how improvising excuses to keep the belief going is so common as to be the norm of human thought, and deciding that one was mistaken requires a far less common objectivity. Critical thinking isn't taught nor valued, and 'courage of convictions' is regrettably more valued than the 'always getting things wrong', and being willing admit it is despised.

That said, the more Faith is involved, the more extreme the doubling down becomes and the more hard evidence is dismissed. I have seen TONS of it from rejection of evidence that the Egyptians did their own stonework without ET spacepilot technology, to denial of what the Bible actually says in favour of what is believed. Which is why I say it is about being right rather than maintaining the cult, and we know that people change churches if they don't agree with its' teachings. They are the final arbiter of what's true or false, good or evil, right or wrong, not the teachings.

It is the ultimate in personal ego, and science being willing to accept it was wrong (1) is the ultimate in humility. But it is also a great strength, because cognitive dissonance can lead to increased stress in maintaining 'what you know ain't so'. Some reduce the swelling by switching the nonsense to the 'metaphorical' bin and going with what they can still believe. Others simply forget about all the times prophecy didn't come true after keeping it going as 'it's happening right now, but will take some time' fades out and a new date is produced. I think this is what happened with early Christianity.

Jesus' mission failed on the cross. No question of it. The moping disciples somehow got the idea of a spiritual resurrection and messianic return. Perhaps the idea that another messiah would appear and then Peter's idea that it was the SAME Messiah who had ascended to heaven, in the spirit, as for all anyone knows the body was still in the tomb, since the resurrection accounts are not to be trusted.

That will be dismissed as speculation but so it all is, if we reject the resurrection tales as unsound and the 'would not die for a lie' apologetic as failed.

But the point is that the video assumes that early Christianity was Jewish cognitive dissonance. I don't think it was; the Pauline Christianity had its' own degrees of denial and evolution, but the Greek kind went further than Paul intended, with the messiah becoming divine and rejection of the Mosaic law becoming a dislike of Jews. The disciples of course had nothing to do with this, even if they weren't the ones that Paul was snarling about as 'super - apostles' teaching a gospel other than his.

But the Real point is that the gospel writers themselves seem to have to be dealing with a problem. Jesus was supposed to return in their lifetimes. When it first got put down on paper, already some were dead. So long as a few were still clinging to life, there was time for Jesus to return. Then there were none, and Jesus still hadn't come. Double down of the cognitive dissonance. I think that Luke tried to pretend that the Kingdom promised had happened in the form of the Church and faith "Within You", and Mathew in the graves opening and never mind judgement. But the promise was specific. On the clouds with a soul band and a judgement and before the disciples were all gone. Double down dudes. Just ignore that and recite the claim that it's happening, any day now.

Not just the Millerites but 1,000 AD the church cleaned up (so I read) and course gave none of it back when it didn't happen. And the return has been predicted every time a comet appears , and no matter how often they fail, they keep (in Einstein's words) 'doing it the same way and expecting to get a different result'.

(1) the 'Science thinks it knows it all' jibe merely reflects the weakness of the cultist mindset. Science knows it has much to learn and often has to rethink (Dark matter may be soon replaced with Modified Newtonian physics). 'Science thinks it has all the answers' reflects the limited mindset of those who, trapped into denying the evidence and playing the familiar 'I don't understand (or know) this, so it can't be true', evidently strain under the fear hat anything they may claim might be refuted by science. Cue the 'you think you are so smart' jibe of someone totally without any other rejoinder.