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?

[TRANSPONDER]

1213

You said "The death of Jesus was not planned". By what is said in the Bible, it was known that he will be killed. And later the leaders planned how to get Jesus, so there was some kind of plan to kill him. Bible also tells Jesus could have prevented it. But, it was allowed to happen, and I believe the reason is, by so, he could be risen from death and give courage for his disciples to continue without fear.

But, I think the common "atonement" doctrine is misunderstanding of what is said in the Bible.

Without going back, it is not a convincing claim that Jesus' death was planned just because later doctrine interprets this as 'atonement' and I think I know what Paul as well as later Christianity means by that - 'Jesus suffered so we don't have to' - except we do - and write the gospels to reflect that doctrine, we have to credit that as an accurate record. You may, I don't see any good reason to.

[1213]

1213

You said "The death of Jesus was not planned". By what is said in the Bible, it was known that he will be killed. And later the leaders planned how to get Jesus, so there was some kind of plan to kill him. Bible also tells Jesus could have prevented it. But, it was allowed to happen, and I believe the reason is, by so, he could be risen from death and give courage for his disciples to continue without fear.

But, I think the common "atonement" doctrine is misunderstanding of what is said in the Bible.

Without going back, it is not a convincing claim that Jesus' death was planned just because later doctrine interprets this as 'atonement' and I think I know what Paul as well as later Christianity means by that - 'Jesus suffered so we don't have to' - except we do - and write the gospels to reflect that doctrine, we have to credit that as an accurate record. You may, I don't see any good reason to.

I think it is later seen as atonement, but it was never meant to be a doctrine that says it was required. Similarly as in the case of soldier that sacrifices his life in a war, the goal is not to die, nor it is a requirement. It only means that person becomes like a sacrifice, because dies for the cause. It can be said that Jesus suffered for us, even though it was not necessary required.

But, Jesus knew well that he will die the way he did. So I think it is not reasonable to say it came as surprise.

[TRANSPONDER]

1213

You said "The death of Jesus was not planned". By what is said in the Bible, it was known that he will be killed. And later the leaders planned how to get Jesus, so there was some kind of plan to kill him. Bible also tells Jesus could have prevented it. But, it was allowed to happen, and I believe the reason is, by so, he could be risen from death and give courage for his disciples to continue without fear.

But, I think the common "atonement" doctrine is misunderstanding of what is said in the Bible.

Without going back, it is not a convincing claim that Jesus' death was planned just because later doctrine interprets this as 'atonement' and I think I know what Paul as well as later Christianity means by that - 'Jesus suffered so we don't have to' - except we do - and write the gospels to reflect that doctrine, we have to credit that as an accurate record. You may, I don't see any good reason to.

I think it is later seen as atonement, but it was never meant to be a doctrine that says it was required. Similarly as in the case of soldier that sacrifices his life in a war, the goal is not to die, nor it is a requirement. It only means that person becomes like a sacrifice, because dies for the cause. It can be said that Jesus suffered for us, even though it was not necessary required.

But, Jesus knew well that he will die the way he did. So I think it is not reasonable to say it came as surprise.

That's all fine and dandy and in fact, I agree. But that makes the whole thing no more than a risky raid whre one hopes to survive but doesn't think the odds are good. Indeed suicides for the faith intend not to survive. Bu that does ot tell you wat the cause must be let alone whether it;'s true. But it does bespeak a plan and outcome, with a necessary death as part of it.

I've lost track a bit as I think that whatever Jesus (if it is at all true) had a plan he was following, and I don't know how I could be saying it was unplanned, which I think you said. "You said "The death of Jesus was not planned"." If I did, I may need to backtrack.

I don't see it, but I do see this "Jesus didn't die voluntarily. He didn't give or sacrifice himself. He was killed by the Romans against his will." That does not mean there was no plan. Even Romans do not kill people for nothing. There eas something that Jesus was doing and I don't think it was unplanned as a secular effort any more that Christianity that sees it as an effort planed by God. So let's not cause confusion by saying that I claim Jesus' mission was unplanned, even if his death may not have been planned as God's plan assuredly required it should be.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Pytine in post #1]

Cognitive dissonance explains many things, nearly everything IMO. Is everyone claiming miracles and experiences lying?

(I haven't experienced God in that way. )

I think we wouldn't get out of bed without cognitive dissonance.

Can you see the log in your own eye?

[1213]

,,,but I do see this "Jesus didn't die voluntarily. He didn't give or sacrifice himself. He was killed by the Romans against his will." ....

For this reason My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down from Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. I received this commandment from My Father.
John 10:17-18

[TRANSPONDER]

,,,but I do see this "Jesus didn't die voluntarily. He didn't give or sacrifice himself. He was killed by the Romans against his will." ....

For this reason My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down from Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. I received this commandment from My Father.
John 10:17-18

That's obviously self -contradictory. The Father commanded it, he asked to be let of (Gethsemane in the synoptics) but God says no. John may have Jesus say that he does it willingly, but it clearly isn't as simple as that. in any case, I suspect we got to arguing snippits of theology at the expense of proper arguments.

Yes, originally about religious thought we got onto you saying 'atonement' was misunderstood. Though Paul makes it clear and the gospels don't refute that. Then we got this 'crucifixion was unplanned' thing which is what I think but i not what the Bible thinks. It had to happen or nobody could be saved. But I don't think it's true, so I fail to see how quoting John's opinions makes any contribution to the debate.

[Wootah]

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.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Pytine in post #1]
I just read this, quickly... and intriguing idea I'll take some time to digest, after I've watched more than a few minutes of the video. I'm writing now just to acknowledge we need more thoughtful posts like this introducing new ideas.

Thank you Pytine.

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

At any rate since my [long ago] undergraduate background is anthropology/sociology I was interested in the mention of social psychology as well as cognitive dissonance. A quick search yielded this reference I found helpful:

What is Cognitive Dissonance Reduction?

Many scholars doubt that Jesus ever claimed he was the Messiah. However, Jesus obviously made a big impression on some people. Because of this, some may have thought or hoped he was the Messiah, a sentiment not unlike that expressed in the Gospel of Luke: “We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). How might people like these, Jesus’ most ardent followers who thought or hoped he might be the Messiah, have reacted to the harsh reality of his death? Jews, at the time of the historical Jesus, expected the Messiah to be a victor, not a victim. The notion that the Messiah would die for the sins of others did not yet exist.

For most people most of the time, the reaction in such a situation would be the depressing realization that expectations were wrong. But sometimes people do not follow that route. We human beings have a tendency, when we deeply believe or want to believe in something, to look for and arrive at conclusions that confirm what we already believe or want to believe. When strongly held beliefs are inescapably disconfirmed by reality, this sometimes leads to extraordinary displays of rationalization. In the case of Jesus’ followers, the strongly held belief was that Jesus was the Messiah, and the disconfirming event was his crucifixion by his enemies. The internal tension caused by a disconfirming event is called “cognitive dissonance” by psychologists, and the release of this tension due to a rationalization (or any other action that releases the tension) is called “cognitive dissonance reduction.” The Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling defines cognitive dissonance and cognitive dissonance reduction this way:

An individual holds beliefs or cognitions that do not fit with each other (e.g., I believe the world will end, and the world did not end as predicted). Nonfitting beliefs give rise to dissonance, a hypothetical aversive state the individual is motivated to reduce. . . . Dissonance may be reduced by changing behavior, altering a belief, or adding a new one.
....
Two of the hardcore cult members rejected their beliefs and left the group. But the other nine did not. Instead, they went through a period of intense rationalization over a matter of hours. As members of the group wrestled with their catastrophic disappointment, they floated many explanations.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/editori ... tion-jesus

A more recent and obvious example of this phenomenon is Charles Taze Russel and what became the Jehovah's Witnesses.
When his 1878 'End of the harvest' prediction' was unfulfilled, he readily made his first of several revisions:

Coming to the spring of 1878 [...] we naturally and not unreasonably expected some change of our condition, and all were more or less disappointed when nothing supernatural occurred. But our disappointment was brief, for we noticed that the Jewish church (and not the Gospel church) was the pattern of ours, and therefore we should not expect parallels to Pentecost or to anything which happened in the beginning of this church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfill ... redictions

[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?

[Diogenes]

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?

Not to mention the (largely anonymous) authors of the NT wrote to those prophesies, including conflicting genealogies. The apt metaphor is 'Shooting the arrow at the barn door, then painting the bullseye around it.'

From our perspective it is obvious that Matthew was reading Jesus into the prophecies he quoted. When we examine those prophecies in their own contexts, it is clear, for example, that Zechariah had no foreknowledge of Judas when he spoke about the thirty silver coins, and that Isaiah was not thinking about the birth of Jesus when he challenged King Ahaz with the news that "the young woman is pregnant and will have a son and will name him Immanuel" (Isa 7:14, quoted in Matt 1:23). The woman in question was someone Isaiah and Ahaz knew (note that she is "the young woman"), almost certainly one of Ahaz's wives. Respect for the Bible requires us to understand the prophets as speaking to their own times, with messages that they and their audiences understood in relation to their situations centuries before the time of Jesus.
....
The belief that the prophets were pointing to Jesus, though perhaps helpful at the time Matthew wrote his gospel, has long since outlived its usefulness. It is a belief that distorts the scriptures and has had ugly consequences in history. 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.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/editori ... l-prophecy