Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

A while ago I commissioned a professional historian to write a review of the book by S. Valliant, W. Fahy "Creating Christ" which was published in JHC by Bob Price. One of the arguments of the authors indicating the imperial origins of Christianity was the common or similar symbolism used by the empire on coins and by Christians on signets (intaglios) and in graffiti.
The author of the review, Sławomir Poloczek, rejected the possibility of deliberate action by the imperial court to create a new religion, with which I agreed.

But the problem of similar symbolism still troubled me.
I have now come to the conclusion that people learned the story of Jesus after 65 years thanks to a member of the imperial court, Titus Flavius ​​Josephus, after the year 94 CE.
Marine symbols: dolphin, anchor, trident, fish were widely popular at that time and early Christians used them as identification.
Moreover, the same Josephus deigned to make it possible for them by changing the Mosaic commandment regarding fine arts.
"The second, commands us not to make the image of any living creature to worship it."
Thus, one can paint and carve living creatures for identification purposes. PS. I'm adding my theory as a reminder. Just in case...

JarekS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:38 pm I have now come to the conclusion that people learned the story of Jesus after 65 years thanks to a member of the imperial court, Titus Flavius ​​Josephus, after the year 94 CE.

I presume you mean people learned the story of Jesus 65 years after the time the story was and is set, ie. that it is set ~ 29-30 CE.

The problem I see is circularity, ie. it assumes (i) that the account/s in Josephus's Antiquities is/are genuine; (ii) that the stories are true; presumably (iii) that the gospels, etc., post-date Josephus' Antiquities; +/- (iv) other things

It essentially comes down to belief and opinion about a few things. And, as I see it, few, if any, verifiable facts.

Exactly as you wrote. I just wanted to show that Josephus dared to remodel the second Mosaic commandment from Exodus and Deuteronomy. He did it despite coming from the highest priestly class. So writing that some guy was a messiah shouldn't be a problem for him either. My theory is unfalsifiable but simpler and more coherent than the competing ones. Those are also unfalsifiable