Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

If the word "Christ" refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.

The full engraving on the bowl reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted by the excavation team to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."

source

Visit the link for the full article

Whatever people think, there is little doubt that Christ was a real historical figure.

An ancient bowl calling him a magician has recently been uncovered - but let's not confuse him with david copperfield.....

COULD christ have been seen as a magician?

I think the answer is yes, if we take into account the transsubstatiation, and if we recognise that even in biblical times there were plenty of skeptics around.

This of course could be viewed as "evidence" by either camp in the argument about whether he possessed powers the rest of us don't, or whether he was a charlatan.

For the moment, I'm going to withold my own judgement - but this looks like another piece in the jigsaw.

Are we thinking under the pretense that 'magician' is to be synonymous with 'charlatan'? Why not someone who works magic i.e miracles.

Also, is there historical accounts of others being attributed the title of Christ?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Oh and, cool thread man

I have not read the article you linked yet cuz I am quite tired! Look forward to it later though

The term "Christ" was not invented nor used only by Christians. Furthermore, at the time of so-called Jesus there was another "god-man" that early Christians refer to as Simon Magus - Magus means "magician". He allegedly was able to levitate and was witnessed by hundreds of people doing so.

Thus he was a threat to the commercial value of the early Christian church so they labeled him a hieratic (he was bad for business) even though he openly asked the apostle Peter to join forces.

Anyway, my point is that this bowl proves nothing yet alone that Jesus actually existed. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they found "Made in China" on the bottom

reply to post by WatchNLearn


Is there historical accounts of Simon Magus being given the title of Christos, Christ, whateva?

reply to post by WatchNLearn


Ok that's discongruous. You attribute the bowl to Simon Magus then claim it proves Jesus existed.

There is another thread on this.
The interpretation could also mean a term people often referred to about Christ and being saved in those days as the "magic of Christ" not Christ the magician.
The actual words say Christ the magic.
Which can also mean Magic Christ the Magic of the Christ.
People often used the term Magic in regards to wonderful things instead of using the word wonderful.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Are we thinking under the pretense that 'magician' is to be synonymous with 'charlatan'? Why not someone who works magic i.e miracles.

I think the point I was making is that some will always equate magician with charlatan.

Personally, I think that's the wrong approach, but that's just my opinion - I am more open to someone who works magic equating to miraculous events that defy rational explanation, rather than JUST magical tricks.

reply to post by Loki


Ummm, no? Perhaps you need to learn English a little better lol.

What I was saying is that Jesus was not the only "magician" of his time - the term christ was used by others (not Christians) so this bowl DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING - so is that simple enough for you?


Some info on Simon Magus

If the bowl is thought to date from 200BC-100AD

then there is a problem... because the Biblical Christ did not perform the ministry until ~30AD

So how could a 'Christ' idealology exist, where they even made bowls that reverence a christ-magician (a 'holy grail'?) 270 years before the appearance of an actual Christ.


the dating has to be incorrect for the relic to be tied in with the 'Christian cult' which the Roman's first considered a mystery cult fascinated with magical rites & such ...
from the time of the Judea-Palestine ministry 30-33AD until the time of Charlemaine, at three hundred something AD

Well lookie here, an artifact that implies that Jesus was not the Messiah, he was a very naughty boy.

How many Christians does it take to decry this?

Originally posted by St Udio
If the bowl is thought to date from 200BC-100AD

then there is a problem... because the Biblical Christ did not perform the ministry until ~30AD

So how could a 'Christ' idealology exist, where they even made bowls that reverence a christ-magician (a 'holy grail'?) 270 years before the appearance of an actual Christ.


the dating has to be incorrect for the relic to be tied in with the 'Christian cult' which the Roman's first considered a mystery cult fascinated with magical rites & such ...
from the time of the Judea-Palestine ministry 30-33AD until the time of Charlemaine, at three hundred something AD

Margin of error (I assume carbon dating) still fits within the right timeframe if jesus was born in AD 0 because it goes up to AD100 which at the far end would be 67 (?) years after his death.

reply to post by budski


"christ" does not necessarily refer to the biblical Jesus. There were many who claimed to be the "christ" before Jesus and there have been many since. The usage of the word in this context is more likely to refer to the office rather than any particular individual claimant.

All this proves is that a historical Jesus Christ existed and that his name was being co-opted even by non-christians just as stated by the new testament in certain instances.

nice find

reply to post by WatchNLearn


So do you have any sources where the title 'Christ' is given to Simon Magus?


[edit on 2-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

The Babylonian Talmud states that Jesus was a sorcerer, so it is not that surprising to see him mentioned in this context, and as Reject says, the NT even mentions that his name was being used to perform magic.

As for Simon, Irenaeus tells that he "was glorified by many as a god; and he taught that it was he himself who, forsooth, appeared among the Jews as the Son, while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and in the rest of the nations he came as the Holy Spirit." But even in his day, the stories were more legend than fact.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Eleleth]

reply to post by budski


I was just reading about this last night but was too lazy to make a thread about it. lol This is what I found out about it and some replies to previous posters on this thread:

Originally posted by St Udio
If the bowl is thought to date from 200BC-100AD then there is a problem... because the Biblical Christ did not perform the ministry until ~30AD So how could a 'Christ' idealology exist, where they even made bowls that reverence a christ-magician (a 'holy grail'?) 270 years before the appearance of an actual Christ.

It is dated within a 300 year period but the life of Jesus falls within that period. Dating artifacts is not always exact and many contributing factors come into play. Being dated up to 200 B.C. does not cancel this out as a connection to Jesus due to the fact Jesus' era falls within this time frame. It's simply the window of time the bowl dates to.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Well lookie here, an artifact that implies that Jesus was not the Messiah, he was a very naughty boy.

Christ = Messiah. Greek vs. Hebrew.

Originally posted by WatchNLearn
The term "Christ" was not invented nor used only by Christians. Furthermore, at the time of so-called Jesus there was another "god-man" that early Christians refer to as Simon Magus - Magus means "magician". He allegedly was able to levitate and was witnessed by hundreds of people doing so.

I don't believe Simon Magus was ever known by the title of Christ or the Christ, though. I believe his followers considered him to be a god but he was never issued the title of Messiah/Christ according to my knowledge.

Originally posted by budski
COULD christ have been seen as a magician?

I think the answer is yes, if we take into account the transsubstatiation, and if we recognise that even in biblical times there were plenty of skeptics around.

This is precisely so. Even the NT records Jesus being accused of sorcery by the Jewish Court. Then in the 2nd century there was a pagan author who dismissed Jesus' miracles as acts of sorcery. So many of the skeptics certainly saw Jesus as a magician and directly accused Him of being one. Remember Jesus' famous reply to this accusation about a kingdom being divided against itself not being able to stand.

Everybody - I will talk slowly ok - I at NO POINT said Simon Magus was called Christ - I said he was called "Magus" - meaning "magician / wizard".

Before and after Jesus the word Christ is from the Greek word khristos that means "the anointed". Khristos was made use of translating the Hebrew messiah that means the person who is anointed or covered in oil. This literally translates into messiah. The Jews consider the Messiah to be a human being and there are no references of deity or divinity.

The standardized spelling was made as Christ in the 17th century. At that time, an effort was undertaken to change the spellings of some words to bring the Greek or Latin origin of it. The word was spelled as Crist before this change.

So now do you get it? This bowl does NOT in any way, shape or form prove the existance of Jesus the Nazarene.

reply to post by WatchNLearn


My apologies. It wasn't meant to be insulting. I wasn't sure why you would have mentioned Simon the a magician since the bowl specifically mentioned Christ (as well as magician). After rereading, I now see you were talking about two different things with Christ then Simon and not Christ and Simon.

Anyways, I agree with you in that I personally don't think the bowl is significant in any major way. It doesn't tell us anything that isn't already known, it's exact date can't be proven, and apparently nobody can agree exactly what the inscription is implying, and it doesn't look like a possession of Jesus. It's a cool find, though.

[edit on 10/2/2008 by AshleyD]

Some people who witnessed Jesus's miracles live as He preformed them said he got the power from demons.

I don't doubt for a second the maker of that pot believed the same. The rabbis who penned some verses about Jesus said he preformed miracles by the power of magic.

Jesus says that this idea is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", and it's the ONLY unforgivable sin.