Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'

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

Of course it doesn't. Thankfully His historical existence doesn't hinge on 1st century pottery.

Just a quick question open to everyone: Did anyone else become suspicious why the article phrased the title as the Earliest reference to Christ when it most certainly is not the earliest reference? I thought that was a little misleading.

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. ...

Christ is a TITLE, not a name. Although people say "Jesus Christ", it is misleading, as it should be "Jesus THE Christ".

It would be like like referring to Bush as "Bush President", instead of "Bush THE President".

the translation simply means "magic oil" , used by the religions of the time. The title "Khristós" was used later on for people that were believed to be "oiled" (the anointed) by God for a special purpose. Khrist simply means oil as far as I know.So I expect that the ancient people used the mark to warn anyone not to use the pott for other purposes and make it "unholy" by doing so ..

Wikiepdia:
(Khristós) meaning "the anointed".[1] In the (Greek) Septuagint version of the Old Testament,


[edit on 3-10-2008 by sty]

reply to post by budski


"DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS" -- am not sure that the spelling is even correct here, as the title was never used with "CH" as far as I know..

[edit on 3-10-2008 by sty]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Just a quick question open to everyone: Did anyone else become suspicious why the article phrased the title as the Earliest reference to Christ when it most certainly is not the earliest reference? I thought that was a little misleading.

Well, of course it's misleading, that's what the father of lies does...

Misleads people.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Just a quick question open to everyone: Did anyone else become suspicious why the article phrased the title as the Earliest reference to Christ when it most certainly is not the earliest reference? I thought that was a little misleading.

What is the earliest reference then?

that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

How is that misleading?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
What is the earliest reference then?

Because the bowl is dated up to 100 A.D., it looks like the inscriptions on the ossuaries of 1st century Christians could precede this bowl. The ossuaries were dated to the 1st half of the 1st century and have commemorative inscriptions of Jesus, Christ, and the Christian cross. Then certain Biblical texts can be dated with a pretty good deal of accuracy. The bowl's date has a three hundred year time window while these others things do not.

How is that misleading?

Because the title makes a definite claim that is not remotely definite.

reply to post by AshleyD

Because the bowl is dated up to 100 A.D., it looks like the inscriptions on the ossuaries of 1st century Christians could precede this bowl. The ossuaries were dated to the 1st half of the 1st century and have commemorative inscriptions of Jesus, Christ, and the Christian cross. Then certain Biblical texts can be dated with a pretty good deal of accuracy. The bowl's date has a three hundred year time window while these others things do not.

Okay good point I guess we will have to wait for the experts to make final analysis.