Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'

There plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, actually no credible historian will actually deny his existences. As well most of the writing about him which are mainly eyewitness have have remained at least about 95% Unchanged and exactly the same. The changes that have occurred are mainly due to human error and do not change any major content.

Josephus, as a well known non-christian historian who live in the time of Jesus Christ and he mentions Christ and some other biblical characters, but since he was political he preferred to stay of those topics. There plenty of other evidence as well.

Read books like "Evidence that demands a verdict" and "More than a carpenter" both by Josh Mcdowell or "The case for Christ" by Lee Stroble.

The Josephus writings that mention Christ are highly disputed, and not generally accepted as genuine by most scholars.  For a thorough analysis, check the following article:

[dot]christianorigins[dot]com/zeitlin[dot]html

Actually I believe it meaning Jesus and eastern theology recieves to much attention in the U.S.A. I am part native American and beleive he existed but is not the All or nothing way to heaven. To much is placed on religions maily three of them that lead to wars and terrorism. The natives here in the U.S.A. moslty not all beleive in two enitities Mother Earth and Granfather spirit. Its simple to me if you live in Rome dod as the Romans do. If you live in the U.S.A. maybe more attention should be placed on the customs that were here thousands of years prior to European colonization.

Respect Nature and your fellow man. Live by your word. Take pride in who your ancestors were. And live a full live and hope for a good death. Simple stuff hard to grasp for most rocket scientists.

When someone talks about earliest reference, they are talking about references outside a book that has no historically corroborative value.

I'm not clear that's true, BMS. When they talk about the "earliest reference to Alexander the Great", they're generally referring to a historical biography written decades after his death. by the best literature dating methods available. By the same token, there are no experts I know of (Christian or otherwise) that would debate the idea that the first provable historical references to Christ are in the epistles of Paul. Saying that they have no corroborative value is flying in the face of established precedent.

I'm not talking about "Christians claim X, non-christians claim Y". I'm referring to decades of faith-independant research within the same field these archeologists are working in.

Jeff, I believe what BMS is referring to is not the corroborative value of the book, but of the person. Besides those trying to form a new religion (and we know from modern example how reliable those people can be), there is no evidence that this Jesus ever lived. The closest thing to a corroboration was an obviously forged entry in Josephus (in which the paragraph interrupts an otherwise logical sequence of thought and varies in style with the rest of the book). Indeed, the earliest date for the bowl of the second century BCE may also point to the fact that a Jewish community of that era was already trying to establish a mystery religion on the model of Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, etc, etc, etc. Of course, there's also another question: When was the inscription made in the vessel?

Not real sure you could make the case that Paul (or, let's even allow, "the author of the material ascribed to Paul") was, as you say, "trying to form a new religion." Seems to me he was attempting to argue that "Jesus" and his understanding of "Jesus" was in fact congruous with Judaism in its truest form. (Whether that position is accurate or not is another question, of course.)

If I may add a couple more points: As fathermac points out below, the inscription shown clearly in the picture is in fact Chrestou, not Christou; Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, and he was apparently illiterate; and he would not have been referred to in his lifetime as the Christ.
What a shoddy piece of archaeology! I suppose it was performed by an obscure scholar who desperately wants to be famous, or else by a modern-day St Eusebius frantically trying to prove that Jesus actually did exist. Perhaps next he'll find the original version of the Epistle of Jesus in God's own hand.

if it was made AFTER his death, the date range would still work.

The New Testament is dated to the latter part of the 1st century, at the earliest.  If this artifact is "early 1st century" then it very well could be ante-dated to the New Testament.

But none of the nuances of whether it could have been before or after his death (and don't forget, with the exception of Mark -- late 1st C -- the rest of the gospels were written well into the 2nd C by committees using names of apostles), the main fact remains: THE NAME ON THE BOWL IS CHRESTOS, NOT CHRISTOS. The "archaeologist" gave a completely wrong transcription!!!

Whether you believe in Christianity or not, that fact remains. This is not a reference to Jesus.

THE NAME ON THE BOWL IS CHRESTOS, NOT CHRISTOS.

Yes, yes.  It is an eta not an iota.  The problem is that "Chrēstos" appears in some othe documents that may have meant Christ (search on scholar.google.com for some examples).  The other problem is that iotacization may have already been under way in the 1st century AD, rendering eta and iota phonographically similar, which may have confused some scribes (especially if they were non-native speakers, say, in Alexandria, which is where the cup was found.

THE NAME ON THE BOWL IS CHRESTOS

Any chance it's an early toothpaste bowl?

Spiffie, be that as it may, even if this were a non-native speaker's misspelling, Christos was not a name, but a title. Where's the definite article? Of course, you can appeal to some further error, but sooner or later we have to say enough already, take out Occam's razor and admit that if it says Chrestos and if Chrestos was a name and appropriate to this context, then it was probably Chrestos, not ho Christos.

Honestly now, if it were any other name/title at issue, wouldn't you have long since come to that conclusion?

Where's the definite article?

In this case we have (whatever word it is) a word in the genitive case because of a preposition.  An article is not necessarily required in such a case. (Actually, an article isn't necessarily required in any case in the vernacular, although it's regular in literature.)

Honestly now, if it were any other name/title at issue, wouldn't you have long since come to that conclusion?

Nope.  It's very difficult to say what it's doing with the very brief script that we have.  What I'm saying is that it's grammatically possible, which it certainly is.  I'll leave it to the experts with doctorates in such matters to argue what it's doing with any degree of certainty.

Hello Fathermac,

Did you really read the inscription? It does not have an epsilon after the "Xr". So I don't know where you are getting the epsilon there. In ancient times they used to leave out the vowells when referring to deity, such as Theos or Kurios. So it is not at all unusual to see the iota missing.

FatherMac,

I am wrong here. In looking back at it again, I have noticed that there is an eta. So you are correct it is "xrestos" but not with an epsilon. So your rendering is possible, and it may not really refer to Christ.

I wish I had studied to know these letters well , as you. Please give light to those you encoun ter, we thank you.

Me too, but the other historical factoids were fun, weren't they?

So you're claiming that you're not intolerant?

Interesting phrase .... "not intolerant" (#10 and 10.1)

are you actually trying to say that someone is tolerant?

The Meek Shall Inherit the Dirt.

Define "accuracy."

Hey BARB up there..

we notice you have no reply area.. the stuck up shall inherit nada

So, by what omniscient method have you come to the conclusion that Jesus is a myth?  Do you have some supernatural knowledge that allows you to make such a statement? You are as doctrinaire in your smug derision of Christianity as you claim that people of this faith are in their belief in God.  You have replaced Him with your own self-satisfied delusion that man can do a better job managing the world than He does. By the way, there's more archeological evidence to back up biblical events than there are to back up the events that are recorded in"The Iliad" and other ancient writings that are now presumed to be fairly accurate renditions of historical events.

The lack of contemporary evidence that he ever existed outside the stories told of him.

How Interesting many of you here try (in vain) to dispel even what you see before you as untrue - a fake - "maybe, but" - and I'm sure I have seen here "righteous zealots".  Even one poster has a number of 32 thousand something ending the statement with "What’s that tell you"...Well, I tell you what it says to me, being I'm in that 35% of people that truly believe - It underscores even more what the bible says about non- believers - As I see many of you here cleverly try and spend a lot of energy trying to disprove what you don't believe.   I understand to many of you that you don't like having to be accountable to the lord because that would admit how insufficient your life is and lend credence to your behaviors you wish not to give up.  Jesus Christ did live and this cup while not "ultimate proof" to you, does not need be to people like me.  In fact, judging by the comments on this board nothing could ever be proof 

Nice try...Christianity is Hebrew in origin. The Greek NT was putting it into a common language of the time. This has been going on for centuries up until this time...Wycliff Bible Translators and others do that work. The OT was also translated into Greek..."The Seventy" or Septuagint. This find is nothing. The NT talks of many who used the name Christ who were not the Christ. The historical Jesus bears no resemblance to those who would use cultic practices of the Ancient Near East to validate their religion.

Mauricio-598009
What he meant by "white magic" is that he performed miracles for the good of humankind, opposite to"black magic" which is related to Satan and bad things.
I think you need to read more outside of Sunday school. During Jesus time people considered what we today call miracles, just magic, and remember, during Jesus time, not even his own people, the Jews, considered him the Son of God, that is why they let him die.

You need to go back to Sunday School, and re-learn who he really is; that is, if you've ever been. If you were not such an ignorant man, this comment would be considered extremely blasphemous.

This is a good showing of bias and understanding. You claim that he is wrong, whereas you deny your own biased interpretation, as if there's only one Christian interpretation. This is what's wrong with America today... there's too many Christian sects that claim that they have the ultimate truth and that they can tell others that they are just wrong.

Frankly, I don't know which of you is right, but the simple stance of your own comments tells me that you are a hypocrite yourself. The fault of understanding can come from within the Christian community, as much as it can from outside.

In my view of your own comments, it shows me that you have a limited perspective and worldview, whereas some other Christians and people of spiritual faith have a much more broader outlook... not all Christians read the same texts, celebrate the same aspects of the belief and ritual and so on. For instance, magic and other pagan like rituals are taboo to some Christians, whereas it is practiced and even salvaged amongst some Christians in other sects and regions of the world. These rituals are often reinforced by other aspects of their culture and history. The story of Christianity is one that travels the world and has many understandings and findings; so, we should not pretend otherwise.

Well said David.

Interesting notion: "not even his own people, the Jews, considered him the Son of God, that is why they let him die"

Some did.

And, for that matter, grabbing a hold of the "the Jews" versus "the followers of Jesus" dichotomy plays right into some dangerous stereotypes. "His blood be on us," indeed.

Hear hear

Like healing a man who was blind from birth, walking on water and turning water into wine. Yeah, TOTALLY within the boundary of natural law and science. And that whole "raising the dead" thing. Pssssh. Easy, did it twice yesterday.

You funny little lady.

that was hilarious!

The Magi are a historical mystery themselves. But, most believe they were a diverse lot, coming from different spheres of influence and reality. It's interesting that you bring that up, because they were supposedly there at the inception of the Christian age, as well as they symbolize the roots of our belief system. Christianity comes from that reality and moves outward. Understanding the Magi is a very important question in understanding the breadth of Christianity and its influence on the world, its history, culture, development and so on. Unlocking that mystery is the key to understanding much of human civilization... in my opinion.

not so funny if you are of open mind and realize that the dead may have not actually been dead only appearing to be and if you have had any experience with energy healing you would know how it could appear to be magic or a miracle to someone not knowing. The unknown is often mysterious and magical but usually has explanation.

I suppose you can explain away the other three miracles mentioned as well.

Didn't think so.

Yes Dilz, and that Lazarus had been in the grave 4 days before Jesus arrival--meaning his body had already begun to decompose and stink.

You may be right, but you may be wrong.

Language in various cultures is a very peculiar thing. Just because a word doesn't exist, doesn't mean that it is not a reality. Early language and lack of symbolic words can actually reveal a bias in perception. Many words have been introduced into languages with the introduction of an idea. In fact, this is why English is so prevalent today, because it has evolved and incorporated so many ideas from its history and cultural influences. Still, that doesn't mean that it does not have a bias... much of the English speaking world is now very secular, rational and possibly protestant and so on; which, of course, evolves into a bias itself.

An example of the evolution of faith and the bias of language has been pointed out consistently by Anthropologist who have studied colonial history, or the history and phenomenon of conquest. For example, Native American Indians did not have the same understanding or words for creation, God and Christ as did Europeans, prior to conquest and contact. These words and ideas were introduced. Even today, its still hard for Caucasian ancestors from Europe to understand their own history of belief; because these words and concepts didn't exist among the early continent of Europe and much of the Mediterranean either. You might be shocked to realize, that although Christianity had spread over the centuries, many people and cultures had still embraced simple language and customs to express their belief. Indeed, Latin and other common language, symbols and so on were reserved for an educated elite or among certain sets of people and society. Not everyone expressed their belief the same way, or even came to record it the same way. In my opinion, that's a great thing! Thank God! because that's what gives us the complete story of Christianity... that's what we are fighting against as many of the languages or tongues of the world are being forced into extinction... it represents the loss of our history, belief and understanding, quite possibly forever! That's a disturbing trend, as much as I find many of other member's interpretations and comprehension quite disturbing.

So, bias and understanding can reflect your ability to understand things not only in their cultural relevance, but within your ability to comprehend it within its spacial and temporal sphere. Ironically, this is the struggle we have as a common humanity in understanding our cultural evolution and our development of faith, which has guided our civilization to this point we are at now.

Which version of the Bible??? Please don't make such broad assumptions. If you are in fact a Christian, as you seem to be suggesting by your comments, then you should also realize that there are many version of the Bible, as well as many interpretations. Don't insult the rest of us with your limited view of reality. Indeed, not even the Pope at the Vatican has the ultimate opinion or reality. Its a mystery for all Christians, everywhere.

Isn't it true that a lot of the stories in the Bible were taken or evolved from more ancient stories from pagan and other religions? I read a wonderful book called, The Secret Origins of the Bible, that talked a lot about this.
It is apparent that you can't take it literally or you will certainly box yourself in.

I would suggest/add that the most interesting and relevant stores of the type you mention (note: I have not read The Secret Origins book) are those found in apocalyptic Jewish works such as the books of Enoch, the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian and others. Those cast a lot of (necessary, I think) light on our notions of what it meant to say, for instance, that Jesus was the Son of God.

sad to be so closed minded, you are missing so much and your judgement of those not following in your unfortunate path makes you holy?

Well, a quick note here for Rachel-598066.

If you like books that will INSPIRE YOU, IGNITE YOUR INNER VISION, I recommend "The KYBALION", by Three Initiates. This work was produced a couple of Thousand Years BCE.

Please also read my prior post #1.8, above, for reference to the current discussion.

IMHO, All religions are CULTS. Including Islam, Shinto, Brahman, and ALL those DELICIOUS FLAVORS OF "CHRISTIANITY", which are always at each other's throats. Please, Don"t take Offense, this is NOT an attack on your person. But there is a HUGE NEED for Humanity to get into some LOGICAL THINKING, before we destroy the Planet with expectations of 'Apocalypse'. 

Yeah I've heard people say that before; that the bible is like a book of predictions and it predicts stuff that has come true today.

So my question to you, Fatacus, is if you can give me a few solid examples of specific events that the bible predicted? And by specific you can't say "the bible said something bad would happen if we sin" because lets face it, wherever you want to look in history bad things have always been happening. I, for one, blame organized religion (especially Christianity) for many of those terrible things. But I was wondering if you've come up with any specific horrors god/jesus cooked up for us.

list them. line it up side by side. bible vs. reality.

Blog #20

Concrete thinking, literalism and absolutism are the works of an insecure mind.

who is being stupid here, saying the words in the bible are all true and you know that for a fact? OK so the men who wrote the bible were perfect beings? The bible is interpertations with personal beliefs added, and lots of room for mistakes and distorted or not personal vision of the ones writing it, you did not know that?

You may think that's funny, but many articles were in fact everyday items. Many of the items are taken for granted today for their impact on our culture. Every tool or instrument or artifact makes an impact on a culture or civilization... its the difference between having a fork and knife, as compared to using chopsticks or even your hands and flatbreads. Your use of ideas, information and tools reflects how you come to your reality and understanding. Your trivialization is also symbolic of that. So, its good to be light hearted, because belief and understanding should be common and rudimentary to your everyday existance; but at the same time, this is a very profound experience to study this history and then be in touch with your roots. Even a replica is a symbol of your past, that should not be taken for granted.

(Millennium # 23):

What if Jesus the Christ had created this himself.

I like that ... Jesus' handmade, personally engraved, "coffee cup"! Kudos!

Well, me too, but not "coffee". Nasty thing, coffee..makes everyone MEAN. How about, ..: "nectar of the Gods" I mean, God. (They were a music group around Monterey in the 90's. slipped out. Hi Donnie Nix!!

Pacgove:  ha-ha!  Like your suggestion, nectar of the God ... but it was most likely water or really bad wine!  Well, I assume it was bad wine - might have been great wine!  

Trust BILL MAHER? HE IS THE ANTI-CHRIST! (poor lost soul)!

How can SO MANY SCHOLARS of the Bible in different LANGUAGES, YEARS and THOUSANDS of miles apart, all come together and have the same knowledge of their writings! FATE YOU SAY!! NOT I!!!

Not everybody reads the New or Old Testament, as might they other texts in the Bible or other compiled book of belief. The Bible is essentially like an anthology of texts and accounts, with different publisers and versions, all of them under a similar title. Recognition of a messiah or Christ figure can be represented differently from text to text.

good god. really? the bible wasn't around 6000 years ago big fella.

HAHAHAHAHAHA- please don't tell me you think the "creation" of the earth was as told in Genesis 6K years ago. Really?? REALLY???????

zennia

.......LMAO too.....the bible was written by BRONZE age people with BRONZE age thinking.

the earth IS older than 6 thousand years....like it... or don't...it will never change

scientific evidence

actually believers in the bible say that the earth is only 4,400 years old and despite physical findings that say different they will argue that point to the death! now that is funny.

Well now, Dontcha know, they put saddles on them dinosaurs an' rode around on 'em. 

LOL---ROFLOL

HA HA Ha Ah HA, Just peed my pants

If Jesus is referred to in this text :

Genesis 3:15 (King James Version)

 15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Them my skills of comprehension are sadly lacking.

That's a very good point... I agree with you that many of us are far too rational to understand the history and wonders of Christianity. Its profound beyond belief and comprehension... its like gazing into the Universe, whereas we only have a limited reality of the history... and this is not just the history of Christianity, but that of ourselves... its humanity! I don't think you even have to be a Christian to regard the significance of this phenomenon in our history.

Maybe you have a different understanding of Magic that is particular to your Chistian faith, but which is different from other Christians.

Jessica,

Praise God. Only those who have been healed by him could understand. I wish more people knew the truth then they would not have to be sick..

:)
Stacy

Love you for reminding us. Thank you.

Your very body is evidence. Every body and every thing is evidence, isn't it? So, I guess you don't believe in yourself?