Christ was a Magus, page 1

Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'
Bowl dated between late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D.

A bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., is engraved with what may be the world's first known reference to Christ. The engraving reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by 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."
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, in that he was once the primary exponent of white magic," Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology, said.

Fabre concluded, "It should be remembered that in Alexandria, paganism, Judaism and Christianity never evolved in isolation. All of these forms of religion (evolved) magical practices that seduced both the humble members of the population and the most well-off classes."

See? We are not so different, after all. Why, then, do Christians hate Pagans so much? Even the Bible was mostly taken from Pagan writings, and Pagan holidays were "churched up," and ancient Pagan Temples were built over with churches, in a vain attempt to stamp out Goddess worship and Pagan rituals. Not to mention the thousands, if not millions, who were burned, hanged, and put to the sword for not conforming to Christian religion. Folks, it is time to pound our swords into plowshares once again, and go back to peaceful farming to feed the masses. The land is ours, by the way, all we have to do is tell the government we are talking it back. what can the do to us, anyway?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by EMPIRE

---

What I'm basically saying is because the title "Christ" was written on the cup, it doesn't mean it was his cup

Like when historians mention a crestus doesn't mean it was your guy.

Or when a tomb contains jesus son of joseph, again not your guy.

I totally agree, just because the word christ appears somewhere does not mean it is related to the fictitious guy in the gospels as the'rse no evidence for that guy.

I would perhaps be more inclined to speculate that the cup belonged to another christ perhaps one of flesh and blood.

reply to post by autowrench

---

See? We are not so different, after all. Why, then, do Christians hate Pagans so much?

Why do you lump all Christians into a single stereotype?

It is not just possible that only some do?

The effort here is to stop the stereotyping. Everyone, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, are all individuals first. Religion, by itself, is nothing but an abstract concept. It take the human factor to make any of it good or bad.

Maybe we should not judge the whole of any people by a skin color, nationality or faith. Maybe... just maybe, we should give each person the right to speak for themselves and then, be held accountable for their own deeds.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by redoubt]

reply to post by moocowman

---

Those things may not be applicable to Jesus/Yeshua, and simply saying they refer to him due to similarities in spelling or date is not logical. So yes I agree with you 100%. Anything else?

reply to post by autowrench

---

A bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., is engraved with what may be the world's first known reference to Christ.

Wo! Hold on a moment. The crucifixion occurred somewhere in the 30s in the first century. The last book to be written (assuming the later date), the book of Revelation, was completed before the end of the first century.

Only two suggested dates for Revelation have received serious support. An early date, shortly after the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68) is supported by references in the book to the persecution of Christians, the "Nero redivivus" myth..., the imperial cult (ch.13), and the temple (ch.11), which was destroyed in A.D. 70...

The alternate and more generally accepted date rests primarily on the early witness of Irenaeus (A.D. 185), who stated that the apostle John "saw the revelation... at the close of Domitian's reign" (A.D. 81-96)...

Taken from the 12-volume "Expositor's Bible Commentary", F.E. Gaebelein, general editor

Many people are not aware that there are fragments of the New Testament in existence which literally or virtually go back to the time of the original authors:

The earliest undisputed manuscript of a New Testament book is the John Rylands papyri (p52), dated back from 117 to 138. This fragment of John's gospel survives from within a generation of composition. Since the book was composed in Asia Minor and this fragment was found in Egypt, some circulation time is demanded, surely placing composition of John within the first century.

Whole books (Bodmer Papyri) are available from 200. Most of the New Testament, including all the gospels, is available in the Chester Beatty Papyri manuscript from 150 yeas after the New Testament was finished (ca. 250). No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament.

Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) as a piece from the gospel of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 BC and AD 50, hardly within the time frame established for New Testament writings. Using the accepted methods of papyrology and palaeography, O'Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one gospel, Acts, and few epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early...

Source: bethinking.com

The markings on the bowl (which, to be honest, likely have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ) cannot be compared to the eyewitness testimony of those who lived and ate with Christ himself, both before and after his resurrection, then recorded in-depth accounts of what they had seen and heard.

reply to post by kingoftheworld

---

The Crusades and the Inquisition were both religiously themed, by Christianity.

reply to post by autowrench

---

Christos {khris-tos'} translated Christ was a common word in that era.

It simply means "anointed one" or 'messiah' an equivalent term to the Hebrew 'mashach'.

You are drawing a long bow to speculate that this could specifically be a reference to Jesus imo.

"God is an Imaginary Friend" Athiest Billboards in Denver-
  Posted 18 days ago with 31 member flags

Why are these 10 figures just like Jesus Christ??
  Posted 5 days ago with 14 member flags

What if all the major religions started out with the same story and it slowly diverged from there
  Posted 7 days ago with 11 member flags

I am an imposter in Church
  Posted 4 days ago with 11 member flags

Christians Waking Up? Voluntary \'De-Baptism\' Rising in Europe
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags

What Kind of Christianity Is This?
  Posted 16 days ago with 7 member flags

The Great Flood Was Caused By A Comet?
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags

Advert claiming cure through prayer is banned
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: