The focus issue this is a reference to the historical Jesus who was called Christ or the 'anointed one(gk.) i.e. the messiah. Since I know Greek it is saying the name of Christ to evoke magic; but this in not the point it shows he was an historical personage which some deny even though most scholar's believe Jesus did exist.
You would think there would be abundant evidence from the first century for the existence of a god having spent time on the planet but there is none. As with the hordes of other finds such as parts of the ark or “the nails” they have proven to be either false or unreliable as evidence for anything other than wooing subjective delusions of Theists. The following 2000 years have produced nothing either to suggest that the whole story is nothing but a fabrication and that a god never spent time living in the Middle East.
It would be better to draw the conclusion from the complete lack of evidence, never mind all the false stories, that no other conclusion is merited. The cup story starts with the word “IF” so it is just another speculation being peddled which I am sure you will find plenty of Theists will take as being proof of their faith not being a delusion. These are the same people that think they will become immortal sometime within the next 100 years. When the lack of tangible evidence is so thin on the ground or even completely absent they will grasp at anything for confirmation of their faith. They need to do so.
No, it shows that someone invoked the name 'Christ' in a magic spell. By your argument, if we find a piece of pottery with the name 'Zeus' being used to evoke magic, that means that Zeus actually existed and was a historical figure.
If this date is accurate, and the inscription means that it appears to mean, it would precede the dates commonly associated with Jesus and definitely the ones associated with historical figures from the Bible, by maybe as much as 150 years! Even if it was only accurately dated to 100-50 BCE it would be a complete wrench in the works of a historical Jesus. We could say with little doubt that even the gospels are mostly fabrication and with more certainty that Jesus may be a myth.
But that all hinges on the date, the inscription, and any corroborating evidence that may be found. Big IFs.
That also doesn't mean that it would be accepted by believers. If they can think that the Grand Canyon is evidence for the flood, then they can surely disregard any findings that contradict a historical Jesus.
Jesus may have existed. The odds are fairly good for a historical person that the myth grew around, but we don't have enough good evidence to say it as nearly certain.
Otherwise, you are exactly right. Even granting a physical existence of a person now known as Jesus, that doesn't mean any of the supernatural stuff happened. (Or even much of the non-supernatural stuff)
They found a bowl with possible links to some deity. Wow that's a first oh and the kicker they aint even 100% sure of what the exact translation was. Seriously this is grasping at straws. So some dude with the name christos (or some diety refered to as christos) had a incantation in a cup.
The messiah was anticipated for centuries before 1 AD. So finding a reference not to Jesus but to Christ (Christ is his title, not his last name) doesn't mean shit either way.
I'm so glad you said that - it's exactly what I was thinking (but not nearly so succinctly). Exactly.
First of all, Dr. Davis, having read the entire article, I see no indication that there is any reference to Yeshua, which, if as you say, you're conversant in Greek, you know to be the actual Hebrew name of the man or fictional character whose name, in Greek, translated to "Jesus." A messiah, a "Christ," had been predicted ever since the time of David, and there's, as I say, no indication on the cup that Yeshua (if he ever existed) and the Christ mentioned, are one and the same.
Further, the word, "Christ" on a cup from the mid-second century is no proof of anything, as the Gospels would all have been written by then, by their various anonymous authors, and so the "Christ" legend would certainly have had time by then, to have become public knowledge, at least in some circles, particularly mystic ones, to which this cup would seem to have belonged.
Not to be rude, Doctor Davis, but unless the cup is being billed as the Holy Grail, I'm not clear as to what its significance might be, as it certainly should not be surprising that a 2nd century CE mystic should know about the word, "Christ," a superheroic savior who had been predicted since 1000 BCE.
@Strega - I'll see your "succinctly" and raise you an "erudite" --
On a side note, I think "Christ in a cup!" might be my new exclamation.
Good plan, I like a lot of alliteration.
By Balder's Beard!
Great Gaia's Garters!
This article sounds horribly misleading, the archaeologist's quote was fairly obviously in response to a question like, "Could this be a reference to Jesus," that's called leading. Then the author links that to the bible with the statement about wisemen.
The more I read the more disgusted I get, this is one of the most egregious examples of journalistic bias I've ever seen, This is ridiculous. 'Goddio said, "It is very probable that in Alexandria they were aware of the existence of Jesus" and of his associated legendary miracles, such as transforming water into wine, multiplying loaves of bread, conducting miraculous health cures, and the story of the resurrection itself.'
Continuing that sentence in that way is actual misrepresentation if I didn't bold the quote the entire statement sounds like it's from Goddio. I would not read, anything put out by Discovery if they allow journalists like that.