Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j9piyps wrote

Reply to comment by TheCloudFestival in TIL that in 1554 Elizabeth Crofts hid in a wall on Aldersgate Street, where she pretended to be a heavenly voice. Reputedly 17,000 people came to listen to her give out anti-Catholic propaganda. by Kurma-the-Turtle

[deleted]

34

TheCloudFestival t1_j9pkfps wrote

I've always thought of Jesus as an amalgam of several Jesuses walking around and preaching at the time (Jesus being a very common name in those days), who used elements of magic and showmanship to beef up their Post-Apocalyptic Judaism doctrine. Those preachers certainly didn't invent the Post-Apocalyptic Jewish doctrine, but they did enthusiastically spread it. They were more like the flashy megachurch pastors of their day.

18

Spirckle t1_j9qjx2l wrote

> Post-Apocalyptic

It would have been pre-apocalyptic. Or just apocalyptic. People of that time thought that the apocalypse was yet to come. The closest thing they experienced to an apocalypse was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

2

TheCloudFestival t1_j9qmefd wrote

It's just another term for Messianic Judaism. I don't really understand it either, but it's one of the ways of referring to them nonetheless.

−1

Sigg3net t1_j9qtam3 wrote

Jesus wasn't a common name, it's the Roman misspelling/latinized version of Joshua, isn't it?

2

TheCloudFestival t1_j9qyof2 wrote

Yeah, Joshua was a pretty common name back then, what with being an Old Testament patriarch and such.

1

OldKingCanary t1_j9rho4x wrote

There's a lot of hints that he was also inspired by the local Buddhist "missionaries" (not really but kinda cultural ones) that had been sent by King Asoka a bit over as hundred years before he lived. They were cultural ambassadors in a way.

0

lebiro t1_j9r1rxo wrote

The article doesn't say this.

Firstly it may be the earliest mention of Jesus Christ, but it might also not be a reference to him, and may in fact date to "the late 2nd century B.C."

Secondly the article does use the translation "magician" for the Greek word "goistas" but it gives no indication that the word signified a travelling performer doing 'tricks' for money. It talks about fortune-tellers and soothsayers, who offered what we might call 'service magic', i.e. magic for functional purposes, not for entertainment. We can't speculate about what individual practitioners thought or believed about what they were doing but we can say with confidence that the people who came to them in large part did so because they believed they could really learn about the future (or in other cases be healed, find their stolen goods or buried treasure, etc). Not a David Blaine situation at all, unless I am to understand that the people at David Blaine's shows believe he actually has supernatural powers.

I am not a historian of first century Greece and I don't speak Greek, so it could well be that the word on the cup does signify an entertainer (though I highly doubt it), but the article absolutely doesn't support the idea that Jesus was perceived as someone who "travelled around performing magic tricks for donations".

4

[deleted] t1_j9r28iw wrote

[deleted]

−4

lebiro t1_j9r35q0 wrote

Would you care to point out what I've said that suggests I've "had trouble with this article"? (Which, incidentally, is an nbc news puff piece).

I think perhaps you should take your own advice.

6

Pogo152 t1_j9q6flj wrote

The article linked doesn’t confirm that the bowl is the earliest mention of Jesus Christ. According to the article, it’s just as if not more probable that the bowl predates Jesus Christ. Even if it doesn’t, there isn’t much reason to think that the “Christ” mentioned is Jesus Christ. “Christ” wasn’t Jesus’s last name or something, it’s the Greek word for messiah, a title that could be used for lots of religious or mythological figures before the dominance of Christianity.

2

[deleted] t1_j9qe6jf wrote

[deleted]

1

Pogo152 t1_j9qu3sw wrote

I already read the whole article

>dating between the late 2nd century B.C. And the early 1st century A.D.

Most of that timeframe well predates when Jesus Christ could have been born. It seems that, at best this could have been contemporary with Jesus or made within a couple decades of his supposed death, and considering that Christianity was yet to really catch on at this time, it makes it even more doubtful that Jesus is being referred to here.

Also, the article admits that the idea that the “Christ” being referred to is Jesus (as, once again, “Christ” is a title and not part of his name) is based purely on speculation. The entire second-half of the article is discussing different explanations for the writing on the bowl.

The whole thing seems kinda like click-bait. The article runs with the interpretation that will grab the most attention and the couches it in weasel words like “could very well be”, “is speculated”, and “it is very probable”. No actual evidence is furnished within the article for this interpretation.

8