Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pogo152 t1_j9q6flj wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] 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

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