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.