Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:08 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:42 am 
Offline
Hermes

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:21 am
Posts: 150
Location: Italy
Archeologist Franck Goddio found a cup on the ground of the harbor of Alexandria in May this year. According to their report, it was found in layer 2 of the stratigraphy, which means that it is from 50 AD. The greek epigraph on it reads: "Dia Christou o goistais” (ΔIA XPHCTOY OΓOICTAIC, To Christ the Magus).

Many european newspapers (ElMundo, Spiegel, Repubblica) report the news as a proof of historicity of jesus! LOL!

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/20 ... estou.html

http://www.iphpbb3.com/forum/64774768nx ... n-t82.html

LOL. They don't consider the obvious:

1 - Christos/Chrestou was a common name
2 - even if the epigraph refers to Jesus Christ, it can be a reference to the myth of Jesus, nothing prove that he was a real human being
3 - the reference to Christ as a Magus confirms the Christ=Mercury gnostic connection (mercury was the planetary symbol for the Magi, the human priests of hermes). Freemason Frank C. Higgins revealed in his book "Hermetic Masonry" that Freemasonry was just gnosticism, and that the god of freemasonry is Mercury (symbol for the human magus hermes) not the Sun like in Christanity (but being mercury orbit near the sun, all the astrological symbolism of dying and resurrection are the same, so it can be concealed as a secret and Jesus can be seen as both the sun and mercury. Or, as the freemasons put it, that man is the true god).

update: changed BC in AD, thanks for the correction! :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
LOL, nice find Descartes!

Thanks for posting that here for us.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:30 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:27 pm
Posts: 1
On a point of order the "cup" dates from 50 AD not BC - quote from your first link "According to their report, it was found in layer 2 of the stratigraphy, which means that it is from the first half of the first century"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:51 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
I saw descartes post about the cup dating to 50 BC and read right over the first half of the first century reference as refering to first half of the first century BC. :lol: I thought that it was odd that they were claiming that an artifact from 50 BC would prove an historical Jesus.

But it looks to be forged just like all of the other artifacts that mysteriously showed up on the scene lately:

Quote:
Antonio Lombatti, however, who maintains the website Pseudoscienze cristiane antiche e medievali, (Ancient and Medieval Christian Pseudoscience), expresses deep skepticism about this particular cup:

"You don't need a microscopical analysis of that inscription: of course, it cannot be so neat if the object was found under the sea. Moreover, I also find the carving of the Greek letters to be quite unusual -- I mean, too perfect -- for a text on a 2,000 year-old cup."

Jim West agrees that the inscription is a fake, and I concur that the inscription looks awfully clear for being on an object supposedly under water for 2000 years, but I'm no expert.

Yet . . . I do wonder why the inscription reads "DIA CHRESTOU OGOISTAIS" rather than "DIA CHRISTOU OGOISTAIS." The word "chrestou" is the genitive singular form of "chrestos," which is an adjective meaning "good," and therefore not the title "Christos," which is what one would expect if this referred to Christ. Why would a forger choose to inscribe the word "good" rather than "Christ"? Was the supposed forger so inept?

The German article in Der Spiegel notes that "chrestos" was actually used rather often as a Greek name:

"Chrestos war in Griechenland ein gebräuchlicher männlicher Vorname", erklärt der Historiker Manfred Clauss aus Frankfurt am Main, "das muss nichts mit Jesus zu tun haben."

Translated, this says:

"Chrestos was commonly a man's given name in Greece," explains the historian Manfred Clauss of Frankfurt am Main. "That need not have anything to do with Jesus."

This is correct, but I do recall, from my time studying with New Testament Professor Otto Betz in Tübingen, that "Christos" and "chrestos" were sometimes interchanged as a wordplay since "Christ" was "good." Perhaps the putative forger was not inept but clever?

To be clear, however, let me emphasize that I am also skeptical about this inscription, and for the reason given by Antonio Lombatti. The letters simply look much too distinct to be nearly 2000 years old.


Further, if it wasn't forged and it is authentic, "Christ, Christos, Christani, Chrestos, etc. all referred to Serapis in that time frame:

Acharya wrote:
It is likely that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.

Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis--both popular gods in the Roman Empire--was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was called "Chrestus," long before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived. Significantly, in relating that under Claudius certain "mathematicians" or astrologers were expelled from Italy, individuals who were apparently Egyptian and Egypto-Jewish kabbalists, Drews cites the same Hadrian passage as above, with a different translation. According to him, the original contained the word "Chrestus," not "Christos," and "Chrestiani" instead of "Christiani," important distinctions. Drews relates Hadrian's remarks thus:

"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high-priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt."

Drews further states, "Chrestus was not only the name of the god, but, as frequently happened in ancient religions, also of his chief priest."

In his Divine Institutes, Book IV, Church father Lactantius (fl. 4th cent.) discusses the importance of distinguishing between the terms Christos and Chrestus:

for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus.

The word "Chrestus," meaning "good" or "useful," was a title frequently held by commoners, slaves, freedmen, bigwigs, priests and gods alike, prior to the Christian era. "Chrestos," according to Mead, was "a universal term of the Mysteries for the perfected 'saint.'" Followers of any deity called "Chrestus" would be not "Christians" but "Chrestians." Because the Church fathers such as Justin Martyr pun on this word crestoV (chrestos), apologists have haphazardly substituted cristoV (christos) for it. As do other early Church fathers, Justin uses the term "Chrestiani," not "Christiani," to describe his fellow believers.

Johnson considered "Chrestus" a distinction made to separate the "good god" of the Gnostics from the evil god Yahweh. This term, Chrestus, is thus traceable to Samaria, where Gnosticism as a movement took shape and where it may have referred to Simon Magus, whom we have seen to have been a god, rather than a "real person." Hence, these Chrestiani were apparently Syrian Gnostics, not followers of the "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. Confirming this assertion, that the first "Christians" were actually followers of the "good god" Chrestus, the earliest dated Christian inscription, corresponding to October 1, 318 CE, calls Jesus "Chrestos," not Christos: "The Lord and Savior, Jesus the Good." This inscription was found above the entrance of a Syrian church of the Marcionites, who were anti-Jewish followers of the second-century Gnostic Marcion. The evidence points to "Jesus the Chrestos" as a Pagan god, not a Jewish messiah who lived during the first century CE.

In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries" One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity" He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery. http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:09 pm 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:16 pm
Posts: 92
Descartes wrote:

1 - Christos/Chrestou was a common name
2 - even if the epigraph refers to Jesus Christ, it can be a reference to the myth of Jesus, nothing prove that he was a real human being


1 >> about as common as a Ch or XP operating system... :lol: :lol:
2 >> Jesus is an antiquated program for an outdated operating system.

Do you think Bill Gates knew XP = CH
Do you think the Gate saw a Window to open?
A new Vista on the horrorizon?
:wink:

namaste

Raphael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
See my brief article here:

Chrestos Magical Cup?

It is part of the larger work:

Is Suetonius's Chresto a Reference to Jesus?

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group