(April 30, 2019 at 1:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:No, sorry, The Crown of Thorns is not like documenting Mount Vernon or George Washington.

No one said it was.

 

Quote:The crown of thorns STORY is older than the relic claimed. And that is the point. The story came first, the relic came centuries after. Easy to manufacture a prop after the legend is told. 

We've been through this before - you don't know, you can't possibly know, when the Crown was made.

Quote:We don't have to rely on second hand stories about George Washington. And nobody sane today buy's the Cherry Tree mythology. 

Utterly irrelevant.

Quote:The "crown of thorns" motif is a result of the age of kings. It wasn't because an actual guy named Jesus existed. It was because religions were competing in an age of kings, and the early Christians marketed both their stories and relics to sell a new religion, IN AN AGE OF KINGS.

Define 'Age of kings', please.  There have been kings throughout human history, including the present. And if Christians were trying to sell their 'new' religion, wouldn't they have done the relic making in the first century?

Quote:Religious relics are made and sold like stage props in a magic show. It does not matter if the prop itself is real, nobody literally saws the woman in half.

But SOME relics are undeniably genuine. 

What's all this got to do with the Ark?

Boru

YES WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

The STORY of an alleged guy named Jesus was depicted as dying on a cross with a crown of thorns. That STORY is far older than the first mention of the claimed relic.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF THOR, consider that the story came first, and the relic was manufactured WAY AFTER THE FACT to prop up a popular story AFTER THE FACT.

Again, a "crown" was a common motif, both in monotheism and polytheism WORLDWIDE. Headware was a symbol of status, both for kings and holy people.

The crown motif claim was not because a magic man pissed off the Romans. It was marketing after the fact, to market sympathy to a upstart religion.

An underdog story is popular, even today.

The crown you point out DOES EXIST. NO SHIT..... I am simply saying it was concocted centuries after the the legend of the Jesus character to lend a fake credibility to events that never happened.

Nice derail, guys.

Quote:the relic was manufactured WAY AFTER THE FACT to prop up a popular story AFTER THE FACT.

Prove it.  Or provide evidence.  Or posit an argument that consists of anything more than just shouting your assertions.

Boru

(April 30, 2019 at 2:41 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Nice derail, guys.

He started it.  *pout*

Boru

[MOMVOICE]Well I'm going to finish it![/MOMVOICE]

Ok.  If you need me, I'll be in my room.  Being grounded.

Boru

Boss Lady is getting 325 up and 350 down wifi.

(April 30, 2019 at 2:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:the relic was manufactured WAY AFTER THE FACT to prop up a popular story AFTER THE FACT.

Prove it.  Or provide evidence.  Or posit an argument that consists of anything more than just shouting your assertions.

Boru

Prove that America does not exist because of Cherry Trees and not telling lies. 

Again, there is no dispute that the crown in Notre Dame exists. WE BOTH AGREE  IT DOES.


I dispute it being a first hand relic of the alleged year of 34 where the bible claims he was crucified. 

The first mention of that relic came long after the story itself. 

That says to me, that humans concocted a stage prop AFTER THE FACT,  to market a story they liked way after the first claims of a legend were made.

(April 30, 2019 at 11:16 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(April 30, 2019 at 11:14 am)Jackalope Wrote: I don't notice when I'm using my mom's 50Mbps connection compared to my 150Mbps.

That's three times faster. I'm talking FORTY TIMES faster. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Jaysus, better get a lend of the speedgun then.