Part of Notre Dame on fire.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1238 seems way after year "0"  much less "34" . I am not good at math, but that does seem to be way after the fact.

But the excerpt from the article doesn't address the origin of the Crown, just how it wound up at Notre Dame.

And please do not assume or try to argue those in antiquity had modern communication and the same accurate record keeping we have today.

I'm not, nor will I.  Pinky swear.

It makes much more sense to me, that humans started a religion, based on legends and myths, and the buyers after the fact worked to market and perpetuate that legend.

I agree.

We can prove even today that King Tut was a real king, but that never made Ra, Osiris, Horus or Isis real gods. That crown was manufactured just like the alleged Shroud. 

What evidence can you provide that the Crown is a fraud?

FYI the way the Romans tortured criminals and war enemies was not a lower case "t", like the cross implies. It was a capital "T".

Bugger if I know why you're bringing this up.

And I really do not care regardless. Humans are not born without a second set of DNA as implied by the "virgin birth", nor do humans get speared in the side, have all the blood drained out of their bodies, suffer complete organ/cellular death, only to dance the jig 3 days later. No such thing as magic babies with super powers or zombie gods. 

The topic has nothing to do with any of that.

And funny how when you look at the depictions of the "Jesus" character in European history, he seems Italian in Italy, German in Germany, Spanish in Spain and English in England.

Please see my two previous replies.

Boru