Part of Notre Dame on fire.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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


I'm not, nor will I.  Pinky swear.


I agree.


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


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


The topic has nothing to do with any of that.


Please see my two previous replies.

Boru

Oh my THOR.....

Santa comes from St Nick, that is an old claim, so? 

Why if you are such a skeptic are you coddling such superstitions?

AGAIN, what makes more sense to you?

There really was a magic baby with super powers, who poofed water into wine, then defied rigor mortis 34 years later?

Or someone loved the idea of this, and manufactured the crown to sell a myth?

We can prove George Washington existed, but nobody goes around claiming he could fart a Lamborghini out of his ass. And we have lagit proof that Washington existed. We have no proof, that the Jesus character was a real person, much less one with magic super powers.

Of course the crown exists, nobody is denying the crown exists. I am arguing it is a product of marketing, not something that proves a real history much less super natural claims.

We can watch Superman movies that depict him flying around real cities, but I am quite sure you are not so gullible to believe men really fly like that?

Sorry, why are you accusing me of coddling superstitions??

I'm not making ANY of the claims you seem to be accusing me of (maybe you've missed the several times in this thread that I don't believe the Crown is genuine).  I really, truly think the Crown is a pious fraud.  But I cannot prove that it is.  Neither can you.  Neither can anyone.

I am not making ANY claims about magic babies, the divinity of Jesus, or anything supernatural.  Why can't you grasp this?  Even if the relic at Notre Dame could be reliably dated to first century Palestine and be proved to have been affixed to the head of a crucified man called 'Jesus', it still wouldn't prove anything supernatural about anything in the bible.

For the (I think) fourth time, there is no conclusive proof that the Crown is a fraud, but that doesn't make it genuine.

Funny how you think skepticism only operates in one direction.  There is no evidence that the Crown is genuine, and you're OK with that. There is also no evidence that the Crown is a fraud, and you're losing your fucking mind.

Boru