This may be farewell.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Holy crap, I am talking about the claimed crown, not the french building.

So am I.  I'm talking about the crown AT Notre Dame.

But neither existed in the year 0 regardless.

 
There was no 'year 0'.  The calendar goes from 1 BCE to 1 CE.

Neither the building or the claimed crown existed in 34. 

You're correct about the cathedral, but I don't care.  I'm asking you about the Crown.

Start of with just the building.  The building started construction in 1160. AGAIN, I am not good at math, but that seems way after the year "0" much less "34".

Why do you keep bringing this up?  No one's asking about the cathedral. (Again, no such thing as 'year 0')

If an artifact proved credibility of ANY RELIGION OR SOCIETY having a patent on reality, then the MAYANS AND Egyptian gods would be real.

No one is claiming that the historicity of a religious artifact proves anything about the religion itself.  Why do you keep dragging this up?  It's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Humans make shit up. Including relics that are fake to lend credibility to a story that society wishes were true.

True as far as it goes.  But since some religious relics are undoubtedly authentic, why are you so dead set against the possibility that the Crown might be?

If the existence of a physical object made one religion credible then all religions are credible.

See above.  Historical reliability has nothing to do with religious credibility.

The alleged crown was not made in the year the bible claims. It was manufactured way after the fact just like an illusionist creates new props to get you to believe their bullshit.

Saying that over and over won't make it any more true.  I gather that this is your opinion (and it happens to be one I share).  But - for the teenth time, how do you KNOW?

Boru