Part of Notre Dame on fire.

[Brian37]

So basically, if I am reading this correctly, this is yet another manufactured object well after the alleged claimed event, and hardly a first hand account.

There isn't enough in the article to support the claim that the crown was manufactured 'well after the alleged claimed event', and the section quoted only details how it got to Notre Dame. If the Passion narrative in the Synoptics is accurate (meaning Jesus was crowned with a ring of thorns), then the relic could conceivably be genuine.

But I wouldn't place a bet on it.

Boru

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.

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

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.

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. 

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".

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. 

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.

[Shell B]

There's just no reason to believe it's genuine other than faith, since it only appeared in history more than a thousand years after the event took place, like every Jesus story or artifact I can think of.

[Alan V]

Manufacturing evidence is obstruction of justice.

Um not sure what you mean by that. 

But I would agree and say that in all of antiquity, in every religion it was quite common to concoct stories and relics to create a false image of credibility. Even today in food marketing, if you go read the labels of certain food items like orange juice, you end up looking at the nutrition label and the "so called" item is mostly sugar and water.

Marketing is why religions survive, just like any other product.

Yeah, I should have put a smiley by that to indicate it was an attempted joke.  

[Brian37]

There's just no reason to believe it's genuine other than faith, since it only appeared in history more than a thousand years after the event took place, like every Jesus story or artifact I can think of.

That is my point, and not just with Christianity, but all of antiquity and every religion back then.

It makes much more sense to me that humans made up bad claims, and bought and sold them because the marketing benefited them.

Even with Buddhism. At least in the west, there is a false romantic idea that Buddhism is a philosophy, and not a religion. But if one were to study the overlap of the very close geography of India where the first claims pop up, and considers the overlap of concepts like reincarnation, and Karma , and find the Queen Maya mother of Buddha mythology, it is obvious, at least to me, someone, or some group of humans didn't like the old Hindu ways and, just like the Jesus Character incorporated the Hebrews, created a new religion based on older and surrounding mythologies.

Even the Rasta religion is nothing but a spin off mix of African/Jewish/Catholic motifs.

I just watched a documentary on PBS about the origins of the "flood" myth, last night. To their credit they referenced the older polytheistic "Epic Of Gilgamesh" flood myth. They even went as far as reconstructing the ROUND boat, that would have been used in reality for the real local floods that were quite frequent and common in Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

---

Religion succeeds or fails like any product you buy, marketing. Think of any dead product no longer sold, or old defunct company that no longer exists. The Edsel and  DeLorean both failed, but were still ideas based on prior and surrounding concepts.

[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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's just no reason to believe it's genuine other than faith, since it only appeared in history more than a thousand years after the event took place, like every Jesus story or artifact I can think of.

Actually, the Crown was alluded to as a physically persevered relic as early as the third century.

I don't believe that the Crown at Notre Dame (or any of its various fragments scattered here and there) is genuine.  But there's no real evidence that it isn't genuine.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Without evidence it can't be considered genuine.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Without evidence it can't be considered genuine.

No one is saying that it's genuine.  But neither can it conclusively be proved to be a fraud.
 
Boru

[Brian37]

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

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?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Without evidence it can't be considered genuine.

No one is saying that it's genuine.  But neither can it conclusively be proved to be a fraud.
 
Boru

We don't have to prove it is a fraud, they have to prove it is genuine.