Part of Notre Dame on fire.

[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.

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

300 years after the fact is also not contemporary. And again, no part of antiquity of any religion on the globe, had any modern understanding of peer review.

There was no oversight back then. There were simply ruling classes who bought and sold mythology and marketed them to the advantage of the rulers of that time. 

That crown exists because the marketers who successfully sold it, were marketing a story. Not any real event.

[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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

That crown exists because the marketers who successfully sold it, were marketing a story. Not any real event.

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Boru

[Brian37]

That crown exists because the marketers who successfully sold it, were marketing a story. Not any real event.

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Boru

 Holy crap do you not listen.

I am NOT in denial that the crown exists. IT DOES.

I do not however buy any crap that a man magically survived rigor mortis while wearing that crown. And again, even with your earliest mention of 300 years after the fact, again, that still does not mean that humans have magic super powers.

It makes much more sense to me, that the crown was simply concocted to lend credibility to a legend.

I could give a shit less if we found the DNA of a person named Jesus, nobody survives the death story as that book of myth implies.

Crap, if Trump can get away with lying about his Electoral college win and inauguration attendance, certainly the marketers of bullshit in antiquity could concoct a prop to convince others a guy magically survived death, could easily con others.

I am not disputing the existence of the crown. I am saying it was manufactured to sell a story.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Boru

 Holy crap do you not listen.

I am NOT in denial that the crown exists. IT DOES.

I do not however buy any crap that a man magically survived rigor mortis while wearing that crown. And again, even with your earliest mention of 300 years after the fact, again, that still does not mean that humans have magic super powers.

It makes much more sense to me, that the crown was simply concocted to lend credibility to a legend.

I could give a shit less if we found the DNA of a person named Jesus, nobody survives the death story as that book of myth implies.

Crap, if Trump can get away with lying about his Electoral college win and inauguration attendance, certainly the marketers of bullshit in antiquity could concoct a prop to convince others a guy magically survived death, could easily con others.

I am not disputing the existence of the crown. I am saying it was manufactured to sell a story.

Holy crap, you cannot read.  The existence of the Crown isn't in dispute, it never has been, but you seem to think people are saying YOU are saying it doesn't exist.

I'll tell you again, I'm NOT claiming that the Crown has any impact whatsoever on anything supernatural. 

It makes more sense to me as well that the Crown is a pious fraud, constructed well after the purported events of the Gospels to give them a gloss of authenticity.

I never claimed that the Crown - if genuine - implies that Jesus or anyone else survived a crucifixion.

You might trying reading what I post before you spend time refuting claims I never made.

Do you understand the simple, declarative sentence, 'There is no evidence that the Crown of Thorns relic at Notre Dame cathedral is a fraud'? Do you further understand that this sentence says absolutely NOTHING about whether Christian theology is true or false?

Boru

[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.

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

So a few hundred years. Still suspect enough for me, but I do agree we can't disprove any of it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

So a few hundred years. Still suspect enough for me, but I do agree we can't disprove any of it.

THANK YOU! That's all I've been saying.  I don't think the Crown is any more authentic than the Shroud of Turin (which we know is a fraud).  I suspect the early Church fathers - Clement, Origen, a few others - who wrote about the Crown (never first hand) laid a nice foundation for later confidence tricksters to put together a Crown (or Crowns) and make a few fast drachmas.  I can't prove any of this, but based on the history of other religious relics, it's a pretty safe assumption.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Hey lady! Want to buy the skull of John the Baptist?"

"Isn't that on display in the Vatican?"

"That's his skull as an adult. This one's his when he was a child."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Old joke, works every time. 

Actually, though, I think that bones are among the first class relics most likely to be genuine.  I'm much more inclined to accept the historicity of Francis Xavier's leg bone than I am a bit of the True Cross.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I love that the bones of the saints have been scattered about the world. Doesn't the bible say you have to gather your bones together before you can go to Heaven?