# Most important Christian hoaxes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582 "2003-03-23T18:26:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/61 "2003-03-25T19:05:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\*i’d love to help you distribute your tracts. \*\* Thanks, SimonX! Anyone who wants to can feel free to print them out, fold them, and hand them out. Let me know how printing them goes- I have been having printer problems and can’t seem to get them to print right. In theory it should have a 0.2 inch margin on all four sides. (i.e. the printable area is 8.1x10.6 inches). I printed the template once when I first started on the tracts and it worked fine, but I tried it on another printer and it didn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/62 "2003-03-25T19:13:16Z")
Umm, Mr Finch- where is that link supposed to go? It does nothing here. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/63 "2003-03-25T19:23:14Z")
The link works for me. **DrDeth** , if all you’re talking about is plcebo effect, then I have no quibble. I thought you were implying that paranormal events had been confirmed. I’m sorry if i misunderstood you. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/64 "2003-03-25T19:26:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*Umm, Mr Finch- where is that link supposed to go? It does nothing here. \*\* worked fine for me. [http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk21.html#placebo](http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk21.html#placebo) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/65 "2003-03-25T19:42:59Z")
Oh Cynical one- yes, I do not _think_ anything paranormal is invovled, although since I have an open (but skepical) mind, I will concede a possibility. Like I said, any “real” results can be usually explained by the placebo effect or psychosomatic illnesses. Simon- thanks your second try works fine. This is a very interesting article, but even the article agrees that the “placebo effect is commonly asserted to be very strong” and thus I was correct in that it is “well known & documented”, althlo I did not know it was also disputed. I certainly agree that this line of research should be continued, and more studies done. But then- how does “faith healing” work if not for the placebo effect? ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/66 "2003-03-25T20:07:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*Since the Shroud is forged, i.e, not the real thing, it’s pretty much up there on the list. \*\* Except if you _tell_ people it’s a fake, how is that a hoax? Unless it’s real, which the Shroud is not. Like selling Reproduction Antiques. That’s not fraud if you tell people they aren’t Real Antiques. It could have originally been a hoax if the originators claimed it was real, but we don’t know what the originators claimed, do we? (I don’t.) ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/67 "2003-03-25T21:16:49Z")
I think the point regarding the Shroud is that it was only shown to be a “fake” (in the sense that it did not represent what it was alleged to) relatively recently. Obviously, we can only tell something is a hoax once it has been shown to be so. Telling people that we know _now_ that it was faked does not mean it was presented as such from the beginning. And there are still those who think it _is_ real: [http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/~tttbbs/EPN-1/Articles/Articles-Shrd/evidence.html](http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/~tttbbs/EPN-1/Articles/Articles-Shrd/evidence.html) [http://www.powells.com/subsection/ChristianityShroudofTurin.html](http://www.powells.com/subsection/ChristianityShroudofTurin.html) [http://www.blavatsky.net/features/vane/vane1998/shroud-of-turin.htm](http://www.blavatsky.net/features/vane/vane1998/shroud-of-turin.htm) ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/68 "2003-03-25T21:40:51Z")
At the risk of getting off on a tangent, where can we find a site that refutes the claims in the above links? ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/69 "2003-03-25T21:50:45Z")
My point regarding the Shroud is that I, at least, don’t know what it was ever alleged to represent. It has only recently been proved scientifically to us to be a fake. If it was admitted from the outset to only be a representation to aid devotion, then it was never a hoax, just a fake, and there’s nothing wrong with an admitted fake. I suspect it’s unlikely it was thus presented, but I try to maintain impartiality in my skepticism. It could have been. If people continue to believe in it in the face of official denial and scientific proof that qualifies as collective stupidity but not a hoax in my book. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/70 "2003-03-25T22:06:02Z")
A good point, SparrowHawk, but so far as I know the Shroud was originally presented as being genuine. How about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Isn’t that the basis for Pat Robertson’s NWO rants (with “Jews” replaced by “international bankers”?) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/71 "2003-03-25T22:22:10Z")
> [@](#): > > A good point, SparrowHawk, but so far as I know the Shroud was originally presented as being genuine. And was debunked by the church almost immediately. Look at the sites that are championing the Shroud: Madame Blavatsky? She and her odd followers were not even Christian. The World Net site? Aside from being fruitcakes, how are they using the Shroud for their own goals? They seem to be buying into other people’s idiocy–and the “other people” (as indicated by the wide range of titles on the Powell site) tend to be people outside _either_ the religious or scholarly communities simply trying to make a buck off a book. I suppose that you could say that the charlatan authors are perpetrating a hoax, but you could make the same claim for Koestler’s silly Thirteenth Tribe or Hugh Schonfield’s utterly anti-scholarly The Passover Plot. That is not _promoting_ religion by hoax, that is simply taking religious icons and converting them to one’s own pocketbook advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/72 "2003-03-25T22:34:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SparrowHawk \* > \*\*My point regarding the Shroud is that I, at least, don’t know what it was ever alleged to represent. \*\* As early as [1389](http://www.shroud.com/history.htm), the Shroud was being touted as the “true Shroud”. And, given its history of being _treated_ like a holy artifact, I’d say it’s reasonable to conclude that it was _thought_ to be a holy artifact. See also [here](http://www.shroudstory.com/later.htm). Note, however, that the Shroud was greeted with some skepticism even during that time. It also appears that the creation of such shrouds was [commonplace in Medieval Europe](http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/shistory.html) (see under the heading “Famous Medieval Shrouds”), used in re-enactments of the Passion and such. It is entirely possible that the Turin shroud was one such shroud that was not created with any fraudulent intent, but has since been interpreted as “real”. ---
**Author:** ![Eurograff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Eurograff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eurograff)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/73 "2003-03-25T22:40:49Z")
[“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”](http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html) The Protocols truly are one of history’s greatest hoaxes. Of course, when they first appeared 100 years ago, there was a fruitful ground for such writing and so many people believed in them. It proved successful for some time. Also you should not forget The Donation of Constantine, forged documents that survived for centuries. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/74 "2003-03-25T23:11:49Z")
> [@](#): > > It is entirely possible that the Turin shroud was one such shroud that was not created with any fraudulent intent, but has since been interpreted as “real”. I would guess that the Shroud was very clearly created as a hoax. I see no reason to “create” such an artifact that would not be fraudulent. My objection to including it as some major “Christian hoax” at this time is that it is not being used to shore up any false claims for religion (at least not by the people who own it) in the way that the Paluxy footprints are being used. ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/75 "2003-03-25T23:37:31Z")
Not that I don’t agree with you, **tomndebb** , but Passion Plays have been cited as one non-fraudulent reason to create such a thing. Official claims on record seem to have been “this is fake” until Pope Sixtus IV said he thought it was real in 1464 (according to the second link **Finch** provided). Presumably he had access to or knowledge of the original denunciation. Does it enter hoaxdom at this point or was he just a victim of excess credulity? I guess I don’t care about the Shroud one way or the other, but I am interested in what qualifies as a hoax. I think it involves intent to deceive and it’s hard for me to tell where the intent lies in this. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/76 "2003-03-26T00:26:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*My objection to including it as some major “Christian hoax” at this time is that it is not being used to shore up any false claims for religion (at least not by the people who own it) in the way that the Paluxy footprints are being used. \*\* But I never claimed that the Catholic Church was using it to shore up false claims of religion. My concern with the Shroud is that a) I thought it was originally devised as a hoax (and therefore germane to the tract) and b) it was being used to shore up false claims for religion. ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582/77 "2003-03-26T01:42:47Z")
In that case, you’ve better fodder in other stuff since a) we don’t know why it was originally devised and b) the resurrection of Jesus is an article of faith and not a demonstrably “false claim,” like humans and dinosaurs being coeval. I’d say go with the Warnke stuff and the footprints. You can get your teeth into that and more power to you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-important-christian-hoaxes/163582.md?page=3)