[Hugin]

It can be considered a crucifix because to do so would discredit Christianity? Don't you get it?

Um, no. That makes no sense to me. Care to explain?

[IronJack]

The article says that the artifact may have originated before Christ, meaning that the notion of a crucifix being a holy relic commemorating Christ’s execution is invalid, that cross-shaped relics existed before Him and that their symbolism is not dependent on His existence.

[IronJack]

RETRACTION:

Reading the article more carefully, it states that the artifact may predate the time Christianity was thought to have been practiced IN DENMARK.

I guess I'm so used to revisionist historians undermining Christianity that I let my paranoia get the better of me.

My apologies.