RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 3:52 pm
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2015 at 3:53 pm by Mudhammam.)
(June 8, 2015 at 3:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Does that apply to King Arthur, too? Or are you selective in applying the principle.I don't know much about him except that the first mention of him dates to about 300 years after he supposedly lived, which sort of demonstrates how much more valuable our source material for Jesus of Nazareth is, but taking my cue from those who do know a thing or two, yeah, that would apply to King Arthur too.
Quote:The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza