Quote Originally Posted by truthpaste View Post
Ok, let's see what your oft quoted "THE GUARDIAN" has to say re Christ:-

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur. - article
Another change of subject? Is that because your beliefs and arguments are built on sandy ground?

Given up on claiming atheists (even ‘top atheists’ whatever they are) are agnostics?

Given up on claiming lack of faith or religion is proof of faith or religion?

Given up on claiming the Old Testament is literally true because it says so in the Old Testament?

Given up on claiming up is down, left is right, or that cultural heritage proves that people (not just your fellow cultists) believe in magic?

However, I think The Guardian is right in that quote. There is more historical evidence of a minor prophet called (in modern translation) Jesus than there is of a single Romano British warlord called Arthur.

No evidence of magic for either of them - but maybe some similarities in the way their myth was expanded and changed over time.