Arthur Pen dragon and Jesus???????????

Question

i am told that Jesus is real, proof from the hundreds of stories about him etc, but King Arthur isn't real, even though in Arthur's case he also had hundreds of stories and Legends about him, even though the evidence for both existing are generally the same, being the both bodies have never been found, no physical proof of either existing, except for stories, both have no proof of existence, the only significant differences are the bible on Jesus side, which are just more stories, just stored in a book, and on Arthur's side the physical evidence of conquest of someone of that power and similar name throughout his region, both stories have strange occurrences that could have never happened, such as Excalibur and Merlin (magic part of it), or on Jesus side nearly every story ever told in the bible, so if there is more physical evidence supplying Arthur's existence, then how is he believed to be fictional, but Jesus isn't.

Please explain
Strictly no Christian/Catholic ranting of gibberish, i have had enough of your stubborn eye to not be able to see the facts or evidence in anything.

Answer 1

The Arthurian legends are extremely old. It took some effort for Christianity to displace them in Britain.

Answer 2

Both did in fact exist. A man named Jesus the son of a carpenter named Joseph living in Nazareth shows up in the a Roman senses , and a man by that mane was sentenced by Pilot to be beaten and later to death by crucifixion. His crime was not recorded, only his execution.



Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) and Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), sees Arthur as a genuine historical figure, a Romano-British leader who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century.



Other text that seems to support the case for Arthur's historical existence is the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, which also link Arthur with the Battle of Mount Badon. The Annales date this battle to 516–518, and also mention the Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) were both killed, dated to 537–539. These details have often been used to bolster confidence in the Historia's account and to confirm that Arthur really did fight at Mount Badon.



But like all things, if you look hard enough you will find anything you want, whether it really existed or not.

Answer 3

Jesus, written about in Christian literature. Most of the letters of Paul and the gospels are dated to at least the 2nd century. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible



Arthurian texts are very scanty early, the most complete early account of Arthur which is more than a single-line note being in the “Historia Brittonum” which is, at earliest, a ninth century work. Considering that Arthur is supposed to have lived in the 5th and/or 6th century, there is a far greater gap between surviving, early tales of Jesus and the supposed history behind them and early Arthurian tales and the supposed history behind them.



In short, that Arthurian tales are unlikely to be true is partly because most of them are written in the 12th century or later as romances. That is, they were understood to be fantasy stories, not even old legends.



Note, there is no such person as “Arthur Pen dragon”, or even “Arthur Pendragon”' in ANY medieval text. The addition of the surname to Arthur's name occurs first, so far as I know, in the writings of the Victorian poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson, who passed onto Arthur the surname Pendragon use by his supposed father Uther, though Arthur, if he existed at all, flourished in a time when hereditary surnames were not in use.



That Christianity is not true needs to be argued from the claims of Christianity, with which the fantasies of 12th century writers about Arthur have NO connection. Your attempted Arthur/Jesus comparison only shows you don’t know much about medieval Arthurian tales.



You might better compare some of the early Jesus tales with tales of the Buddha and other religious leaders and general folk tales.You will find lots to go on there. But making up an imaginary “Arthur pen dragon” does not help any argument you have.

Answer 4

Now there is a chance that a King Arthur may have existed and there is a chance that King Arthur was nothing morefable a fable....... But the way they describe king Arthur in so books and movies are very far from the truth, For if King Arthur actually existed then he existed in very, very primitive times a very long time way before the knight of the round table ever existed..... But in my mind there is not one iota of doubt that Jesus the Christ was a very real person for even Roman Historian wrote about Jesus...............................

Answer 5

Dude, you're missing the point. Belief in God isn't matter of evidence (physical or otherwise). That's why it's called "faith".



If we had absolute proof, there would be no need for faith, right?



I believe and have faith in the Lord because I know in my heart that He and His word are the truth. I could give a crap about any kind of evidence (for or against).



Cheers.



EDIT... again:

@Kthxbye

First of all, I'm not trying to say that I have all the answers because I don't. I'm also not trying to convert anybody because I believe in freedom of religion (including the freedom to not have a religion). And as strange as it may sound, I'm not really all that religious anyway - though I am pretty spiritual when it comes to God and I do believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I've just... experienced too much not to believe.



As for the "need" for faith, I can only tell you what that means to me - it means (among other things) hope. The hope, the faith that there is a higher order to things. That we're not just carbon bags filled with water, protein and bio-electricity that stumble about on a random rock hurtling through a cold, empty void. That we're not just a bunch of meat puppets who only serve to make little meat puppets and then drop over. That we are more than the sum of our parts.

Because if there is no God, if all this is just random chaos and chance, if my hopes, my dreams and my love for my fellow man are nothing more than the random firing of synapses... then what's the point?

If that's true, then all the monsters that live amongst us (serial killers, rapists, child molesters & murders, ruthless dictators & tyrants, etc) are right: that life is ultimately meaningless and random. That we are utterly alone. That people are just replaceable objects to be used and tossed aside.



Now of course, I obviously don't believe that. I believe that people are more than the sum of their physical bodies - that they have a soul. And I believe in a loving, caring God. And I guess that I believe in what people are calling "intelligent design".



Does that make me anti-intellectual? Nope, I read, think and contemplate all the time. I love science and logic and reason. But I also believe in the human heart.

Perhaps I should have spoken more clearly in my initial post (though of course I didn't know at the time that this would turn into a debate). What I should have said was this: I don't need specific, utter proof of the existence of God because I see it all around me every day. I see it in physics, in chemistry, in the complex and elegant processes of life. I see it in the big events of life and in the small (it's there if you look). I believe in evolution AND I believe that God set it all in motion when He created it. This cosmos, this "great machine" just fits together to well for it to have been just random chance.



Now you say "No god who hides from me, playing childish games, is worthy of my worship." But the thing is... one of the most precious things God gave us when he created us (besides the ability to think) was free will. The ability to make your own choices - for good or ill. To make your own way in the world.

If He were to appear in the sky tomorrow in some grand, pyrotechnic display and tell everyone what's what... then what would be the point in free will? What would be the point in making a choice when there's only ONE choice? If He's here physically everyday telling you what to think and feel, then what's the point in thinking for yourself at all?



And as for the "playing childish games" part, who are you or I to judge? Did you or I fashion the cosmos and then set it into motion? Can you or I know every possible outcome or consequences that our choices and actions will have? Can you or I see all ends? Can you or I see and/or manipulate the whole tapestry that is creation?

Well, I know for my part that I can’t, because I’m not some sort of super being with an ultra-level intellect (much less a divine one). But if God is indeed God (and I think that he is), then He can see the whole “big picture” by default, and so would know what was best for it. There's a quote that says: "the Lord works in mysterious ways". Well, I say that it's only mysterious to us because we can't see what HE sees.



Sorry for being so long, but I was just trying to answer the question the best that I could.



God bless.

Answer 6

I do believe King Arthur does exist including the sword of the stone "Excalibur". And relax I ain't gonna go religious on ya. I may be Christian but I don't convert people to my religion. Anyways Jesus may be real but so is King Arthur.

Answer 7

Wow. What a GREAT question! I actually don't have an answer though sorry. I just had to say that is amazing and a agree with you.

I'm more prone to believe king Arthur existed then Jesus.

Answer 8

Jesus isn't real. There is no logical scientific proof that he existed. Everything that is "proof" has been twisted to suit the times or peoples beliefs. Something that is real cannot be twisted to suit your meaning as it has its own truth, if that makes any sense?



See here for further information:



www.ExposingChristianity.com

Answer 9

@Booger Man: Explain the need for faith. WHY should we need to believe in a god, when he/she/it could simply show itself, and render all doubt moot? Why would a divine being go to all the trouble of crafting for us minds that can think and reason, and then say to us, "But don't bother with that thinking stuff I made you able to do. I'll know you're really worthy if you can believe I exist with no evidence for it whatsoever!"



So the one thing that makes us human, that sets us apart from the rest of creation, our intellects, is the one thing we're not to use when it comes to the divine?



Sounds to me rather like something someone would come up with to perform an elaborate con on us all: "Oh, of course god is real...but to prove your worth, you can't ever *know* god is real. You have to take it on my say-so."



No god who hides from me, playing childish games, is worthy of my worship.





As to Arthur, there's very little evidence for his existence, and virtually none at all that places him as a king in Britain or Wales.



Quoted material from Wikipedia:



"The earliest reference to King Arthur that can be dated confidently is the 9th century Historia Brittonum, usually attributed to Nennius, a Welsh ecclesiastic who was probably active in the early ninth century.[4] Nennius lists a dozen battles fought by Arthur, and gives him the title of "dux bellorum", which can be translated as "war commander". Nennius also says that Arthur fought "alongside the kings of the Britons", rather than saying that Arthur was himself a king. One of the battles Nennius lists appears to be the same as a great British victory mentioned by Gildas in an earlier history, the battle of Mons Badonicus, though Gildas does not give the name Arthur. Gildas in his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (or On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain) does mention a British king Cuneglasus who had been "charioteer to the bear".

There are a number of mentions of a legendary hero called Arthur in early Welsh and Breton poetry. These sources are preserved in High Medieval manuscripts, and cannot be dated with accuracy. They are mostly placed in the 9th to 10th century, although some authors make them as early as the 7th. The earliest of these would appear to be the Old Welsh poem, Y Gododdin, preserved in an 11th century manuscript. It refers to a warrior who "glutted black ravens [i.e., killed many men] on the rampart of the stronghold, although he was no Arthur".[5]

The Welsh poem Geraint, son of Erbin, written in the 10th or 11th century, describes a battle at a port-settlement and mentions Arthur in passing.[6] The work is a praise-poem and elegy for the 6th-century king Geraint, and is significant in showing that this historical king was associated with Arthur at a relatively early date.[6] It also provides the earliest known reference to Arthur as "emperor"[6] Geraint son of Erbin is earliest found in the Black Book of Carmarthen,[7] compiled around 1250, though it may date to the 10th or 11th century.[6] Y Gododdin was similarly copied at much the same time. The two poems differ in the relative archaic quality of their language, that of Gododdin being the older in form. However, this could merely reflect differences in the date of the last revision of the language within the two poems. The language would have had to have been revised for the poems to remain comprehensible.

The 10th century Annales Cambriae give the date of Mons Badonicus as 516, and Arthur's death as occurring in 537 at Camlann. These annals survive in a version dating from the tenth century. All other sources relating to Arthur by name are later than these; that is, they were written at least four hundred years later than the events to which they refer.[5]"



The two sets of mythos are pretty much the same: no direct evidence, only word of mouth, and that only long after the man in question is dead and gone.

Answer 10

you are right asker...both people are cited in similar ways...each is as believable as the other.....and way to go boogerman...u did exactly wat she asked people not to do in the question...ur just as bad as the people ur trying not to be.