Hm... It would be nice if we could find some definitive evidence of King Arthur's existence, don't you think?
Well, what if I told you I found several hundreds of pages of documents describing many of the things he did in his life? From large victories, to small, everyday conversation with everyday citizens? Sounds impressive, don't you think?
But hey, it could all just be a big, fabricated story. So what if I told you I also had documents, not only talking about King Arthur, but about some of his closest associates? What if I told you these also described everything from huge events in their lives, down to everyday conversations they had?
In fact, what if I told you I had letters written by those associates? What if these letters directly reference King Arthur and go into great detail about the things he had said? I could have faked these letters, don't you think? Well what if I told you these letters had been proven to have been written only a few years after King Arthur's death?
In fact, what if I told you I found letters from people who weren't even directly associated with King Arthur, who talked about things King Arthur had done?
If I could provide such evidence, well, the evidence would be
overwhelming, don't you think? Who could possibly deny that King Arthur
existed in the face of such obvious evidence?
So why is it suddenly not enough when we're talking about Christ?
Notes: The New Testament book 1 Thessalonians has been proven to have been written about 50 AD. As for "people who weren't even directly associated . . .", Thallus immediately comes to mind. He wrote, also around 50 AD, about Jesus. He tried to pass off the "period of darkness" as an eclipse, never denying that it happened, simply trying to pass it off as an eclipse. This explanation was later disproven because an eclipse could not have taken place at the point in time when Jesus was crucified.