Ten oz

The historical criteria being what exactly? The Jesus Seminar is hundreds of scholars who challange the criteria. Only one source describes who Jesus was, the bible. It describes him as the son of god born from a virgin who was resurrected from the dead. The modification of his story to a "charismatic apocalyptic preacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate in the restless time of the Roman occupation of Palestine is not that extraordinary" is a change in context which is made to allow for him to have been real. It is people say assuming the stories were exaggerations rather than total works of fiction. I still do not see how that can be distinguished from the bible alone? IMO Moontanman made an excellent point. There have been many first had accounts of aliens. Very reputable people have come forward claiming to have seen aliens like Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Gov. of Arizona Fife Symington. We have pilot audio recording of sightings as they happen, recorded radar information showing anomilous things, and an understand that both life elsewhere in the universe is possible and that space travel is possible. The historical evidence is huge as well. People throughout history have claimed to have seen UFOs. Christopher Columbus recorded a UFO in his voyage log Oct 11th 1492. Despite all the "evidence" neither of us are sold on aliens. We don't believe the accounts. To Moontanman's point; people choose to believe Jesus was real. They choose to accept the "evidence". However there is no more logical reason for doing so than there would be to accept all the evidence of Aliens. Difference being that we aren't raised to to believe in aliens as a matter of cultural history and self identification. If it were important to who we were as people that aliens in fact were real most people in my opinion would believe in them. There could be aliens. There could've be a charismatic apocalyptic preacher named Jesus. I am not claiming to be able to disprove or prove either. I am saying that I don't know. You are saying that you don't know either but then hedging it by implying that you most likely do know. I think that is a contradiction.

@ Robittybob1, in my opinion the New Testement, like most religious texts, are a collection of works written cryptic and ambiguously enough to lend themselves to any number of ideas. Actually, rather than picking solely picking on religious works I should've phrased that as any fictional work sold as non fiction. For example people are seemingly always finding new meaning in the work of Nostradamus or the readings of Edgar Cayce. In the Bible God both seeks vengeance and promotes a proportional response while at the same time champions forgiveness and turning the other cheek. Jesus (god in human form or at least god's human spokesman) said no man is without sin and was seemingly against the death penalty. Meanwhile god himself killed many humans in Babylon, Egypt, flood the while planet, and etc. So I think people can twist the gospels into meaning or telling whatever story they want. Which is one of the reasons I don't trust them as historically accurate. They (the writings) say whatever to translators and believers want them to say.

I do sweep away with one stroke everything written by Christians because all of it includes the impossible and is written by people who by their own words claim to be talking about god first and a man second. Things written about Thales do not include: vigin birth, resurrection, being the son of god, being the human form of god, the holy ghost, miracles, and etc, etc, etc. All references to Thales could be true. No obvious fiction about Thales. None of the writings about Thales being full of obvious exaggerations or worship. That is the point of mentioning the math, the works credited to Thales are possible. The works credited to Jesus by Christians are impossible. Context matters in literature and the Christian works are religious ones about God and not about true history. Archeology and science has proven written history unreliable time after time. History is often written with an agenda. As I referenced earlier up until the last century the majority of historians accepted the Exodus story or Noah's flood as true. Many historians and Archeologists devoted their careers to finding the proof. Now, after many failed attempts and science firmly indicating no, question marks are finally being put around the Exodus story and a global flood. The lack of physical evidence is overwhelming regardless of what has been written. Yet the belief in these stories are so strong many still insist that they must have been based on smaller more regional events and the search continues while most people are still tought these things as truth. Let's be honest; not only is written history often unreliable but it is very bias. Up until recent times the only history treated with respect by the western world was European and Christian history. Europeans cared little for what the Chinese and Indians in Asia had written or believed. Same goes for how they felt about Natives in the Americas. Who knows how much history went up in flames as Europeans conquered the world. History is written bu the winners after all. European history until recently has been world history and everything else just mysticism and voodoo. Some intelligent folks knew better but fear of imprisonment, ridicule, or worse (depending on the century) kept most in their place. So yes, many history books say that Jesus was real, that Thales and other Greeks were real while often calling none European/Christain history's myths. There is over a thousand years of this bias to dig through. Which is why I sweep away Christian writings about Jesus. I have no reason to believe they are honest. No reason to believe they haven't been changed by purposeful editing or bias mistranslation.

18 for Thales vs 3 for Jesus and that is accepting both of Josephus' are legit. Big difference in my opinion. Plus the mathematical works of Thales are real. As a matter of exaggeration of fiction someone couldn't not have come up with those equations. Nothing in Jesus' story is so definitive. All of it could just be pure fiction.

I am far from a genius and have not been banned yet so I would say this forum is an open one. The General Philosophy, Speculations, and the Lounge allow for all ideas. Only time I have seen people struggle is when they fail to seperate opinion from fact. I personally enjoy the challange. The moderators do a good job keeping posters on topic and indentifying when support for an idea is lacking. Is there something specific you have wanted to dicuss and have not been able to?

@ Robittybob1, I posted the YT video in the OP as a discussion starter and not as a direct representation of how I feel. It made some points I felt were relevant. Richard Carrier is far from the only scholar out there who challanges whether or not here was truly a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar is a group of hundreds of scholars who have done work on this issue. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar I do not believe that any of the gospels are text from which truth can be brought out. There are questions of authorship, obvious bits of fiction, and translation/editing issues. I just don't see how fact can be sorted from the fiction. That doesn't not mean Jesus couldn't have been real. Doesn't mean a real man did not influence the fictionalized bits of the gospel. The problem is there is no other source that chronicles his life. Neither Josephus or Tacitus chronicle his life. You seem to under the impression that for some people no amount of evidence would ever be enough. I do not agree. I have already listed for you various types of evidence I would accept and believe. I can not think of another historical figure for which such little evidence exists that is so universally accept by the general public to have been 100% real. Can you provide examples? Eisen used Thales as an example earlier. However unlike Jesus Thales had several historians write in detail about his life and his works. And unlike Jesus Thales work was mathematical so there is no obvious bits of fictions to discredit any of Thales Biographies. You can review my full to Thales response in post #38. If historians had written Jesus' life story down in the first century I would accept that as proof he was a real man. The gospels were not written by historians. They were written by people he claimed visions of a resurrected God whom they worshiped and seeked salvation in. You post earlier that you found the scholar Richard Carrier to be bias, but what of the apostle? I understand that some information can be crossed referenced. The mention of a city or judge who can be proven real historically. Trouble I have with that is fiction often uses real references. The example I gave earlier was that the inclusion of JFK and Nixon in Forrest Gump doesn't prove Forrest Gump was a real man. Which is why something other than the New Testement is need in my opinion to validate the story. I also believe that evidence may still come some day. Who knows what writings and relics the Catholic church has hidden away. One might assume they would make any evidence of a historical Jesus public but I don't believe that is true if that evidence was at odds with the gospels. Let's not forget that for long stretches of history between now and the assumed life of Jesus refuting Jesus' existence could literally result in ones execution. If work on the topic had been done it may have been hidden away or purposely destoryed.

I think this is an excellent post. I don't believe his existence is the probable view but you explained yourself well and I appriciate that. As stated I don't know if Jesus existed or not. I don't lean either way. Perhaps one day an artifact will be found that definitively reflects Jesus was real. I don't see that as beyond the realm of something that could happen. A hundred years ago many scholars would have argued that parts of, if not most of, the Exodus story were true. Lack of evidence of something so large has changed that view over time. So the acceptance of Jesus by scholars does not strike me as meaningful. Lots of things are accepted until they are not. Lots of histories are not simply not true. Sometimes not even a little. A lot of people here in the United States believe Christopher Columbus discovered the earth was round for example. Some falsehoods are very pervassive and long lasting. Thank you for your response. My threshold for "evidence" isn't really that high. Had either Josephus or Tacitus intentually written about Jesus as a means of biographing his life I would accept that as proof Jesus had most probably been real. Rather both mention Jesus in context used to describe others as Christian. I would also find any contemporary writings very compelling evidence. Rather than people writing that they had visions of a resurrected Jesus if they wrote about first hand interaction with a human Jesus that would be evidence. Any works credited to Jesus himself would be incredible evidence. It seems reasonable to think a teacher traveling the country side ministering to people might have written something down at some point. I also think a relic saved by his followers would be good evidence if it could be dated to a time frame matching the life of Jesus. To summarize: contemporary writings, non Christian attempts to biography his life within the first century after, or relics dated to his supposed time frame of existence. Any of that would work for me. I do not understand this part. What darkness are you referencing? I don't think Nazaareth must have existed during Jesus' life in order for Jesus to have been a real man. Knowing for sure might help clear the water but the two are not inseparable in my opinion. I think it is usual to incorporate real people and real place into fiction. For example they edited in footage of JFK and Nixon into the movie Forrest Gump. That doesn't not make Forrest Gump anymore real.Tacitus was written about Nero blaming Christians for a fire. His reference to Jesus was a description of Christians. It was not an entire meant to chronicle the life of a real man. No I don't think it would change how many believers in Jesus there is. I find that most everyone I know pretty much believes Jesus was a real historical figure. My peers and I were told as much in grade school. As to the faith issue I don't see why it matters. Jesus is said to have performed miracles infront of people. So Jesus was not above proving who he claimed to be. I apologizes for moving the order of these questions. I did so just for my own ease of answering it.

Everything you are saying makes its own sense and very well may be true. I am not sure if Jesus was a real man or not. I have no way to be sure. However I just don't feel that Christianities popularity or growth in Rome during the first century supports the idea that Jesus was a real man. In the cases of Moses and Noah the scale of events described were so massive that the lack of physical archeological evidence to support the stories can not be overlooked. Regardless of what has been written historians must acknowledge that the events did not happen. Once the events are shown to be fiction it becomes clear that the men are most probably fiction as well. Their importance and written record being tied too directly to the archeologically impossible events. Jesus is a different case. His story is regional enough that lack of physical or contemporary archeological evidence can be ignored in favor of literary reference. His scientifically impossible acts dismissed as possible exaggerations or misunderstandings. However, can Jesus the human man be removed from his acts and still be Jesus? You imply he must have been real is so many Romans became Christian in the first century. By that logic he must have done something very special. Since we both know it wasn't walking on water, raising the dead, or turning water into wine what was it? No alternate story based in reality exists providing insight as to whom the real life man Jesus may have been. His stories are attached to Gospels which contain tremendous amounts of fiction and possibly nothing true. Further more many aspects of Jesus' story is often claimed to be plagiarized from other gods. Miraculous birth being a common story in religion. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births The familiar concepts on Christianity that more broadly appealed to individual rebirth and second chances while still fully embracing the traditional beliefs on the Old Testament could easily explain it popularity in the first century. Rather than being something completely new it was just a modification of Judaism centered around a new Messiah for which religious tradition is rich with. There is only one lone Roman reference to Jesus that I am aware of. What "credible accounts of Roman history" are you referencing? "In conjunction with Biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[34] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus.[34][35]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus As for why I care; the universal acceptance of Jesus amongst the majority of people I know based on such little information confuses me. I accept that Jesus may have been real but I also think that he may not have been. I have found in my life that most people feel more certian about his life than I but seldom have a reason for being so outside of the popularity of the view.

@ Tomgwyther, to add on to your comment Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of herione and military operations there to combact terrorism has only grown that industry there. Not meaning to be a conspiracy advocate but the argument could be made that western governments are not interested in combating herione.

@ the OP, I believe the war on drugs is nothing more than a tool used to influence and control communities. The last 3 Presidents of the United States all admittedly have used drugs. Yet in the united states people are drug tested for various jobs, program egibility and drugs are used to justify any number of police interactions. In modern society where it is no longer tolerated disenfranchising people based of race, sex, age, community, and etc drugs has become the new way to disqualify people and tilting the scales. Walk through any large college campus in the united states and you'll smell marijuana in the air. No police raids or future ruining prosecutions. At the same time in other communities federal, states, and local departments spend time & money running undercover operations looking to prosecute people to the max. For some doing a little ecstasy or weed at a summer festival while watching their favorite band is just part of being young. A right of passage. For others it becomes the reason they aren't allowed to vote, hold a govt job, and struggle for respect in society. I believe a lot of people do not feel drug laws should apply to themselves but are happy that they apply to others.

From the same Wikipedia source you have referenced. "The sources for the historicity of Jesus are mainly Christian sources, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[30]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus The page also references that there are scholars who do not believe in Jesus. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory Coverup and exaggerations are your words. As I have already pointed out many major religions are often based on inspirations sent to authors by god. Normally written as first hand accounts. Most all Gods have back stories as well. Nothing different about Jesus. We could just as easily be debating whether or not Noah and Moses were real. Their stories are part of a religion's foundation and aslo treated as actual history. Why must Jesus be anymore real then they may or may not be? Christ myth theory doesn't seek to explain the motives of the New Testement's authors. Krishna has a story and history as elaborate if not more so than Jesus'. Do you have any trouble with the idea that Krishna may not have been real? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna I think you are over looking the fact that history can often be bias. Most scholars of antiquity believe Jesus was real just as many native Indologist believe Lord Krishna was real. The Historical view about Jesus has been written primarily by culturally Christian people. It is not a coincidence that as western society has become more secular and less christian things like the historocisy of Jesus and other biblical histories are being more closely scrutinized. Of course a hundred years ago and back the majority of western historians believed Jesus was a real man. The majority of them also prayed to him as well. Or at the very least pretended to pray to him so not to be outcasts. Which is partly why Jewish references like the Talmud have been dismissed. It challanges dates and stories in the New Testament which for better or worse has been part of western history for over a thousand years. Cultures prefer their own interpretations of history over that of other cultures. Which is why growing going through school we studying Greek mythology, Roman history, the "new world" discovery, and etc. On my own, essentially an adult, I finally bothered to wonder what had happened in the rest of the world throughout history. In my opinion some of the most honest reviews of history are being done now. We (the world) are becoming more secular, less racist, and more interconnected which is allowing for less bias and honestly about what we believe and why. Dogma of the past should not be ignored merely because it is the think of old anymore than its persistence and pervasiveness lend it extra consideration.

My apologies for the Eisenhower thing. That was my tablet's attempt to spell for me and not intentional. I should review my posts more closely before submitting.

@ Eisenhower, you are still insisting that historians believe Jesus was real and treating doubt as though it were some fringe theory. You have been provided ith ethe names of scholars who do not believe Jesus was real, whole organizations of scholar who do not believe, yet you continue to state as fact that historians believe. It seems to be the only argument you are using successfully. That we are all not historians and as such should not second guess their conclusions. However it is not the conclusion of all historians and there is a lot of work out there showing that there may not have ever been a Jesus. Truly the only description of Jesus comes from the New Testment. Josephus and Tacitus do not describe Jesus' life. While you may accept the New Testment as a reliable source I do not. How do you decide which parts are fiction and which parts are fact? You say that you do not believe in resurrection, walking on water, and so on but then proceed to insist that accurate historical information can be found in writings that contain such obvious fictions that are stated as first hand accounts. You say that Paul's hallucination aren't to be believed, please tell me what in the Pauline epistles is to be believed? As for comparing the Pauline existles to Luke, Matthew, Acts, Mark and etc I don't think it is worth doing. The Pauline epistles are the most solid works everthing else is far less clear. Did Luke and Acts have the same author? What was John's association with Peter? What was Jude's association to Peter? Who was James? Without known authorship or if the writings are in there interiority or properly translated before addition the New Testament is not a reliable source hallucinations, magic, and so on aside.

San Diego county is building a desalinisation plant. That is an interesting start. I think changing the our source of supply is necessary. As for a tax; I don't think it would go far enough to change habits. Regulation is required. Building contractors should not be allowed to build homes and facilities with landscapes that require daily watering for example. Perhaps water pressure should be lowered so sinks, showers, and facets in general push out less water per minute.

I do not believe in resurrection,walking on water, virgin birth, and etc. In my opinion science can disprove such things. The New Testement is full of fiction. That makes it an unreliable historical source. There is no way to tell fact from fiction. If the Federalist papers included passages about Washington transforming into a Dragon and flying around the countryside breathing fire on the British It too would be considered an unreliable historical source. This is a science forum. I don't think I need citation to affirmatively say a man can not turn water into wine through extra sensory powers. Why do I need a working theory for what motivatived Paul to say he saw a vision us a resurrected man? Simply understanding that resurrection in not a real thing should suffice as proof the story is not real. Being inspired by god to write religious text is not an orginal thing. Muhammad was inspired by angels, Joseph Smith shown tablets, Moses a burning Bush, and Peter a vision of a resurrected man. It is typical for the authors of religious documents to base there work on visions or hallucinations. If Josephus and Tacitus actually wrote about Jesus' life with the intention of documenting him as a real person I would consider that compelling evidence. Rather they only mention Jesus so to describe other people they were writting about as Christian. it is not the samething. As for the New Testement it is not possible to tell which parts are total works of fiction and if any parts are real. Which means there is no reliable source that actually chronicles the life of Jesus. Again, Josephus and Tacitus do not chronicle Jesus' life.

The historical figures you have mentioned as examples all have multi-sourced biographies. They also have works that are attributed to them by multiple sources. Some of those sources are contemporary while others are not. Jesus only has one biography, the New Testement. Neither Josephus or Tacitus chronicle Jesus' life. Both just simply say the name while chronicling other events. There is a difference in my opinion between several historians writing detailed biographies about a specific historical figure and two historians simple making mention of Jesus to discribe others as Christians. I am not holding Jesus to a higher standard. If several historians like Josephus and Tacitus wrote purposeful text chronicling the life of Jesus and if there were writings or other works attributed to Jesus I would believe it more or less proved Jesus had been real. Rather, the only thing that actually chronicles Jesus life in the New Testement which describes Jesus as God in human form, capable of walking on water, and rising from the dead. Do I have a theory for where Jesus' story comes from? Where do any religious stories come from. Where did Joseph Smith's golden tablets come from or Moses' burning bush? All religions have a history and most of those histories are pure fiction in my opinion. The story of Jesus does not strike me as any less fallacious. Feel free to disregard my response if I have misunderstood your question.

The New Testament is not a creditable source as it is impossible to seperate truth from fiction assuming there is any truth in there at all. How can I pick and choose which parts to believe? I don't believe the first hand account of resurrection but I am suppose to believe the second hand account about people who were said to have known Jesus? I just don't see how that works. As for the two known Religouis text references Josephus and Tacitus they are both inconclusive: Tacitus quote is not about Jesus. It is about Nero blaming Christians for a fire. Tacitus references Jesus as a description of Christians and not necessarily as an account of Jesus' life. Tacitus was not contemporary to Jesus and lived during a time when Christians already existed as a group. Josephus similarly uses Jesus to describe a person. Calling James the brother of Jesus. In various contexts brother is often a religious reference as members of faith often refer to each other as brothers and sisters. It is unclear if Josephus was simply calling James a Christian or literally saying that James was blood realitive of Jesus. Plus many debate the authenticity of the Josephus reference. Either way both Josephus and Tacitus make passing reference to Jesus. Neither, in context, actually chronicle Jesus' life. Thales, unlike Jesus, was chronicled in some detail be many. Herodotus, Diognes, Douris, Aristotle, and Xenophanes all wrote about Thales. Also there are mathematical equations that are said to have come from Thales. Tangible and testable equations that clearly are not works of fiction that must have originated somewhere. Walking on water or being resurrected are not a tangible things that clearly happened. As for Heraclitus there are fragments that are credited to him. If you would like to start a topic analyzing the historical record of Geek philosophers feel free. Whether or not Thales or any other person who was not Jesus are considered real is an off topic conversation. Intinially useful as examples but distractions if you proceed to insist on citation. You can google the above references but I am not going to follow you down a rabbit whole of debating historical figure after historical figure. This thread is about one historical figure, Jesus.

Socrates, Heraclitus, and Shakespeare all had contemporary text written about them and they themselves contributed to works. If the same could be said about Jesus I would most certainly believe Jesus had been a real person. Pauline epistle are religious texts in the New Testament written by Paul the Apostle. You say they were written 20yrs after Jesus but they are not contemporary accounts of Jesus' life. In them Paul claims to have had a vision of a "resurrected" Jesus, not knowing or meeting the living man Jesus. So to believe the Pauline epistles are accurate I have to accept resurrection, which I don't. Religious text are normally written that way. Moses was inspired by the voice of god, Muhammad had visions of angels, Joseph Smith was shown text by angels, and Paul the apostle had a vision of Jesus.

@ StringJunky, I agree. As stated in the OP I grew up believing that Jesus had been real and that there was historical evidence to support as much. I think for a long time many historians took for guaranteed that Jesus was real as well. Both as a matter of culture and not being interested in entering a fight where they might be labelled as anti religion during times in history when that may have hurt a career. From what I have been able to read there really is not much in the way of evidence either way. There have been groups such as the "Jesus Seminar" comprised of over a hundred scholars who examine the historicity of Jesus. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar Historians and theologians types like Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and Richard Carrier who are have written many books and essays on the issue of Christ's historicity. You seem to be dismissive of there work as anti religious while insisting on a consensous scholarly view that does not exist. The link you provided http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus from Wikipedia does say that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was real. However it's not shared view of all cited and peer reviewed sites; "The increasingly common view of Jesus among New Testament scholars as of 2007 is that "historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament".[2] Some scholars have gone as far as to say there were several possible "Jesuses" candidates with no indication of which (if any) is "the" historical Jesus.[3][4] Ironically, based on some of the definitions provided, [5][6][7] these could be said to qualify as Christ Myth Theory positions" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ I do not know if there was a single real person the story of Jesus is based on. The best argument I have seen for a historical Jesus actually came from Richard Carrier who argued that unless their is a compelling reason not to accept commonly held historical views it should be a matter of best practices to do so. Of course he then went on to say he believed there was compelling evidence against a historical Jesus. His first point remains. The best evidence I have seen is for the Jesus is that so many believe in his historicity. As for the evidence, there is none. Neither Josephus or Tacitus were contemporary and neither of their quotes were actually about Jesus in context. Josephus was writing about James and referenced him as a brother of Jesus while Tacitus was writing Nero blaming fires on Christians and referenced Jesus as the whom Christians believed.

@ Eise, I am not of the view that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was a real person. I have posted links in this thread that speak to the "evidence" of Christ's historicity you have posted well as illustrate the ongoing debate amongst scholars. The link in the OP is a good place to start if you are interested in the debate.

Many texts are in the form of carvings in stone and in some cases copper. While others have been transcribed over time to preserve their information. Cuneiform, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Indus script, and so on are much older than 2,000yrs and texts have survived. As have art, evidence of construction, tools, jewelry, and etc. All that information can be assemble to aint pretty clear pictures of how many people live and who many of them were. How that relates to Christ; a tool with a carving indicating it had belong to Jesus which could be dated to the time frame he is believed to have lived would be compelling evidence of his existence.

I believe in things that have either been proven to be true or where there is compelling evidence. I have never seen compelling evidence for God or any type of afterlife. Sheer popularity of or desire for a specific concept does not qualify as compelling evidence in my opinion.

There is a historical record. We know about the existence of many historical figures based on contemporary written accounts, first person writings, contemporary art work, and etc. Your implication that at 2,000yrs "who knows" is not accurate.

That comparison is a little off in my opinion since we know for fact that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is fiction which merely utilized a known historical figure. In the case of Jesus and the New Testement it is not known if the events are 100% fiction or if Jesus was ever a real person. Its more akin to King Arthur and Excalibur than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Like Jesus it is not clear if the events in the story of Excalibur is based on a single King, loosely based on several Kings, or just a total work of fiction not meant to reflect any specific King. Merlin, Arthur, Lancelot, etc characters may or may not have been based on real people.

So the "house" should censor itself to ensure first time religious visitors feel welcome?