Concrete archaeological evidence is tremendously unlikely to ever surface. The afforementioned statement is a plausible conjecture based on what circumstantial evidence is apparent weighed against what we consider reasonable human behavior at the time. The purpose of the statement isn’t proof, but to be an academically sound conclusion to a mystery a lot of people take very seriously.
It would be just as foolish to declare the Jesus of the bible absolutely couldn’t exist as it would be to declare that he absolutely did.
Historical, non-Christian, evidence about John the Baptist is pretty much nonexistent also, so there we go.
Let alone them ever even meeting another person named Joshua.
So claiming anything about Joshua/Jesus is just nonsense at best, at worst it’s about appeasing Christians and to be able to argue about more miraculous things than the guy just existing. Letting one falsehood slide to get around countering others.
That’s exactly what the shillers keep saying, but the evidence just doesn’t seem to be there.
Concrete archaeological evidence is tremendously unlikely to ever surface. The afforementioned statement is a plausible conjecture based on what circumstantial evidence is apparent weighed against what we consider reasonable human behavior at the time. The purpose of the statement isn’t proof, but to be an academically sound conclusion to a mystery a lot of people take very seriously.
It would be just as foolish to declare the Jesus of the bible absolutely couldn’t exist as it would be to declare that he absolutely did.
Historical, non-Christian, evidence about John the Baptist is pretty much nonexistent also, so there we go. Let alone them ever even meeting another person named Joshua.
So claiming anything about Joshua/Jesus is just nonsense at best, at worst it’s about appeasing Christians and to be able to argue about more miraculous things than the guy just existing. Letting one falsehood slide to get around countering others.