Camp Gagnon - Every Proof Jesus Existed

Episode Date: November 27, 2024

WELCOME TO RELIGION CAMP! This is a new series where I will deep dive into all things spiritual, from Banned Bible Books, to gnosticism, to archeological evidence for Islam this is a format for me to explore the divine in a chill way. The most significant teacher and icon of all time, but did Jesus REALLY exist? Today I'm examining all the documentation and historical proof of the biblical Christ, from archeology to ancient historians. Welcome to Camp! Timecodes 00:00 Intro 01:59 Tacitus 05:04 Flavious Josephus 10:08 The Synoptic Gospels 12:25 The Gospel of John 14:04 Archeological Evidence 19:11 Paul’s Letters 20:39 Apocryphal Texts 21:52 Mythicist Theory 24:29 Scholarly Decision

Go and sell all you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven. Did Jesus exist? This is an interesting question. Myth-Assist theory argues that Jesus never existed and that he is purely a mythological figure created by early Christians. Was he a liar? Was he a lunatic? Was he the Lord? He never was even here. There's just writings from other people that invented this guy. Josephus doesn't want, again, to reference Jesus as this guy that's the Messiah, da-da-da-da, because Jews at the time don't acknowledge Christ's Messiah. What about the whole Bible?

Does that not prove that Jesus existed? Was he the Lord? Was he a crazy guy? That was for a dispute. How do we know these things are actually real? Is there actual archaeological evidence of this person? So it got me thinking. Did this guy really exist?

And I did some research and I think I figured it all out. Did Jesus exist? This is an interesting question. This has been the topic of debate for a better part of 2,000 years. Some people saying, of course, Jesus Christ existed. Not only did he exist, he is the Lord and Savior. While others say, not only is he not the Savior, not the Lord. It didn't even exist in the first place. He's a mythical character. He's like Harry Potter

or like a Ninja Turtle or something. You never was even here. There's just writings from other people that invented this guy. And it got me thinking, I don't know. I always assumed this guy existed. I had a necklace with him. Not at his best moment, but I had it. It was on my neck. I wore it all the time. Went to Christian school, grew up Catholic. Of course this guy existed. And then you start reading a couple articles. Oh, this guy never existed. They replicated it. They stole it from someone else. This whole thing is just, you know, fan fiction. So it got me thinking, did this guy really exist? And I did some research, and I think I figured it all out. Welcome back to Religion Camp. By back, I mean, this is the first episode. Religion Camp, this is a way for me to explore my interest in all the

different religions of the world, not just Christianity, not just the right one, but all of them. I go through every single religion, breaking down the most interesting questions from all the religions of all times. And today, we're trying to figure out, did Jesus exist? So, let's go through some of the evidence of Christ's existence. First one comes from Tacitus. I think that's how you pronounce it. This guy was a Roman historian. He is one of the most important non-Christian references when it comes to the existence of Christ. Now, again, just for my Christian listeners, you guys might be thinking like, oh, what about the Gospels? What about the whole Bible? Does that not prove that Jesus existed? again, people would then look at this and say,

two of the Gospels come from secondhand accounts, and two of the Gospels could be considered eyewitness accounts, but then that still draws into question. How do we know these things are actually real? Is there actual archaeological evidence of this person? Is there other accounts from non-religious sources? That's really what people are looking for, because it's possible that all these people conspired

and just came up with this story. So that's where this guy, Tacitus comes in. This guy is one of the most respected historians of Rome, writing in 116 AD after death. After death of who? Jesus. There you go. Case closed. No, apparently that doesn't even mean after death. I think AD is like Anto Domino. It's like the year of our Lord or something like that. Regardless, I always thought it was AD. B.C. Before Christ, AD after death. That's not true. So 1-16 Antenodomino, and the year of our Lord Tacitus. in his writings, The Annals, which is one end away from being the funniest book name of all time.

The Anals describes how Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. It's the Christians. It's always us. Why is everyone always trying to scapegoat the Christians? Always trying to put it on us. We're just trying to live our lives, okay? Sure. Is there a crusade every now and again? Yeah, all right? That happens. But there's constantly just persecuting the Christians. So Nero is trying to blame. us, okay? He says that this guy, Christus, which we seem to, you know, translate to Jesus, from whom the name had its origin suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. This is a central piece of evidence from a non-Christian source that confirms both the existence of Jesus and the early spread of

Christianity. So there you have it. There's Tacitus being like, yeah, writing about this guy, Nero, and Nero is obviously talking about Jesus. Christus, which is actually a nice name. I might consider that for one of my children. Tacitus' work is significant because, as a Roman senator and a historian, he had access to official records, and his contempt for Christians makes it unlikely that he would fabricate any favorable account regarding Jesus. This impartial account adds considerable weight to the evidence of Jesus' historical existence. So again, this guy Tacitus, he doesn't like Christians. Why would he be writing to kind of aid the idea that Christ existed because at the time it was never disputed. Everyone was like, of course Christ existed.

Was he the Lord? Was he a crazy guy? That was for a dispute. But did he exist? It's like, duh, we've all saw him. So Tacitus is just saying, right there, there you go. We're talking about Christus. Another great account is this guy Josephus. This guy is a Jewish historian. He is a key, non-Christian source, and his name is Flavius Josephus, also known as Flava Flav. He's a first-century Jewish historian and he was born in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus's death and later became a Roman citizen. It's kind of crazy. People were born in Jerusalem like after Jesus died. Some people were born while Jesus was there. That's just so wild to me. It's like, oh, you're from Jerusalem where Jesus is from? You're like, yeah, isn't that crazy? It's like everyone always

wants to be the guy from their town that makes it out. And after Jesus is from your town, you're like, well, just fucking throw in the towel. You know what I mean? It's like being from Lower Marion, right? It's like, yeah, we already have Kobe Bryant, so hit the bricks, have fun selling insurance. This guy, Flavius Josephus, which is just an unbelievable name, Flavius Josephus, if that guy is your attorney, you're getting off, Scott-free, okay? And I'm not just saying that because he's Jewish. I'm saying that because he got a sick name. He writes, in his work, Antiquities of the Jews, which is just a great name for a book, the Antiquities of the Jews, which I would go shopping there. I would. If I saw that on the side of the road, Antiquities of the

Jews? Are you kidding me? The most beautiful knockoff gold little ashtrays or something? That sounds way more fucked up than I meant for it to be. I don't mean ashtray. I was just trying to name a chotchky, right? Like a candles holder. Nothing burning. I'm, okay, this is sounding fucked up. If I saw a store that was called Antiquities of the Jews, I'd be like, oh, there's probably an awesome picture frame, something beautiful, something gold, something lavish. I would go shopping there immediately. And this guy Josephus wrote a book called Antiquities of the Jews, around 93-94 AD, and he references Jesus twice. Again, this is a Jewish guy, okay? Write about his homeboy. I know Jesus was also Jewish, but at this point, there's already

a little bit of beef, kosher. And Josephus doesn't want, again, to reference Jesus as this guy that's the Messiah, da-da-da-da, because Jews at the time don't acknowledge Christ as a Messiah. So Josephus, in a famous passage known as the Testimonium, Flavinum, refers to Jesus as a wise man and a teacher who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Seems to corroborate with the Tacitus' story and the Gospels. While there is some debate over whether Christian scribes added this passage. Okay, sure. Yeah, maybe some Christians lied. I doubt it.

Why would we lie? Most scholars agree that originally it refers to Jesus. A second reference where Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, is widely accepted as authentic. This reference to James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, provides further evidence of Jesus' historical presence. Joseph's account is especially important as he was a Jewish historian. Again, writing for a Roman audience. None of these people like Christians at this point. And yet, there he goes, saying, there was this guy named Jesus. that got killed by Pontius pilot.

That was a wise teacher. This is two for two. I mean, anyone that's disputing that this guy existed that there's some type of conspiracy to make him up, I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of external evidence.

And that's probably it, right? There's probably no more evidence of this kind of thing. Wrong. Let me tell you about Pliny the Younger, which, again, the names that people had back in the day, the amount of like Jacobs and Steve's

and Mike's that I meet, I've never met a Pliny the Younger. But you meet that guy, you're like, you are probably a running back, for Alabama, because that is an insane name. Pliny the Younger. In a letter to Emperor Trasian around 112 AD, Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor of Bithynia, modern-day Turkey, which that was a name that, again, they nailed. That the second, I don't love the name Turkey,

it's fine, I think it's okay. I think the way the Turks describe it, Turkey, that's cooler, and Bithnia is better than all of them. He discusses how to deal with Christians in the region. Pliny describes the Christians as worshippers of this guy Christus. Heard that name before. And notes their refusal to renounce him even under the threat of execution. Gun to your head. Say you don't love Christus. I can't do it.

That's who the Christians were. They were ready to bang. And although Pliny doesn't provide details about Jesus' life necessarily, this letter demonstrates that within 80 years of the crucifixion of Christus, Christianity had spread widely throughout the Roman Empire. Pliny's letter is valuable because it shows the early Christian belief in Jesus' and how they organize themselves as a religious group separated them from Judaism. There was two things.

There was Christianity that was following Christus, and there were good old-fashioned Jews just doing it, how people have been doing it for a couple thousand years. So this provided an indirect but significant evidence of Jesus as a historical figure, who had an impact on his followers. And this, again, is more proof that Christ existed as a historical person. Is he the God? Is he? Who is he? Look, I'm not going to dispute that here. Okay, I don't have time, and I'm also not smart enough. But I think we can prove that he existed. Now, let's get to the Gospels. All right, this is kind of the bread and butter. This is why we know and love him.

You know what I mean? This is, if everything else we've been talking about is like, you know, a little side story, a little spinoff, what we're talking about right here, this is book one of Harry Potter. You know what I mean? Tell me about Harry Potter. This is the philosopher stone, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John will get to in a little bit, but this is what's known as the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They're the primary sources for the life, ministry, crucifixion, and the resurrection of Jesus. Written between, you know, 60 and 100 AD, again, after Christ's life, which I think is important to note, a lot of people, at least me, when I was a kid, I was like, this was like a journal. This was like Anne Frank style.

They were just writing it down in the attic. No, this was years later, after Christ had died. They were like, remember that guy? The guy we all worship? The Lord, Son of God. We should write this shit down because no one's going to believe this. Fish, and then there's more fish. Walking on water?

How does he do it? Water to wine? We're writing this down. And then they called it the Gospels. Again, written between 60 and 100 AD. These Gospels were considered a blend of historical accounts and theological teachings. They provided a detailed narration. of Jesus' actions, miracles, teachings, and interactions with various groups, including Jewish authorities.

You should just read them if you get a chance. Just, you know, crack open your Bible. Take a look. Mark, the earliest and greatest gospel, if I can say so myself, traditionally dated around the same time. It's considered the most historically reliable because of its simplicity and brevity. Matthew and Luke are written slightly later, and they incorporate, you know, some additional materials. They're kind of freestyled a little bit, had some fun. and they also include some stuff likely from other oral traditions. These gospels, again, are central to Christianity, but from a historical perspective,

they also offer insight into the social, political context of first century Judea. Pontius Pilate, Caliphus, Herod, all mention in the gospels are corroborated by non-Christian historical sources, once again lending credibility that these events actually occurred. All right, this is pretty fun. So far, it seems like I'm convinced. evinced, you know, but maybe I'm a little biased. But if you're still holding out, let me tell you about the gospel of John. This is written a little bit later, around 90 or like 100 AD, and it differs

from the synoptic gospels, both in style and content, which again, the Bible is not a book. It is a library, a collection of books, and within any library, there's different styles and genre of writing, and no pun intended, John exists differently than the other synoptic gospels. while the synoptics focus on Jesus' teaching and actions, John emphasizes his divine nature. John presents Jesus as the logos, the word, preexisting before creation, and contains unique materials such as the raising of Lazarus. We all know that one. Lazarus was dead or some shit, and Jesus was like, bang, you're alive now. Peace be with you. It's like a black church. He's like, yeah, hit his forehead, and everyone went crazy. Long discourses by Jesus, which are absent from the

synoptic gospels. And despite its theological focus, John's gospel is still valuable for its historical analysis. It reflects early Christian beliefs about Jesus's divinity and contains details that suggest it was based on an independent tradition from the other gospels. Interesting, right? For example, John's description of Jesus' crucifixion offers specific details about Roman practices, such as piercing Jesus' side to ensure death, which, again, align with external known facts about Roman execution methods. The Gospels are great because they also contain geographical and cultural details that, again, match first century Judea from external sources, which again support the historical accounts. For instance, the mentions of towns like

Copernam and specific Jewish customs observed by Jesus and his followers, again, add credibility. Let's go through some of the archaeological evidence, shall we? What about this place called Nazareth, where Jesus is from? The hometown, 818 or whatever. They didn't have zip codes or error codes. One of the key pieces of archaeological evidence supporting the existence of Jesus is the confirmation that Nazareth, the town where he said to have grown up, existed during the first century. Early skeptics, which again, I love to point this out, people have been hating on Jesus since they won. Even while he was still alive, the Sophists would come up to him, be like, well, well, actually, I don't know if this is technically true. The Pharisees, people would try to mock him and make him sound stupid.

So, early skeptics, right after the death of Christ, questioned whether Nazareth was inhabited at the time of Jesus. But archaeological excavations have uncovered evidence of habitation. That's right. Homes, tombs, artifacts, all date to the period described in the Gospels. Uh-oh. Looks like Christians are right again. The discovery of the first century house in Nazareth believed to be typical of the time aligns with the descriptions of the New Testament. Once again, everything's lining up. In addition to the Nazareth description in 1878 offers further support. There's a tablet. that contains an imperial decree from the Roman emperor warning against grave robbery and tampering with tombs.

Some scholars speculate that this could be a reaction to early Christian claims about resurrection, although, again, this remains heavily contested. Let me tell you something about the pilot stone. This is one of the most fascinating archaeological discoveries that we will talk about all day. This is a significant archaeological find that directly connects the new,

Testament narrative of Pontius Pilate to the current day archaeological record. This is what's known as a Pilate Stone discovered in 1961 at Cisaria Maritima. This limestone block bears an inscription that refers to a gentleman named Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, who presided over the trial of Jesus. The inscription identifies Pilate as the prefect of Judea, aligning with his role as depicted in the Gospels. Before the discovery of the pilot stone, there had been little archaeological evidence to confirm that Pontchus Pilate even existed. But yet this discovery provides a crucial link between the gospel accounts and the historical reality. Now, there's another fascinating piece of archaeological evidence, and this is what's known as James Ossewery.

This is a first-century limestone box used to contain the bones of the deceased. The description on the ossuary reads, James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. If authentic, this ossuary provides an important archaeological link to Jesus and his family. However, the ossuary has been a subject of controversy with debates over the authenticity of the description, of course. Nevertheless, if genuine, it would be one of the most direct archaeological pieces of evidence for Jesus' historical existence. Now, one little note I want to put here as a Catholic, okay? And again, I've talked to different folks. This guy, Jeremy Hutland, who's a brilliant Bible scholar,

he kind of broke down the actual linguistic terms of what it means to be the brother of Christ. He kind of referred to it as more like a close friend or even a disciple, someone that he could consider a brother to him, not necessarily through blood. Because, again, as a Catholic, I don't think that Mary had more kids other than Jesus. I think it was one done. because it sort of preserves the sanctity of Mary in her womb, that she was not then, you know, defiled by Joseph or some other guy, that she remained pure and that was her only child, the son of God, Jesus.

Shout out to him. So I just want to make that note. Again, when we talk about James and it says, brother, I'm totally fine with that. Early translation say, brother. I just think it's good to note that that could mean his literal brother. That's, you know, what some people think, or what I think meaning maybe it's like a figurative brother.

but regardless, the point still stands. This is someone that was extremely close to Christ, whether through blood or through relations. Now, here's another interesting archaeological discovery. This is a discovery of Jewish burial practices, again, including Oswears and tombs. And these discoveries provide context for the burial of Jesus as described in the Gospels.

Again, there's a lot of interesting information about the burial of Jesus, with the shroud, etc. The discovery of the remains of a crucified man named Yeho Hanan. This is discovered in a first-century tomb outside of Jerusalem, and it offers important insight into the Roman crucifixion practices during Jesus' time. Again, skeletal remains of Yeho Hanan show a large nail driven through his heelbone, providing rare evidence of crucifixion in the time done by the Romans, which again, this is something that is integral to the death of Christ. The burial in crucifixion customs observed in these findings closely

aligned with the descriptions found in the New Testament. All right, I know you're probably thinking, Mark, what else do you got? I'm not convinced. How about this? Paul's letters, the Pauline epistles. These are written around 50, 60 AD, around the same time as the Gospels. And these are some of the earliest Christian documents that provide essential insight into the life of Jesus. Paul never met Jesus during his lifetime, but his letters contain reference to Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and teachings. In 1st Corinthians 15, Paul recounts in early, Christian creed that includes the belief in Jesus' resurrection, which is essential to be a Christian. You got to believe in the resurrection. And this is a creed likely formulated within a few

years after Jesus's death. This provides early documented evidence that Jesus was seen as a real historical figure who was really crucified and really rose from the dead. That's what I believe. One holy Catholic and apostolic church, shout out to them. Paul's letters also describe his interactions with Jesus, his close followers, including Peter and James. Again, the guy we were talking about it a little before, who's got his bones in the box, that whole thing. And this again further solidifies Jesus' existence from cross-referencing multiple books within the same Bible. Paul specifically mentions meeting James, who he refers to as the brother of the Lord, which is a good title. You know, again, close, you know, friend, maybe literal brother. Regardless, you're in the shadow

of Jesus. Okay, that's going to be a little tough to break out of. That's going to be a complex. Good luck. And this, again, adds more legitimacy to Jesus. as a real person. Now, let's talk about some of the non-cananical Christian writings. When I say non-canonical, I'm talking about things that have maybe some Christian merit. There's something interesting about them that we can look at, but they don't exist within the actual books of the Bible. If you crack open your Bible, even different types of Bibles, you're not going to find these books in there, but they were considered specifically by the early church to be maybe of some merit. And Christian scholars and, you know, lay people like myself, were interested in these

things. The book of Enoch is a great example. It doesn't exist in the Bible, but it's got some cool shit in there. It talks about how the earth started and basically the Anunnaki. Anyway, every episode I got to bring up Enoch. There are some non-canonical Christian writings that, again, point to the life and teachings of Christ, something like the Gospel of Thomas and the Didiac, the Didache, the Didatch. I don't know how to pronounce that word. You can see it right here and you can maybe take your own guess. These texts were not included in the New Testament canon, but they do offer additional perspectives. Again, these are writings from the late first and early second century, and they reflect Jesus' teachings and demonstrate to his followers how to teach his message upon his death. Now,

there is some skepticism and refutation. Who am I to not provide some context? So let's talk about the mythist theory argues that Jesus never existed and that he is purely mythological figure created by early Christians. This is what started this whole conversation. And proponents of this theory point to similarities between Jesus' narrative and other ancient myths. Those of Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, if you've seen the movie

Zeitgeist that picks up a lot of this type of idea. They argue that the story of Jesus was borrowed from pre-existing religious traditions and they just co-opted it, slapped a name on and they said, hey, this baby's brand new. Don't check the car facts. However, this theory is widely rejected. by almost everyone in this tent, and by most historians. Scholars argue that while there may be some

superficial similarities like, you know, Jesus' story and other mythological figures, the historical evidence for Jesus is so strong. The reference to Jesus in non-Christian sources, such as Tacitus, Josephus, Plenty of the Younger, and everyone else we've read about, seems like Jesus is a real historical figure. Now, is it possible that maybe there was some other elements of other religions that were picked up and imbued into Christianity? Again, that's possible. But that again, is going at the divinity of Christ, which is what I'm not, I'm not here to prove that. I'm just trying to say Jesus is a real dude that was really on earth, really walking around. Was he the son of God? That's for a different video. Was he a real son of a person? I think so. Furthermore, the early Christian

movement, rapid spread, and it's focused on the crucifixion, a humiliating form of execution for criminals. By the way, like, let's not discount that. Crucifixion is embarrassing. I mean, you're just hanging there. It's like a nightmare. I don't, I wouldn't want that to happen to me or anyone watching this. This again is further proof that the story of Jesus is based on a real person rather than some mythical construct. Right? Like next time we talk to a mythicist, just be like, well, if someone was going to invent a religion and a savior, why would they invent someone that was so humble and didn't come in with, you know, all this power and might like every other mythical story ever? It came in on a donkey and then was eventually murdered, a shameful death under Roman law.

why would you use that to try to illustrate a divine figure that seems kind of embarrassing right i don't know ask your friends that get into a fight go to denny's drink too much ask the waiter say hey when it was last time you went to confession start of you know what i mean get on fire for jesus that's what everyone used to always say when i was in bible study are you on fire for jesus so that seems like a lot right like i could i just pray you know i like the guy i don't know are you on fire for him anyway What about the scholarly consensus? Mark, that's what I'm thinking to myself. What is the scholarly consensus? Did Jesus exist? Unfortunately, for all my haters, for the haters of Jesus, yes. The vast majority of historians and scholars agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

It is a fool's errand to try to dispel this guy existed. And many people, like I said before, will say, oh, but there's no proof that, you know, there's no archaeological evidence. There's no plaque, you know, there's not, how do you prove this? There's nothing. There's no, there's no, there's no archaeological evidence for any historical figure. Hannibal of Carthage. There's no historical, you know, eyewitness accounts of that. This is from a guy that heard from a guy that he had elephants going across a river. No one saw it. So again, these things get lost at time. These texts, the texts that are direct, direct eyewitness accounts, they just degrade. I mean, we're talking thousands and thousands of years. But despite all this, most historians, like I said,

will agree that Jesus was a real person. Cumulative evidence, everything that we we've talked about all the early sources, point to the fact that this guy really existed. Again, if you are an atheist and you want to dispute the dogma of the Christian faith, you're going to have a way better time disputing the divinity of Christ than the historical legitimacy of the Christ. Well, there you have it, folks. That is all the literary and archaeological evidence that Christ was a real dude walking around on earth.

Now, there's plenty more that we didn't discuss, such as like the shroud of Turin, which, again, as a Catholic, I believe is the true shroud that was laid on Jesus. And many other Catholic relics and other, you know, little pieces of literature that exist and lost, you know, text and things that were still discovering that proved that Christ was a real person. Was he a liar? Was he a lunatic? Was he the Lord? That's a combo for a different day. Did he exist? I think case closed. This guy was a real guy that really made a real impact on people that had true followers that believed in his message and that after his death spread that message with so much fervor that even many of them were put to death. Those people were on fire for Jesus.

Literally, someone got burned at the stake. So, if you enjoyed this episode, go ahead, subscribe. We're going to be talking about way more religious content on this channel. Interesting religious stories, kind of with just like a little fun vibe, you know, just me and the boys, just hanging out in a tent, just talking about God and, you know, other religions, Jesus, Allah, Muhammad. Peace be upon him. Vishnu, Shiva, that Baha'i, Buddha. That's everything I can remember.

Anyway, check out more episodes. Thank you all so much. Until next time. Peace be with you.