On the "God is NOT a loving god" thread, a gentleman made this statement: "There is enough extra biblical proof to verify that Jesus Christ did live, die and resurrected in the early 1st century."
I responded that I'd really like to see the extra-biblical proof that Jesus was RESURRECTED. I capitalized the word "resurrected" because I wanted to emphasize that part of his assertion, for the resurrection really is key to this discussion. After all, even IF Jesus was a real, historical person, who was a religious leader, and was executed by Pontius Pilate, if he wasn't resurrected, then he was just another ancient religious guru, and Christianity and its promises mean nothing. Even the author of 1 Corinthians acknowledged this, in Chapter 15, Verses 13-19:

"13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

So, let me emphasize again...I wasn't asking for extra-biblical references about Jesus. I was asking for extra-biblical PROOF of Jesus' RESURRECTION.

CowboyGH offered a list of extra-biblical references to Jesus for our consideration. It is these references that I would like to briefly discuss.

First, here are the references:
1.Tacitus
2.Pliny the Younger
3.Josephus
4.Babylonian Talmud
5.Lucian

Now, I could list some of the many issues surrounding these references;issues that lead many scholars to either reject them as being outright forgeries, or at least of no use for establishing the existence of Jesus. But, I don't even need to take the time to do that. After all, the key issue here is, again, the RESURRECTION. Do any of these references offer PROOF of the resurrection? Let's see:

1.Tacitus-Refers to "Christus" suffering "the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus," but does NOT mention the resurrection. (Full quote available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ)

2.Pliny the Younger-Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan, and Trajan's reply, deals with CHRISTIANS, not Jesus, and provide NO mention of any resurrection. (http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html)

3.Josephus-Josephus DOES mention the resurrection. Here's the full quote:
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Scholars refer to this passage as the Testamonium Flavianum. I'll come back to this one in a moment. But first let's look at the other references.

4.Babylonian Talmud-The references found here are pretty vague. It's not even clear that all of them are referring to THE Jesus. At any rate, there are NO references to Jesus' resurrection, anyway.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud)

5.Lucian-Lucian was by no means an expert on the beliefs of the Christians. He offers only hearsay evidence about their beliefs, and mostly discusses a man named Proteus. Still, he does refer to Jesus' crucifixion. However, he does NOT refer to Jesus' resurrection.(http://lucianofsamosata.info/TheDeathOfPeregrine.html)

So, out of all those references, only Josephus refers to Jesus being resurrected. That makes ONE extra-biblical REFERENCE to Jesus' resurrection. Does that constitute proof?
Hardly.
In the first place, there are many good reasons for concluding that the TF is an interpolation. I won't go into all of them here (If you're interested, Google it for more info.), but I will mention one that I find particularly compelling: None of the earliest Church Fathers ever quotes the TF, despite quoting from Josephus frequently. Origen, for instance, spilled tons of ink defending his faith, and quoted from Josephus quite extensively, yet he never quoted the TF. How could he have failed to make use of that tailor-made quote, if it had been present in his copy of Josephus' writings? Furthermore, he stated that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus! Reading the TF sure gives one a different impression.
Interestingly enough, the first Church Father to quote the TF was none other than Eusebius, Constantine's official Church historian/propagandist, around 340 CE. Obviously, Eusebius had the motive and the means to not only interpolate the TF into all copies of Josephus from there on out, but he could also see to it that all the old copies he could get his hands on were destroyed. Granted, I'm speculating about WHO did it, but it's quite likely that it was done by someone.

However, let's just say for the sake of discussion that the TF is legit. That's ONE extra-biblical reference to Jesus' resurrection. Should we just automatically accept this as PROOF?
Why WOULD we? I'd venture to say that none of us has ever seen someone rise from the dead after three days. It is, at best, an EXCEEDINGLY rare occurrence. So, anyone who claims to have seen such a thing is making an extraordinary claim. And, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This isn't it.
Think about it; if I said that I had seen someone come back from the dead, would you just take my word for it? I hope not. How much less so should you just accept the word of some guy who didn't even CLAIM to be an eyewitness, and who has been dead himself for two-thousand years?
Besides, there have been countless examples of people being left for dead, or even buried, who weren't actually dead, and later revived. So, even if Josephus HAD witnessed Jesus "rising from the dead," would it not be more logical to assume that Jesus wasn't really dead in the first place?

Extra-Biblical PROOF of Jesus' RESURRECTION? Still waiting for that.

Fortunately no all believe in an imaginary friend in the sky... lol

Indeed, Sir. And, it's my hope that eventually our species will evolve beyond ancient superstitions completely.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;..

Josephus
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

The empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as frauds. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.

The tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb."

Ignatius according to tradition was a pupil of the Apostle John. He is said to be the second bishop of Antioch after Peter and he lived between 50-115 AD. Ignatius also died a martyr for his faith and belief in the resurrection (this can be verified in Fox's Book of Martyrs, pgs. 7-8A5;Evidence, by Josh McDowell, page 185A1; and American Peoples Encyclopedia, Vol.10,page 895A17). The following is a quote by Ignatius, which is found in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I,: “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians”, Chapter 9:

"Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. For indeed God and man are not the same. He truly assumed a body; for ‘the Word was made flesh,’ and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, ‘Which of you convicteth me of sin?’ He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. By those in heaven I mean such as are possessed of incorporeal natures; by those on earth, the Jews and Romans, and such persons as were present at that time when the Lord was crucified; and by those under the earth, the multitude that arose along with the Lord. For says the Scripture, ‘Many bodies of the saints that slept arose,’ their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude; and rent asunder that means of separation which had existed from the beginning of the world, and cast down its partition-wall. He also rose again in three days, the Father raising Him up; and after spending forty days with the apostles, He was received up to the Father, and ‘sat down at His right hand, expecting till His enemies are placed under His feet.’ On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathea had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead."

Please note that in the first quote Josephus (Assuming the passage is even legit.) says that Jesus' followers "REPORTED that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive." He didn't personally confirm or deny the accuracy of their report. Like I said above, it's not really prudent to just accept hearsay reports of something so extraordinary.

As for the second quote, did you have anything to say about my comments about it? Please note that I already quoted that one in my OP.

Even if you insist on counting the first Josephus quote, we're still at TWO extra-biblical reference to the resurrection.
And, as I discussed above, such references do not constitute PROOF of the resurrection, which is what was claimed.

Where is this empty tomb? Did you see it? You don't KNOW that there was an empty tomb, or a burial, or even a Jesus Christ. You also don't know if the empty tomb was empty because someone carted off the body while no one was looking. All of these "facts" that you are touting come from the NT, which was written as religious propaganda, not a historical record. The author of the Gospel of John admits this:

John 20:31

"31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

As for the notion that the Christians couldn't have circulated a fraudulent story about Joseph of Arimathea without being exposed as frauds...it's not even clear that Joseph of Arimathea even existed. Your assertion that he was a member of the Sanhedrin comes from the NT itself, so you are defending the legitimacy of one part of a story with "facts" from another part of the same story. (And the Gospels and Acts offer conflicting information about Joseph, to boot.)
Additionally, please bear in mind that even conservative scholars date the writing of the Gospels to many decades after the events they narrate. It would have been quite easy to "spin" these stories quite a bit given that most of "Joseph's" generation were dead, or quite old by then. They didn't have the kind of resources that we have now for fact-checking (Libraries everywhere, internet, etc.), and people have notoriously short memories.
Furthermore, it has been estimated by historians that only about 5-10% of the Empire was literate in the First Century, which would obviously pose quite an obstacle for the average person who wanted to confirm some of the elements of the Gospel stories.
And, most of the common people were too busy trying to eek out a living to invest too much time on it anyway.

Also, some of the educated people DID poke holes in these stories. Like Celsus, for instance, who disputed Jesus' supposed virgin birth, to name one thing.

As for your assertion that the burial narrative is trustworthy because we don't have "conflicting traditions" about it, all one has to do is read the Gospel accounts in order to see that there ARE conflicting traditions of Jesus' burial right there! For instance, when Jesus' followers found the empty tomb, were there two angels present, or one?
Was the angel/angels inside the tomb, or outside? I could go on, but you get the point.

Finally, as you will no doubt recall, the topic of this thread is Extra-Biblical PROOF of Jesus' resurrection. NT stories are obviously not "extra-Biblical."

Once again, you are using "facts" from one part of the story to defend another part of the same story.

But, okay...I'll bite. This line of argument, while sounding compelling at first glance, actually isn't. After all, the creators of these stories weren't creating stories for orthodox Jews. They were creating stories for Christians. As a new religious movement, they needed all the members they could get until they had expanded their movement. So, they could ill-afford to discriminate too much and repulse potentially half of their new converts by acting all misogynistic, like Yahweh. (Rimshot.)
(In fact, the aforementioned Celsus even criticized the Christians for misleading impressionable women into joining their movement.)

Besides, new movements usually are very much "counter-culture."

Finally, I will again point out that NT stories do not fall under the category of "Extra-Biblical."

Tradition. Beliefs. Hearsay.
All you have confirmed with the above statement is that Christians have existed for millennia, and that they believe in the resurrection.
The Ignatius quote is a declaration of faith, not a historical report. (Ignatius was not an eye-witness to the resurrection, after all.)

I will grant you that, with that post, you did provide something that is "Extra-Biblical," but it sure isn't PROOF of the RESURRECTION.

One other thing...allow me to point out something else: I know full well that you can post scads of quotes from other early Christians like Ignatius, and the Church Fathers, about the resurrection. (Because I've read them.) But, there really is no point in quoting ANY early Christians' statements about the resurrection here. While these references would obviously be extra-biblical, they are hardly reliable evidence of the resurrection, as they are declarations of faith. I mean, think about it:
I could quote lots of Jehovah's Witnesses' testimony that God's Kingdom was established in 1914, or Scientologists' testimony about Thetan assumption, or Mormons' testimony that God restored the Church through Joseph Smith; but would you accept any of that testimony as being historically factual?
Or, would you consider all of it to be declarations of faith?

Well my friend, I have shown external references too Jesus and or specifically his resurrection. If you wish to take them as being biased or possibly unreliable, that is your choose chosen by you in your faith. No one can "prove" Jesus existed, was crucified, and resurrected 3 days later to you. Just as on the same level you can't "prove" the sun rose and set yesterday without referencing heresy information on the matter. "Proof" is only as good as a person wishes to allow it to have. Of course there aren't that many "references" external from the bible or else, people in those days were generally illiterate. And to the Roman empire, Jesus was indeed just another man spreading blasphemy, thus why he was crucified. Just as I or anyone else can't "prove" Jesus to be God, existed, was crucified, or resurrected, you can't even "prove" anything that is further in the past then today to anyone without them giving credibility to the information provided. And as I said prior, people were illiterate at that time, so of course there isn't an entire lot of "references" to any of the above mention, nor was their tv news, internet, or much social media to begin with.

And one more statement on the matter, if I'm not mistaken you referenced such things as biased doctrine. You do realize, the things written in the bible were not intended to be included into one booklet we call the bible. They were various epistles to certain people for certain reasons. Later found and put together into what we call the bible.

I mean the printing press wasn't even invented until 1450's. Yes there was hand written versions prior, but again most to all people were illiterate at that time still so was no need or really even thought to do so.

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time...

12] Jesus Scorned CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.) Celsus was a second century Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity. He went to great lengths to disprove the divinity of Jesus yet never denied His actual existence. Unfortunately for Celsus, he sets himself up for criticism by mimicking the exact accusations brought against Jesus by the pharisees which had already been addressed and refuted in the New Testament. There are two very important facts regarding Celsus which make him one of the most important witnesses in this discussion:

On Jesus' Miracles: "Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed...Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..."

There is no physical PROOF, of anything having to do with Jesus. Only a few brief mentions of things that other people said ABOUT him (hearsay).

On the other hand, there is very little physical PROOF, of the majority of historical figures.

majority? i think not.. most royalty have all birth/death records very nicely written down, and stored in official records... and do not have 30 years of their life missing...

Yes, but the point is, PHYSICAL PROOF. The fact that someone wrote down that this or that royal family had this or that ancestor isn't PHYSICAL PROOF. Only archaeological artifacts constitute PHYSICAL PROOF, which is what this thread starter is calling for.

I'm not arguing for or against Jesus. I'm just attending to the factual details. And minor by the way, there are plenty of royals who's ENTIRE lives are missing from the written record, and ONLY their official title remains.

First of all, let me state again: In the other thread, the gentleman stated that there was ample extra-biblical PROOF of Jesus' resurrection. I commented that I would love to see that. You offered a list of extra-biblical references to Jesus for our consideration. I have here demonstrated how few of these references actually refer to the RESURRECTION, as well as how vital the resurrection is to Christianity. I then used logic and common sense to try to get you (And anyone else who might be reading this.) to see how flimsy this evidence is. It certainly doesn't come anywhere near being PROOF.
Now, I actually agree with you that it is very difficult to PROVE anything, and that was my main point. The gentleman on the other thread made an assertion that is patently false. You just admitted it yourself in the above post. When I see an apologist make an assertion like that, I try to correct the record for the benefit of any readers who might be like I once was; struggling with the internal conflict between the things they were taught (Brainwashed) into believing from youth, and their sense of logic.
For, not everyone has had the time, or the inclination, to study this information as much as you and I have. So, when someone who hasn't studied like we have hears or reads someone stating that there is ample extra-biblical proof of Jesus' resurrection, he/she may not be informed enough to know that that is NOT true, and this could cause the person to be misled. As I once was.

As for your comment about Jesus being crucified by the Romans for spreading blasphemy...I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus actually existed, and was actually crucified by the Romans, the Romans wouldn't have crucified him for blasphemy. Do you think the Romans gave a damn whether or not Jesus was committing some form of apostasy from the JEWISH faith?
If the Romans did, in fact, crucify him, it was because they considered him an insurrectionist; another messiah figure among many that they had had to deal with since taking over the area.
Taking the story at face-value, this can be inferred both by the fact that he was depicted as being crucified, rather than being beheaded, and that Pilate supposedly had the sign put up above his head reading, "King of the Jews." (Rather than "Blasphemer.")

As for your point about most people at the time being illiterate, yes, I said that in my earlier comment. Thank you for confirming that fact. However, it is a rather serendipitous irony that, despite that fact, there were a number of historians in that region near the time in question whose writings have been preserved down to this day. It's nothing short of astonishing that Jesus could have done all the things he is said to have done, including rising from the dead, without being referred to by Philo, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Elder, and Seneca the Younger, to name a few. This despite the fact that the Gospels tell us things like this:

Luke 4:36-37King James Version (KJV)

36 And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out.37 And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.

As Lazarus said on the other thread, one has to keep the blinders on in order to ignore the logical conclusion when faced with this information. I am quite certain that if I tried to convince you that Ra was the true God, and engaged in spin and special pleading in order to attempt to refute your criticisms, you would be all over me, calling me on it. And, well you should.

While we may not be able to PROVE whether or not any of the stories about Jesus are true, we can certainly examine the evidence available with a logical, common sense approach. (Occam's Razor, anyone?)

Perhaps I am being dense here, but I fail to grasp how your statement disproved my assertion that these writings were biased declarations of faith.
In the first place, I'd like to know how you KNOW that the writers didn't consider the possibility that their writings might be combined at some point. I can't recall any passages that say that.

But, that's a side-point, anyway. The bottom line is that the epistles found in the Bible were written by believers, for believers. (And, as I said in my OP, the author of the Gospel of john made it clear that he/she was writing religious propaganda.) Whether or not the writers envisioned their writings being collated together at some future time is completely irrelevant to my point.

To illustrate: If you write a children's book that contains expressions of your faith, that is not evidence that what you are writing is true. It is a declaration of faith. If you send a birthday card to your mother, and include something in there along the lines of, "Thanks be to God for granting you another year of life, Mother," that doesn't prove that God actually did that. It's a declaration of your faith.

I could offer other examples, but I trust you get the point.