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.

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...

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?)

Thanks for quoting that one. You're again making my point for me as far as how far you have to go in order to come up with ANYTHING to support your argument.

The above passage comes to us from a NINTH-Century monk named George Syncellus, who is here quoting a Second-Third Century CHRISTIAN writer named Julius Africanus, who was paraphrasing Thallus, and inserting his own biased interpretation of the cause of the darkness into the passage.

To again illustrate the point, if I round up a quote from a Nine-Century Muslim writer affirming that Allah is the true god, and that he sent the Archangel Gabriel to Mohammed, and Gabriel passed Allah's words onto Mohammed, would you accept that as a historical reality?

Extra-Biblical proof of Jesus' resurrection?

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..."

The synagogue "church" had tremendous power/authority over the people in that day and thus we have and why it wasn't mentioned, inspired, quoted, ect by the government

John 12
42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

And I'm sure it wasn't just the fear of being put out of the synagogue, but also possibly hanged just as Jesus was.

The two references have nothing to do with one another. I can scientifically prove there was a "solar eclipse" at that time and earth quakes as previously shown in this thread through other posts on here. Will bring them back up if you wish. But it has been scientifically proven those things actually happened, not saying they state the reasons of why it happened being the same, but nevertheless can show scientifically the eclipse and earth quakes actually happened around that time.

So?
I can tell you that:
In 2008 Barack Obama and John McCain both vied for the Presidency. Some days it was sunny, some days it rained. After the election, large, bi-pedal pink Bunny Men from the planet Karrot landed on the moon, and NASA is covering it up.

And, you can go to Google and confirm that Barack Obama and John McCain vied for the Presidency in 2008, and that some days it was sunny, while some days it rained. If you then find only sketchy evidence about the Bunny Men, would you shrug your shoulders and conclude, "Well, everything else he told me was true, I'll just take his word for it about the bunny Men."?

But you can not "prove" any of that, so our discussion is finished. The only thing you can prove to this day about 2008 is some documents, maybe heresay evidence, or maybe even a "forged" video, what I been trying to display/show this entire time is ANYTHING as for yesterday that was not experienced first hand is taken on faith that it is truth. As I said many times "evidence/proof" is only as valid as the person wishes it to be. No one can "prove" anything to anyone, unless they are willing to accept it as fact. And you are not willing too accept the facts, so enough said.

Wow.

I already told you that I agree with your assertion that little can be absolutely proven. However, we generally accept that something is a fact if the evidence is strong enough. And I have repeatedly demonstrated to you that the evidence you have presented is not very strong. Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra, and used some of the same type of arguments and "facts" that you are using, you wouldn't accept them. Why? because you would have no sacred cow to defend in that debate, so you would examine my evidence with common sense and logic.

And...you're mistaken. I will accept facts, if you decide to provide some facts that stand up to logical scrutiny.

Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra

More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration.

To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory.

All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain.
In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said:
"Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand."

I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that.
Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear:

If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random.

While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating.

While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is

You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for.

Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time.
And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence.
Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration.

For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual.

However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case.

For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual.

You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening?

Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have?