Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Godscreated]

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion

Josephus (AD 93-94)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But 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. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

This text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later 'Christian interpolation'; however, the version given above is a translation of the Arabic text which does not contain the 'Christian' additions.

Even with the Arabic version of Josephus there is evidence of Christian interpolation. The phrase ...and the tribe of Christians so named after him, has not disappeared to this day, confirms this. There was absolutely no tribe of Christians during Josephus' lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. 
Furthermore, this Arabic version is a work of Agapius of Hireapolis from...the 10th century!! Claims that an Arabic passage itself dates from the 4th century are ridiculous. Written Arabic barely existed at such an early date. Moreover, Agapius was a pro Byzantium Christian at a time of intensifying Islamization of Syria. What he wrote was political correctness that was intended on saving his own ass. In short, the Arabic Josephus is no evidence of Jesus and only serves to confuse the people who don't dig in far enough. 

Wrong many churches had been established, even before Paul's death, scripture reports several thousand converts within a few days of Pentecost. Of coarse I know you want accept anything within scripture even though history records back up scriptures of the OT.

Tacitus (AD 116)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer's clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44)

Christ is definitely mentioned here by a major Roman historian as being 'the founder' of Christianity and as 'executed in the reign of Tiberius' under Pontius Pilate. As Tim O'Neill notes:

"This clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists.  They sometimes try to deal with it using their old standby argument: a claim that it is a later interpolation.  But this passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect second century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine."

In addition to these two authors, several others from the first and second century must be taken into consideration.

I agree here that an interpolation is far less likely, however it is highly conceivable that Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

Like you said, may have repeated what Christians said, there's no proof he did and you are using word play and no it's not highly conceivable. Christos was used to refer to Christ in many writings of different people. Your assumptions are weaker than what you try to make these writings look like.

GC