Simply said, if you take away the Christian sources on the subject, what is the story on Jesus you are left with? There is no Jesus in any contemporary record, Christians are mentioned as a sect from the Jews, Pontius Pilate is a footnote at best.
What you don't seem to understand is that the most prominent agnostic-atheist-skeptic scholars use parts of the NT as literal history. Why are atheist scholars allowed to do this, but not anyone else? Doesn't make sense, and thinking people don't buy that restriction. These skeptic scholars may not use it as a believer does sitting in church on a Sunday morning. But, they do allow 7 or 8 books of the NT as legitimate historical sources., where the writer is corroborated and where he was at the right place at the right time to know what was going on.
Using only these sources, the 12 facts of Jesus Resurrection are agreed upon as literal history by the majority of skeptic scholars who publish in this area. And, as such cannot be dismissed by thinking people.
Here are an additional couple dozen sources or so surrounding the historicity of Jesus from extra biblical sources.
We know from history that tens of thousands of orthodox Jews, (right in the heart of Jerusalem where their claims could be easily refuted if not true), made the Resurrection their central message, abandoned Saturday as their holy day, and accepted Sunday (the day of the Resurrection) as their new holy day. Jews don't change even over millennia. But, they did.
They did this at great personal expense - shunned forever from family and friends, and worse. Can you provide a plausible explanation for this fact of history other than the Resurrection? Why would people just up and submit to the harshest abuse possible unless the Resurrection is true?
What say you?