RWC:
As a Christian believer myself, may I suggest that it is wise to use caution in use of the word "proof" when it comes to matters of faith. While there is significant circumstantial 'evidence' that Jesus did indeed exist, was executed and subsequently gained a great following of people who worshipped him, it falls short of "proof" in the true sense of the word.
The strongest evidence of Jesus existence is the Christian movement itself in the first century, as it was written about by non-Christian contemporary historians. Some of these are:
Josephus (born c. 37ad)
Suetonius (writing c.49 ad)
Tacitus (writing c.64 ad)
Pliney (writing c.110 ad)
An interesting note in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin (43 a)
It is taught: On Passover Eve they hanged Yeshu ... because he has practised magic and led Israel astray.
The most significant 'evidence' of Jesus' resurrection is the extraordinary faith in it that was exhibited by his subsequent followers, who were willing to die horrible deaths for their faith. Yet that is not 'evidence' for it either--only evidence that first-century Christians devoutly believed it. By far most of them were not witnesses to the empty tomb, but themselves believed on faith.
There are a number of websites that have relevant information. Here is one: http://www.btinternet.com/~nbch/sources.html
Also, when you present information, it's a good idea to present the source to back up your assertion. One statement you made that I'm curious about:
9. Immediately after Jesus rose, within five weeks, over ten thousand Jews are following him and overthrowing century old social structures that they believe had been given to them by God. Those numbers continued to grow.
May I ask the source of this observation? The reason I ask is that in the Biblical account, seven weeks after the resurrection, on Pentecost, the new converts numbered "about 3000". (Acts 2:37-42)
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7