The prevailing historical consensus is that a Jewish man—known today as Jesus—lived in the region of Palestine during the first century AD; he was baptized by John the Baptist (another reasonably well-attested figure), led a ministry of disciples, reportedly performed faith-based healings, acted as a religious radical, was executed because of his ministry, and saw his followers continue that ministry after his death. Oral tradition persisted in the decades following Jesus's death, with the earliest written accounts likely appearing some 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion—a timeframe short enough to allow for the existence of primary sources. This differs markedly from the time the Bible was first compiled, which occurred centuries later. Individuals identified as firsthand witnesses—who were not converts—died for their beliefs. I can readily accept that people who convert to a belief without having witnessed the events firsthand might accept martyrdom because they believe it to be true. However, a firsthand witness who knew it to be a lie would have nothing to gain from doing so. There are historical events involving behaviors that lend credibility to the accounts. While they do not prove the beliefs themselves, they allow me to trust that those proclaiming them genuinely held those convictions. I also rely on personal experiences involving close relationshipspeople I trust enough to grant the benefit of the doubtwhich have helped lead me toward a theistic worldview, though one that is not narrowly defined. For context, I should add that I am not a biblical literalist; my way of reconciling the Gospelsthe primary sources regarding who Jesus was and what he didoften puts me at odds with many denominations. I would also add that my beliefs are affirmative rather than exclusionary; I do not entirely rule out the possibility that God may have revealed Himself to other cultures in different ways or at different times. My stance regarding beliefs I do not personally affirm is generally agnostic.
