Let me start out by saying that I have zero intention of trying to convince you that my views are right and yours are wrong. Even if that were possible, I don't see how it could possibly be helpful or worthwhile for either of us. I've got no interest in that at all.
What I am interested in doing is answering your question, which relates to my comment that I have good reason for believing what I do. My belief can be summarised in one sentence: that Jesus is who he said he is. Following on from that, I find him the most worthy of admiration of any person I've ever heard about, and so naturally want to know him better, and learn to see the world the way he sees it.
As I said: I don't expect you to accept this as airtight proof that something in history definitely happened (what would such proof even look like??), or to in any way invalidate your own views. All I'm proposing is that there is enough evidence and consensus among experts in relevant fields that someone like me might reasonably entertain the idea that it could be true, and still have their brains intact.
That said, here's an example that would be good to read and discuss: https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels-1/
I haven't come across this particular author before, but familiar with some of these lines of reasoning from other experts.
Things that stand out to me:
- there is strong historical evidence around some key factors of Jesus' life, corroborated by uninterested sources.
- it's clear that something very unusual happened with this group of disciples after Jesus was no longer on the scene. Their lives were at risk, and they had nothing to gain from a hoax. Yet they felt it necessary to stick to this unbelieveable story (even to the point of their execution in many cases).
- this was not an isolated instance but occurred in the context of hebrew culture, traditions, scriptures, prophecies, etc. Not even Jesus was at liberty to make things up as he went along. In his words he was fulfilling everything that had come before him. So if there was a scam after-the-fact, it could not have been pulled off by Christians alone.
I'm aware that there are other theories about how an executed carpenter from a despised town in a military-occupied country turned that empire on its head and became the center of a worldwide religion, but I'm yet to find any of those arguments plausible enough to make me stop considering that it could be true. Happy to go into those arguments or others with you if you like :)