The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

[BilliardsBall]

There are many scholarly papers on the travel narrative from Acts being taken from Homer. This is also a mainstream view.
In the book - Dennis R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles.
he analyzes 4 sections in depth:

1st: The visions of Cornelius and Peter (Acts 10, 11) and Iliad 2;

2nd: The farewell of Paul at Miletus (Acts 20) and Iliad 6;

3rd: The selection of Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1,15) and Iliad 7,123;

4th: The escape of Peter from prison (Acts 12) and Iliad 24.


A Yale author also wrote a book on Luke's use of Homer:
Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?: Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles on JSTOR

Wow, you should compare notes with the person who tells me scholars are sure Luke/Acts mirrors 1 and 2 Kings! How amazing this is all getting.

I'm supposed to quit the faith because Luke was smart enough to mirror the best-known Gentile epic in his narrative, thus showing (again) the amazing communication powers of holy writ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was paraphrasing. The source article you posted WAS saying something along those lines. So why would you post an article if it wasn't your position at all? Are they just random stabs at arguments?

You are creating another false narrative here. Religious documents were not mostly panegrics. Writing religious mythology was extremely popular and we even have 6 written examples of Pagan savior gods who pre-date Jesus and more after. The mythical writing style was used in the same manner and does not mirror historical writings from the time at all.
It is 100% mythic writing.
There is no doubt that all of the gospels were written using Mark as a source. For a while it was believed there was a Q document but the work by PhD Marc Goodacre put that to rest.



Yes Luke was writing scripture? Like the OT, exactly and we know the OT is a mythical narrative. That's what scripture is, religious mythical fiction?
There is no historical writings in the gospels. Luke didn't just write in the same style? He took a story and re-wrote it with Jesus as the lead because they were promoting a new deity. He was making Jesus the new Moses.
But also writing a different take on Mark, hence the synoptic problem.
Mark was just copying other savior god movements. There is no history or anything other religious syncretism.

You may want to see my related post citing 84 historical accuracies in Luke before hand waving at Luke and Mark's historicity. I enjoy good Bible debates BASED ON FACTS, not supposition.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's even worse because if your prayer responses caused statistically significant changes then either you are the only person who has a special deity who answers prayers or that is further proof that everyone who prays to your god should see statistically significant outcomes and this would dramatically effect illness mortality rates. In a gigantic way.

Yet we never see that. So that proves even more it's BS.

But the scientific studies have already shown this.

I'm confident all "answered prayers" are just things running their natural course you then attribute to a god.
Let me guess - when things don't work out it's because there is something better down the road, or god has different plans for you.

Here is a secret, this is how everyones life works out. You look back on struggle and it ends up being an important learning and growing experience that we are thankful for.
You can confirmation bias any supernatural agent into your life very easy.
I know secular people who even think that the "universe is looking out for me"

Empirical evidence can never be produced by prayer, it's always vague, after the fact confirmation bias. I've done it as well.

Again, if you can explain how "natural course" as you wrote or "natural law" provides for me/brings me more money the more I GIVE MONEY AWAY, I'm all ears. Please explain how awarding money to others brings me back money, since as a skeptic, you believe neither in God nor karma nor universal reciprocity:

1) Reason 1 how giving money away enriches BB

2) Reason 2 how giving money away enriches BB

3) Reason 3 how giving money away enriches BB

 

[gnostic]

Your "interest" includes sending me hundreds, even thousands of words, to tell me why I can't call the third gospel "Luke" like everyone else does on the planet. That's being a Pharisee at best and a pain in the behind at worst. You really have an axe to grind against the Bible, not a mere "interest" IMHO.

IMHO, don't pick fights with God!

I am not picking a fight with God, because God didn’t write the Bible.

All you are doing, is associating man-made written texts, to God being the author.

And you are foolishly attempting to make trying to turn the man-written Bible into inerrant and infallible like God. Is that essentially idol worshipping?

And you are wrong, I have no axe to grind with Bible.

When I was younger, I actually accept the Bible as it is, because I didn’t have the maturity, nor the experience, to recognise that some parts of the Bible have errors and contradictions, so I had taken everything written at its face value, without investigating what I read.

As a teenager, no one can blame me, for being too inexperienced to check and double check what I read. Then for 14 years, I didn’t touch the Bible, because my studies and jobs took higher priority than religion. But despite 14 years hiatus from the Bible, I was still a believer in the Bible.

It wasn’t until a year (2000) after creating my Timeless Myths (1999) that I touched the Bible again, that I began to look at the Bible with fresh eyes.

My priors works as civil engineer, help me to see value of checking and double checking my calculation of design that structure of any building use the most effective measurement that support both design and safety requirements. And when I decided to change my career to computer science, from 1995-1999, and went back to university, I created Timeless Myths (1999) as personal website, like a hobby. But it was hobby that required a lot of effort, to read and to research, and to check and double check my sources.

These experiences of checking and double checking, I applied to when I started reading the Bible again, in 2000, the skill that I didn’t have when I was a teenager.

Do you what the first error I saw?

It wasn’t creation vs evolution, and it was the Bible vs history. No my first doubt to bible’s inerrancy come from the author’s Matthew 1:22-23 interpretation of Isaiah’s sign (Isaiah 7:14).

You see, when I was younger I read both Matthew and Isaiah, and didn’t bother to compare the two together, hence no double checking. I took what I read from Matthew 1:22-23 at face value, and didn’t see that Isaiah’s sign was much larger than gospel’s cherrypicking passage.

When I re-read Isaiah 7, the complete chapter, I recognized that the sign had nothing to do with Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ birth. The sign had to do with Ahaz’s war against Pekah and Rezin.

Seeing this bogus claim, I began re-reading other verses of signs or prophecies in Matthew 2, and saw more errors and cherrypicking from the gospel author, because I began to double check the gospels’ claims against the other sources from the Old Testament passages.

That what have started my first doubts about the Bible. It wasn’t science or history that made me questioning the Bible’s truthfulness and accuracies, and my first step towards agnosticism.

 

[gnostic]

So your argument is "Sure, he got 84 points right, but we still need to a priori reject miracles."

No, you silly clown.

The 84 points have nothing to do with history of the Bible.

Naming locations and naming languages spoken in those place, have nothing to do with the Acts being true.

You have to compare what the Acts narrate, like Paul healing a man who was born crippled in Lystra, and how the townspeople nearly offered sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas as gods.

You keep saying there are lot of eyewitnesses in everything the gospels and Acts claimed to happen.

If that was true, then where are the independent sources by eyewitnesses in Lystra that can verify Acts 14’s claim of such miracle taking place? How do you verify the man was crippled all his life before encountering Paul, when the crippled man has no name?

You are forgetting that history isn’t just about the places you can name, but the events that can be confirmed. In Acts 14:8-18, the event was the miracle and near sacrifice, not the names of city and dialect they spoke or the temple that may exist there.

Big deal that the Acts author list some names of places, but what events are history and what isn’t.

 

[atanu]

Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims. We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation", people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars, while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.

The world is as it is. As such there is no contradiction in nature other than what is made up from time to time in people’s minds. There is no arrogance too. The domains of science-technology on one hand and religion-spirituality on the other actually do not clash.

 

[gnostic]

The world is as it is. As such there is no contradiction in nature other than what is made up from time to time in people’s minds. There is no arrogance too. The domains of science-technology on one hand and religion-spirituality on the other actually do not clash.

Except that belief in spirits, gods, angels, demons, fairies are not real.

Technology, is often the application of certain fields in science, because science is a mean of finding solutions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But religion often does seriously oppose what science has to say and vice versa. Otherwise you wouldn't be debating Creationism vs Evolution in these forums. The existence of those debates is proof that there is opposition and always will be because both narratives are in opposition to each other. Like Rashomon.

Yes and no.
Consider this: Treat them as thesis and anti-thesis and then do a synthesis.
So of us have done so and created a 3rd narrative.
Will this 3rd narrative win? I don't know and I won't promise it, but I will try. That is all I can.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims. We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation", people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars, while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.

Hello Bob,

I am at odds with what you have written. Will you please post some examples to support your claims about science and religion. Thank you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that belief in spirits, gods, angels, demons, fairies are not real.

Technology, is often the application of certain fields in science, because science is a mean of finding solutions.

And Science, not science is the belief that you can apply science to all human behavior and only need to do science as human behavior. That won't work, because it is not possible. That is a belief no different that the ones you listed
Look at this as a line. One end - hard science. They are here on this forum too. The other end - hard religion.
Some of us try to be in the middle.
I "attack" both ends, when they "overstep". But my specialty is knowledge western style and hence I fight Science more that I fight Religion.
As a Dane, it makes sense. The problems, we face in practice, stem more from claims of science, not religion as old school

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hello Bob,

I am at odds with what you have written. Will you please post some examples to support your claims about science and religion. Thank you.

The joke is this:
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

You have in practice to use social science and cognitive, cultural and moral relativism to see it. But you can see differently, if you do so. But so can I.
Neither science nor religion is without local culture and take place as a socially embedded activity.

 

[joelr]

The Bible always "works" and tithing Christians do not starve--the Bible promises adequate food and clothing for tithers. Many examples abound, you can even Google tithing and the '29 Depression for more.

O I get it now. Your living in a self created fantasy world.

The 29 depression???? Are you kidding me? There are 20 million people without food and shelter in Africa RIGHT NOW. Christianity is a major religion there as well.
In fact specifically in Nigeria Christians are being persecuted by a Muslim faction, Boko Haram.
In just Nigeria 184 children die from starvation every day. They did not get adequate food or clothing. Same thing yesterday and every day before it.
How can someone with any shred of a clue even type those words you just typed?

 

[joelr]

Wow, you should compare notes with the person who tells me scholars are sure Luke/Acts mirrors 1 and 2 Kings! How amazing this is all getting.

Right, suddenly you can't possibly fathom that Luke which is 24 chapters and Acts which is even longer couldn't have possibly used several sources?? I have to walk you through that?

Acts is a travel narrative, there are excellent examples by several PhDs of what sections are paralleling Homer and sections of Luke literally using the exact lines from Kings. Luke uses literary devices and copies Kings a ridiculous amount.

This isn't a theory, it's the mainstream view in scholarship. Luke transforms the Elijah-Elisha story and there are endless examples.
Again at 22:50 is a list of sections taken from Kings and 23:06 are a few examples

Also at 15:43 he touches on another aspect of the storytelling that it's long been known in the field that the Jesus stories are just updated Moses stories. He gives a reference to a peer-reviewed PhD paper.

I'm supposed to quit the faith because Luke was smart enough to mirror the best-known Gentile epic in his narrative, thus showing (again) the amazing communication powers of holy writ?

For like the 4th time, I don't know or care what YOU should do with information. Generally this information isn't for the person being responded to.
You can confirmation bias your way to any truth or you can actually investigate how deep the parallels are.
Although if one recognizes a myth has simply been crafted from an earlier version that doesn't mean it's showing "amazing communication super-powers"? How is taking a pagan myth already popular and Judiazing it equate to amazing?

 

[joelr]

You may want to see my related post citing 84 historical accuracies in Luke before hand waving at Luke and Mark's historicity. I enjoy good Bible debates BASED ON FACTS, not supposition.

First, no, you are not interested in facts at all unless they support your position. I don't believe you looked at one singe PhD source I've given yet? So far you take actual facts, from scholarship, and dismiss them, so that's total BS.

Second, what is supposition? There are at least 6 dying-rising pre Christian savior demi-gods we have written information about. Besides the fact that 1st century apologist Justin Martyr actually said:

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in common with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius]. Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse" Diaolgue 69

Do you realize right there, those gods he speaks of, they had WRITINGS about them?! So where is this "supposition"?

Luke and Mark wrote myths, their main character scores as high as King Arthur on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale and nothing else in their writings mirrored histories of the time but everything mirrored all other religious myth.

The fact that they put actual places they were familiar with is what pretty much all religious mythology does.
Greek myths have their gods among Greek wars. The The Bhagavad Gita takes place during the Kurukshetra War the war and city are real places in northern India.

Oh guess what - Mormons trace their origins to the visions that Joseph Smith reported he had in the early 1820s while living in upstate New York.In 1823, Smith said an angel directed him to a buried book written on golden plates containing the religious history of an ancient people.
Yes there is a crapton of real places in the Smith story, in fact I'm positive New York is real!!! Wow, I guess Smith was telling the truth!


Your argument is not even an argument.

 

[joelr]

Again, if you can explain how "natural course" as you wrote or "natural law" provides for me/brings me more money the more I GIVE MONEY AWAY, I'm all ears. Please explain how awarding money to others brings me back money, since as a skeptic, you believe neither in God nor karma nor universal reciprocity:

1) Reason 1 how giving money away enriches BB

2) Reason 2 how giving money away enriches BB

3) Reason 3 how giving money away enriches BB

Ugg, still with this....
How many practicing Christians have died young, as children, from starvation and so on and you seem to think the god of the universe singled you out and is sending you money?

Even if I thought that I was getting magic god-money I wouldn't try to enter heresay as an actual argument? Like there is any way to verify exactly where your in/out income is coming/going to?
Like I said with the 15 digit number which you can pray for the digits as proof of supernatural communication, if you want to pray for unlimited money we can set up a bank account for you to magic money into every week and I'll gladly donate the money to charity when it hits 100 grand.

Let me guess, you don't pay rent and have car payment, utilities, food do you?
I remember those days , money seemed to be falling in from everywhere because 20 bucks meant "yay I have $20 to spend". Now it's "great I have 1/100 of next months bills".


I never said anything about Karma or reciprocity? I'm pretty sure that you know damn well that if you continue to send all incoming money to charity causes eventually you will have no money.
Who said I was a skeptic? Not believing completely obvious mythic fiction does not make anyone a skeptic?

At any rate this is a ridiculous line of argument. The irony is in the post you call me a skeptic you use complete unprovable personal anecdotal heresay as evidence???

 

[BilliardsBall]

Right, suddenly you can't possibly fathom that Luke which is 24 chapters and Acts which is even longer couldn't have possibly used several sources?? I have to walk you through that?

Acts is a travel narrative, there are excellent examples by several PhDs of what sections are paralleling Homer and sections of Luke literally using the exact lines from Kings. Luke uses literary devices and copies Kings a ridiculous amount.

This isn't a theory, it's the mainstream view in scholarship. Luke transforms the Elijah-Elisha story and there are endless examples.
Again at 22:50 is a list of sections taken from Kings and 23:06 are a few examples

Also at 15:43 he touches on another aspect of the storytelling that it's long been known in the field that the Jesus stories are just updated Moses stories. He gives a reference to a peer-reviewed PhD paper.




For like the 4th time, I don't know or care what YOU should do with information. Generally this information isn't for the person being responded to.
You can confirmation bias your way to any truth or you can actually investigate how deep the parallels are.
Although if one recognizes a myth has simply been crafted from an earlier version that doesn't mean it's showing "amazing communication super-powers"? How is taking a pagan myth already popular and Judiazing it equate to amazing?

If Luke is written late, what sources would he have relied upon to have over 80 early first century facts (just Acts, not Luke!)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

First, no, you are not interested in facts at all unless they support your position. I don't believe you looked at one singe PhD source I've given yet? So far you take actual facts, from scholarship, and dismiss them, so that's total BS.

Second, what is supposition? There are at least 6 dying-rising pre Christian savior demi-gods we have written information about. Besides the fact that 1st century apologist Justin Martyr actually said:

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in common with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius]. Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse" Diaolgue 69

Do you realize right there, those gods he speaks of, they had WRITINGS about them?! So where is this "supposition"?

Luke and Mark wrote myths, their main character scores as high as King Arthur on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale and nothing else in their writings mirrored histories of the time but everything mirrored all other religious myth.

The fact that they put actual places they were familiar with is what pretty much all religious mythology does.
Greek myths have their gods among Greek wars. The The Bhagavad Gita takes place during the Kurukshetra War the war and city are real places in northern India.

Oh guess what - Mormons trace their origins to the visions that Joseph Smith reported he had in the early 1820s while living in upstate New York.In 1823, Smith said an angel directed him to a buried book written on golden plates containing the religious history of an ancient people.
Yes there is a crapton of real places in the Smith story, in fact I'm positive New York is real!!! Wow, I guess Smith was telling the truth!


Your argument is not even an argument.

I have a Bachelor's in Religion emphasizing NT studies from a secular university. I've seen quite a few Ph.D positions contrary to scripture, and in a somewhat related field, I'm co-chairing three panels at an academic conference this fall. I understand secular NT scholarship.

You are all over the place talking about the Gita and Mormons. Can you confine yourself to the issue at hand? That proof for Jesus is there, in front of us?

 

[BilliardsBall]

O I get it now. Your living in a self created fantasy world.

The 29 depression???? Are you kidding me? There are 20 million people without food and shelter in Africa RIGHT NOW. Christianity is a major religion there as well.
In fact specifically in Nigeria Christians are being persecuted by a Muslim faction, Boko Haram.
In just Nigeria 184 children die from starvation every day. They did not get adequate food or clothing. Same thing yesterday and every day before it.
How can someone with any shred of a clue even type those words you just typed?

I said tithing Christians. Kindly respond factually to what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ugg, still with this....
How many practicing Christians have died young, as children, from starvation and so on and you seem to think the god of the universe singled you out and is sending you money?

Even if I thought that I was getting magic god-money I wouldn't try to enter heresay as an actual argument? Like there is any way to verify exactly where your in/out income is coming/going to?
Like I said with the 15 digit number which you can pray for the digits as proof of supernatural communication, if you want to pray for unlimited money we can set up a bank account for you to magic money into every week and I'll gladly donate the money to charity when it hits 100 grand.

Let me guess, you don't pay rent and have car payment, utilities, food do you?
I remember those days , money seemed to be falling in from everywhere because 20 bucks meant "yay I have $20 to spend". Now it's "great I have 1/100 of next months bills".


I never said anything about Karma or reciprocity? I'm pretty sure that you know damn well that if you continue to send all incoming money to charity causes eventually you will have no money.
Who said I was a skeptic? Not believing completely obvious mythic fiction does not make anyone a skeptic?

At any rate this is a ridiculous line of argument. The irony is in the post you call me a skeptic you use complete unprovable personal anecdotal heresay as evidence???

I would say, "Zero practicing Christians who have tithed, and their children, have died of starvation," that is one point.

Another is I worked for a CFP for years and had state licensing. I understand stocks, bonds, funds, tax shelters, retirement, investing, saving, etc. -- I was the CFP's data analyst. You are claiming hearsay since I'm telling you anecdotally I've had/seen many money miracles--so I suggest you prove me wrong--go tithe somewhere. God promises "TEST ME IN THIS". You are talking a blue streak about falsifiability--put your money where God's mouth is!!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not picking a fight with God, because God didn’t write the Bible.

All you are doing, is associating man-made written texts, to God being the author.

And you are foolishly attempting to make trying to turn the man-written Bible into inerrant and infallible like God. Is that essentially idol worshipping?

And you are wrong, I have no axe to grind with Bible.

When I was younger, I actually accept the Bible as it is, because I didn’t have the maturity, nor the experience, to recognise that some parts of the Bible have errors and contradictions, so I had taken everything written at its face value, without investigating what I read.

As a teenager, no one can blame me, for being too inexperienced to check and double check what I read. Then for 14 years, I didn’t touch the Bible, because my studies and jobs took higher priority than religion. But despite 14 years hiatus from the Bible, I was still a believer in the Bible.

It wasn’t until a year (2000) after creating my Timeless Myths (1999) that I touched the Bible again, that I began to look at the Bible with fresh eyes.

My priors works as civil engineer, help me to see value of checking and double checking my calculation of design that structure of any building use the most effective measurement that support both design and safety requirements. And when I decided to change my career to computer science, from 1995-1999, and went back to university, I created Timeless Myths (1999) as personal website, like a hobby. But it was hobby that required a lot of effort, to read and to research, and to check and double check my sources.

These experiences of checking and double checking, I applied to when I started reading the Bible again, in 2000, the skill that I didn’t have when I was a teenager.

Do you what the first error I saw?

It wasn’t creation vs evolution, and it was the Bible vs history. No my first doubt to bible’s inerrancy come from the author’s Matthew 1:22-23 interpretation of Isaiah’s sign (Isaiah 7:14).

You see, when I was younger I read both Matthew and Isaiah, and didn’t bother to compare the two together, hence no double checking. I took what I read from Matthew 1:22-23 at face value, and didn’t see that Isaiah’s sign was much larger than gospel’s cherrypicking passage.

When I re-read Isaiah 7, the complete chapter, I recognized that the sign had nothing to do with Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ birth. The sign had to do with Ahaz’s war against Pekah and Rezin.

Seeing this bogus claim, I began re-reading other verses of signs or prophecies in Matthew 2, and saw more errors and cherrypicking from the gospel author, because I began to double check the gospels’ claims against the other sources from the Old Testament passages.

That what have started my first doubts about the Bible. It wasn’t science or history that made me questioning the Bible’s truthfulness and accuracies, and my first step towards agnosticism.

Now you are goal post shifting, as you seem to do often, likely because of your aggression.

Let's get it straight--again--you admitted the author(s) of Acts got 84 important first century facts right, then a priori assume they are VERY sophisticated truth-telling liars because the supernatural CANNOT exist.

Cults and liars don't take a lot of trouble with fact verification.