The right comparison with testimony in a court. Which witness do you believe? Which side better explains the facts of the case. But you assume that a jury constituted today, selected at random, is better qualified to decide the matter than one likewise constituted two thousand years ago. If we are trying to decide a narrow point of law, where all the advantage of experience matters, or where the witnesses speak a certain language or are under a certain legal code, then and only then one set of jurors will be superior.
No, no. I'm sorry, I must not be making myself clear.
If the witnesses got on the stand and said, "David Koresh was Jesus, and we saw him work miracles!" I wouldn't believe them without proof.
The point is that when I hear witnesses who claim miraculous things, I don't believe them today.
And since people in the past were even *more* superstitious than people today, I would treat their testimony inexactly the same way.