In the past I read quite a lot of history including that of the ancient world. There is quite a lot of material, and virtual none of it is ‘fables’. People can have mass hysteria or insanity; actually the validity of truth isn’t necessarily determined by majority vote, although these days that may be a popular view (that it is). Mass ignorance is common in political propaganda. Popular sentiment shouldn’t determine the verdict at trials- facts should play a primary role. In philosophical concerns one need interpret facts or data and understand where and how that data fits into other relevant matter. It is important not to leap to conclusions in logic as well as history. If atheism is popular today, a majority vote does not validate it
Of the 256 possible forms of syllogism just 24 are valid. People talk past point, overlook reklevant datat and often assume that some material is comprehensive, exhaustive and universal when it is not. As is known- “If an invalid argument has all true premises, then the conclusion must be false.” Alternatively, if an valid argument has false premises its conclusion is false. The distribution of terms assumed to be universal that are not is a problem with arguments relying upon contemporary physics concerning Christianity.
Consider the history of Abraham and his son Isaac, whom God ordered Abraham to sacrifice. It is challenging to formulate in a strictly logical paradigm, There is much historical, archeological, scriptural and analytical evidence needed for even comprehending the circumstance. So much that generally just the faithful take the time. Human knowledge and lifetime is limited. People specialize and want to put blinders on to filter out what they consider is unimportant data. They make summarry dismissals of material they regard as unimportant, and quickly decide truth or falsity for convenience concerning faith in the Lord.
At the last second God allowed Abraham to substitute a sheep that became caught in the brush as the sacrifice. That incident was a paradigm for the appearance and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ 2000 years later. There are many things that are known and worth looking in to. Of course as you say; one must determine what one believes for-themself. In a social dialectical reason context, that paradigm is interesting for the case of criminal trials.