No offence, but calling them "Bronze Age" prophets and referring to their prophecy as superstition is only labelling.  That isn't an argument.  Consider it this way - say, for the sake of argument, that you were someone who lived 2000 years ago, and saw everything that is written in the Bible about Jesus.  Say that you saw the blind made to see, cripples made to walk (and leap) and the dead raised.  There would be no question that you would have to believe.  Consider then, what evidence could you leave behind for those who had _not_ seen?

Certainly, this evidence is not _proof_ in the logical, mathematical sense, but it _is_ evidence.  Dismissing it is as impossible is a philosophical _choice_, made a priori, without proof.

I find it convincing.  I choose to believe.  That is no less reasonable or logical a choice than the alternative.