What the fuck kind of a response is that.
It doesn't matter who wrote the accounts more than half a century later, clearly we aren't talking about reliable accounts here.
Claiming these sources as evidence would be as retarded as claiming that I am an expert on the Korean War or the Kennedy assassination. In present times, we have internet, history books, etc. to look up information on past events. What do you think these early historans used when writing about events prior to their birth? Divine revelation?
So how accurate is an account written 60 years post date, by someone who wasn't even alive at the time of the event?
The fact that there are NO contemporary accounts is a damning piece of evidence against your claim, which you can't refute by pointing to your much younger sources.
Originally Posted by forthenoodz
how does can a story about Greek kings and troy prove Greek Gods?
Are you unfamiliar with the story? Or are you just utterly blind to the obvious parallels?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the greek pantheon plays an important part in the whole trojan affair:
The conflict starts when the goddesses hold a beauty contest and paris is made the judge. Athena, Hera and Aphrodite each offer bribes, and paris chooses Aphrodite in return for the love of the woman of his choice. He chooses Helena, the wife of Menelaos, forcing Menelaos to war to uphold his honor. From here, the story is riddled with intervention by various gods (Artemis doesn't allow the fleet to leave Aulis because she has beef with Agamemnon, various gods intercede during the battle, Apollo punishes the Greeks with plague for harming his priests, Poseidon tells his priest Laocoon about the Greeks' plan with the horse, etc. etc.)
Now of course, you'd be right in concluding that all these deities and supernatural events are probably embellishments. However, in doing so, you're using a different standard of evidence
than when you say you DO believe the historicity of the new Testament. The question is why.
Why is it that a couple of lines by historians decades and centuries later is enough to convince you of god, jesus and miracles, but actual tangible evidence, like the burnt remains of troy, are not sufficient to make you believe in Apollo, Achilles and the rest?