Despite these, it is still literature, was written at a point in historical and as part of specific cultures. So as I said, understanding each of these contexts assists in understanding the literature

Rebro5 - Do you know when this literature was written and how it has evolved throughout history? I agree with you, understanding the history of them is essential - but it still doesn't excuse people like Barton making a fool of himself or any other person attempting to use the Gospels as truthful examples for something.

Understanding just how historically inaccurate it all is is paramount to understanding it has not a shred of evidence to back up it's claims.

As I said in my last post, the Gospels - chosen, by men, and, I might add, from a vast collect of others that didn't make it - were written decades AFTER the supposed events took place, we do not have the original copies and even then they are made completely redundant by the millions of translations and copies they have been through throughout their existence.

The Gospels can and should be discarded as evidence for pretty much anything they claim - they are entirely of human construct and completely fabricated. It's enormously interesting to study their origins and how they changed and evolved, in that way they do serve a historical purpose as well as essential reading if one is studying something like Shakespeare - but in no way, shape or form should they be given any credence as historical and meaningful documents.