Either that makes you out to be an idiot, or you purposely do that to justify over things you may, personally, disagree with.
Is it unfair to interpret (lol) "purposely...justify over" as deceit or hypocrisy.
I can see that you reject my premise when you don't think Jesus ever spoke anything in Mark. And so i don't think we will get anywhere with this. I actually admit that without the Bible I've got nothin else to back my beliefs on. So it's more like Scripture Proclaims About God
I gave the example of quarks having flavor as my proof that there is a place for symbolic communication in communicating otherwise literal, objective truth- especially when it's abstract. Spiritual matters are matters that are not physical/material and are by definition abstract.
But in either case, good symbolism adds to or enriches, as opposed to altering or mystifying, our understanding of something real, don't you think?
I don't believe Jesus spoke anywhere in the NT, at all because except for the NT, there's no evidence he existed at all. But that has nothing to do with why I object to your premise. I object to your premise because you hold only to your interpretation, not of whoever the author might be, and rest solely on your own; your OP presents your argument thusly.
This is your OP in a nutshell: I am right, everyone else is wrong.
One can identify this because you keep attempting to add "symbolism" to it. You know what a a synonym for "symbolism" is? Metaphor.
How can the Bible be metaphorical if it's all literal?
Good luck answering that without SPAG'ing or redefining to fit your viewpoint.