Reading a myth literally instead of anagogically is the height of ignorance.

There is not one shred of objective contemporaneous evidence that a Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth (a city that didn't even exist during the reign of Tiberius) even existed. The only "record" of his "life" are the various and conflicting cult narratives written many decades later for teaching purposes within the esoteric communities. No non-cult evidence exists other than obvious later interpolations.

The earliest known writings, attributed to a supposed Saul of Tarsus, don't refer to a human Jesus at all, but to a cosmic Christ, a spiritual logos, whose "cruci-fiction" was a non-temporal event in the spiritual realm, and was to be understood by initiates to be symbolic of a process that each initiate would have to undergo to reach spiritual perfection; the Apocalypse of John gives this process in more detail. Indeed, the Pauline writings were consistent with the already existent Greek Cynic School of philosophy, much of which was continued under the Gnostic banner (declared heretical), but given a Jewish veneer, most definitely in the canonical gospels, which added a "human" narrative, and borrowed much detail from existing "savior godmen" like Mithras, Tammuz, Horus, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus (e.g. virgin birth on Dec 25, death and resurrection, sacred communion, 12 disciples representing the 12 zodiac signs, etc.).

Many scholarly works prove this in great detail, but it requires the intellectual capacity to understand it, which is why most of these myths were clothed in secrecy and symbolism to keep these sacred truths from the unwashed masses.

I am not sure which "side" of this post you are supporting. But, thanks, I did learn there was another word I did not know - and, anagogically speaking, if you are supporting the assertion that the Bible is mythical, your climbing up the wrong ladder!