…the miracle biblical stories were never meant to be taken literally (e.g., resurrection), and that they are metaphors and allegorical stories to communicate a deeper message.

The issue of motivation is difficult with these ancient authors since we have no access to them. We don’t even know who the authors of the gospels were. We are forced to take these writings at face value. What I mean by that is we are forced to assume the authors are communicating exactly what they intended to communicate. If there was some duplicity involved we have no way of ever knowing.

Paul seems like a perfectly honest religious fanatic to me. He had visions. He’s trying to interpret his experience.

The gospels are sophisticated creative literary works. I think they are a sort of theologized narrative perfectly consistent with the style and literary habits of their day.

Aslan’s view rests on a misunderstanding. As moderns we view “literal” and “figurative” as discrete, even antagonistic categories. The ancients didn’t think this way. For them reality functioned on multiple levels. They told stories. Reality could be interpreted like a story.

A good example is from Paul’s letter to the Romans about the First Adam and the Second (Christ). Paul clearly believes that Adam was a real human being. His argument doesn’t make sense otherwise. Yet he also believes Adam was a “type” of Christ. So I suspect if you asked him whether his comments about Adam were meant literally or figuratively Paul might not have understood the question. Or would have said, “Yes” to both.

I think Mark believed in the reality of the Resurrection. But his gospel is a creative interpretation of the Resurrection.