Why do you hate God?

[Belacqua]

This is not true. 

Paul interpreted the Old Testament as allegory. Jesus spoke in parables. Augustine wrote a whole book on non-literal Genesis.

There is absolutely NO evidence that there were the claimed 12 disciples at the actual alleged time the bible claims the Character Jesus existed. The first known book was written way after the alleged 32/33 years the bible claims. 

It makes much more sense to me, a person, or group of people, got tired of the old Hebrew ways and decided to create a splinter sect. Those individuals used the real time to sell fantastic stories, and after they died, the popularity of their fantastic adventures caught on, just like L Ron Hubbard was able to start Scientology. Just like the Rasta religion is a spin of mix of African/Jewish/Catholic motifs.

The 12 Disciples were pseudonyms, like ghost writers, except they were not contemporary witnesses. They were writers who simply took advantage of legend and mythology and made it popular after the fact. 

Much like in the industrial revolution, someone comes up with an idea, but someone else sees their idea, and beats them to the patent office. 

But in the case of the Jesus Character, they were not marketing a truth, just a legend, a myth. 

The first official bible was not compiled until 329 CE. And even then, by that time there were books left out.

Most  of what you say here is true, but none of it is relevant to what we were talking about. I don't know why you want to change the subject.

You've made two claims which are not true.

1) Non-literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent phenomenon. 

and 

2) The Bible is meant to be interpreted literally. 

I've offered counterarguments, namely that the Evangelists all describe Jesus as using non-literal language. So from the time of the writing of the gospels, non-literal language is accepted. Paul interprets the Old Testament non-literally. 

In addition, I can point to the Fathers of the Church, including Anselm, Origen, Augustine, Dionysius the Areopagite, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, who all interpreted much of the Bible non-literally. They were a long time ago, so their non-literal use is not a recent phenomenon. 

Early on, Christians adopted the Jewish "Pardes" method of hermeneutics, which had been in use for a long time. In this system each statement in the Bible is read at four levels of interpretation, with the literal meaning being the lowest and least important. These commentators also use the word "literal" to mean "with the meaning intended by the original author." So if the original author meant a statement to be a metaphor (as for example is obvious throughout the Song of Solomon) then the literal meaning is metaphorical.

Modern historians (as opposed to TV Evangelists) tell us that much of the Bible is not to be interpreted literally. As an example I can point to the editors of the Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version, published by Oxford University Press. They warn in several cases that a literal reading will go against the intentions of the authors, in particular in the case of the Apocalypse of John. Literal interpretation of this book is a modern idea of uneducated people. The editors working for Oxford are historians, not uneducated people from your local church.

So if you have anything other than your strong unsupported beliefs, I'd be interested to hear your evidence. Probably if you want to make truth claims about history it would be good to have a little bit of evidence.