I think you still managed to miss my point. Let me try again going a little slower.
1. Christian theology states that Jesus died on the cross to save humanity from its fall from grace.
2. The fall from grace occurred when humanity ate the magic fruit they weren't supposed to in the Garden of Eden.
3. Turns out there was no fall from grace.
4. Because there was no fall from grace, there was no need to save us.
5. Because there was no need to save us, there's no need for the sacrifice on the cross.
Now, you have suggested the fall was "metaphoric". First, what do you mean by that and second, why would a real blood sacrifice be needed for a metaphor?
1. Christian theology states that Jesus died on the cross to save humanity from its fall from grace.
2. The fall from grace occurred when humanity ate the magic fruit they weren't supposed to in the Garden of Eden.
3. Turns out there was no fall from grace.
4. Because there was no fall from grace, there was no need to save us.
5. Because there was no need to save us, there's no need for the sacrifice on the cross.
Now, you have suggested the fall was "metaphoric". First, what do you mean by that and second, why would a real blood sacrifice be needed for a metaphor?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist