Hey, I was thinking about writing this as an essay, but can't be bothered to do so. Thus I'm just going to give my thoughts out as they come to me.
I'm personally of the opinion that most, if not all, of the gospels were meant to be taken allegorically and not literally. I believe this, not solely because, people can't whither fig trees or walk on water, or stop women's menstruation, but because the stories themselves make sense only as myth/ allegory. To demonstrate this I'm just going to pick two stories, but there are dozens more. The two I will choose are:
God Hates Figs- As many of you may know there is a tale in Mark 11:12-21 Jesus oddly curses a fig tree for no reason. I'll add the section here for those who do not know the story.
"12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’[c]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’[d]”
18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples[e] went out of the city.
20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”"
Now, this story is multiply fallacious if taken literally. Not least of all because people don't have the superpower of withering fig trees, but even if someone did they would be insane to whither a tree even though it wasn't the season for bearing fruit. If taken literally this would make Jesus look insane, and obviously that was not the point of the writer of Mark, no, there must be some other explanation. So in order to figure out the meaning we must look closer. In the New Testament literature a particular literary technique is often noted called or dubbed a Markan Sandwich. This is where one story wraps around another and they are meant to be understood in light of each other. In this particular case the story of whithering the fig tree is sandwiched around the temple scene. This story makes much more sense as an allegory saying that the temple is no longer needed and Jesus cursed it to it's roots. (The Christians had no need for the temple cult because Jesus replaced it.)
The second allegory would be Jesus as the Yom Kippur sacrifice. For this portion we're going to look at Matthew 27:15-26
"15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. 16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.[c] 17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.
19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?”
They said, “Barabbas!”
22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”
They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”
But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person.[d] You see to it.”
25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified."
To begin with this story does not make sense at all historically. Not only is there no evidence of a custom of releasing prisoners, but Pilate would never be so dumb as to release a Jewish zealot, murderer, and insurrectionist. Barabas was fighting for the Jews, thus this option makes no sense as history; however, it makes incredible sense as an allusion to the Yom Kippur sacrifice. During the Yom Kippur sacrifice two goats were to be brought before the nation, one would be sacrificed carrying the sins of all Israel, and the other would be set free. In this case we have Jesus (the "messiah") and Jesus Barabas (bar-abbas meaning son of the father. Gospels only mention Barabas, but Origen and a few others lead us to believe his name was Jesus Barabas). Two sons of the father. The blameless one takes on the sins of the jews, while the other guilty one is set free.
Anyway I hope this was at least decently coherent. I'm pretty tired and got distracted multiple times while writing this (at work). Oh well, I don't really care lol. Questions? Opinions? Something else? Add it below.