Thanks for the response and the elucidation of your point of view, which is very interesting, and makes a lot of sense in terms of some spiritual traditions who either don't know about, or don't believe, the Garden of Eden story.
Like you I interpret myths metaphorically, so therefore I wonder what deeper truth the Adam and Eve story is pointing to. Your version is one in terms of the evolution of human consciousness. Mine is a more Gnostic one in terms of the fall of spirit/soul into matter.
So on that theme, that's why I'm wondering what precisely Jung said, because your interpretation is very much in line with at least some Gnostics who saw the serpent as the 'hero' of the story. It's possible that Jung was quoting them rather than agreeing. But I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
I also believe God is impersonal, so don't take the 'deception' or the whole conversation literally. So again, what truth or belief is the myth pointing to? As I said, I believe that it is a Gnostic story about the fall of the soul. So the conversation between 'God' and Adam and Eve has to be interpreted beyond its author's mindset, and therefore points to their decision as being against the divine will.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus does indeed say "I and the Father are One". However, there is no obvious reason to believe that Jesus actually said this. Again, as I said before, John frequently makes Jesus speak as if he were the Logos, which is his point of view, and there are no equivalent speeches in the synoptics.
Regarding the virgin birth, the simplest explanation seems to me to be that traditionally in many myths the dying-and-resurrecting saviour god is said to be born of a virgin. For some reason Matthew has decided to include this in his account, which contradicts the whole point of his genealogy. This is not the only example of material that he has included spuriously for mythological effect. For example, historical scholars have said that there is no evidence that Herod's Massacre of the Innocents ever took place, and indeed that it is inconceivable that it did. The other three Gospels make no mention of it. I could go on.
The background to Luke's account is much more complicated, so I'll leave that for now, as I've probably given you enough to think about.
