When Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to be killed in Mark 9:30ff,
"He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it," was he being literal?
Did Jesus literally heal people, cast out demons, raise the dead or are we to interpret them "spiritually" as you suggest?
I presume you would be in agreement that Jesus spiritually accomplished these things. Meaning, Jesus spiritually healed people through His teachings, that He spiritually opened the eyes of the spiritually blind, that He spiritually cast out spiritual demons, spiritually raised the spiritually dead, etc.
You ask me if Jesus literally did these things, and I would reply that the scripture indicates that this is the case, that Jesus literally did these things. But that the scripture further indicates that these literal works were pointing at the much greater spiritual work which corresponds by way of allegory to these literal works; as 'signs' or 'tokens' which point us to the real understanding being given. So it is not for us to dwell on the literal aspects, but to regard these as 'signs' which we momentarily see, but then turn our gaze from these signs, to the real purpose of the signs - the heavenly image, as it were.
It is the spiritual side of the teaching that is the aim, and not the literal, or, earthly, or, carnal, but the allegoric, or, heavenly, or, spiritual. A carnal sign such as literally giving sight to the literally blind, is the seal, as it were, of the manifest approval of God in the teaching. That is to say, since the teachings of Christ were spiritually giving sight to the spiritual blind, God showed these corresponding literal signs in order to manifest the approval of the words of Jesus, which give spiritual sight to the spiritual blind.
Again, the teachings of Jesus are able to spiritually raise the spiritually dead in a spiritual resurrection; so Jesus would literally raise the literal dead in order to signify this. But also note that these signs were given because they were demanded of carnal men who did not know the Spirit: Matthew 12:38, Matthew 16:1, John 2:18, 1 Corinthians 1:22
But though these signs are given them, and they did not believe John 6:30, Jesus said of them that saw no sign and yet believed John 20:29. So that those that hear Him need no sign, because they are of the Spirit of God, and they know the voice of the Shepherd, and need no sign because they have already known Him.
The point here is that the literal is not being said to not be accomplished literally, but that the literal is but a sign, a metaphor, of the greater, real, truth that is being taught. For instance (and I will cease this line with this), the literal exodus from literal bondage, is to be understood spiritually, as a metaphor of the spiritual exodus from spiritual bondage through the Spirit of Christ. The literal exodus is but a sign of the greater, spiritual, truth which comes through Christ.
Here you equivocate "literal" with "carnal" and opposed to "spiritual" which seems to abuse the meaning of the texts because surely the authors intended some things to be understood literally and your method imitates that possibility in its presuppositions.
Some of the Early church fathers had the same proclivity to destroy literal meaning namely Augustine. But why despise what the original author intended to communicate?
To the contrary, it is not to 'destroy' but to 'fulfill'. The literal is merely a sign pointing to the spiritual. Once the sign is seen, we turn our attention fully to that toward which it directs our gaze. There is no further need of the sign once that toward which the sign points is in view. Allow me to cite the apostle: Galatians 4:22-24
Now you see, the mount Sinai is intended as a literal allegory, a literal sign, to teach us the spiritual truth concerning the offspring of Abraham. All of these earthly works and events are important in that they teach us greater heavenly truths by way of allegory. The things of the earth are only there to set our gaze on the things of the heaven.
Were they not inspired?
Were they not chosen by God to write freely the thing they had seen or heard or experienced?
If we trample under foot the authors' inspired meaning don't we also trample God's meaning?
Again, this is not trampling, this is understanding the purpose of the words. The literal events recorded in Exodus are not 'trampled' by understanding their spiritual allegory found in the spiritual exodus through Christ, they are exhalted, and magnified, and given life in personal truth in relation to you and I, and everyone who reads the scripture.
Finally, the method destroys all possibility of God communicating a message as Chistian one says, "The spirit revealed to me that A is true spiritual meaning of a verse, not B or C." To which Christian two says, "Well, I can see you are a carnal Christian because the Spirit has shown me that that passage means B not A or C." At this point Christian three tears his garments and proclaims, "forgive these carnal Christians Lord as they are men of unclean lips from a people of unclean hearts, and your truth is not in them, the HS has shown me, your humble servant, the true spiritual meaning is C!"
The spiritual understanding is taught in the scripture with words, just as the literal is recorded. It can be understood plainly to those who are seeking it. Even moreso than the literal interpretation; the spiritual is more sure. For instance, the spiritual understanding of "Let there be light" at Genesis 1:3 is the doctrine of Christ, who is the light. So at Genesis 1:3 (among other things) we are being shown an allegory of the gospel being perceived at the first by one who is in the darkness of life without God, without truth or understanding. So we see the later teachers build on this with such as: John 1:5 and as Matthew 4:16.
Which is greater, a literal understanding of the earthly, or a spiritual understanding of the heavenly? Is it greater to open the eyes of the literal blind, and leave them in spiritual darkness; or open the eyes of the spiritually blind, and leave them in literal darkness?
The authors dies horrible deaths to get this testimony in your hands. Men have continued to risk life and livelihood to maintain the texts, and make translations so we can read these ancient documents. Finally, after all the work and effort God mad men have exerted we destroy that meaning through an improper "spiritualized" method.
Does that seems right morally? Let alone intellectually or spiritually?
Again, it is not destruction, it is exhaltation. Moses literally raised a literal brazen serpent; is it destruction of the literal words to teach and understand the literal event as finding its ultimate life-giving understanding in the Cross of Christ? It is the glorification of the earthly understanding in the heavenly understanding: John 3:14-16.