What a well formulated response. You're right about everything you've said in regards to what the text literally says, but you've still missed the point.

I was speaking hyperbole, the bible is massive and definitely lends itself to missing the significance of certain events, especially if you blitz through it. But Jesus dying is still a significant event of the book, without it the whole book itself loses its narrative cohesion and collapses on itself. And handwaving mentions of the cross/Jesus dying on the cross away as "a few mentions of it in the epistles" (which is 21/27 books in the NT btw) is exactly what you're doing, downplaying the significance of the event. The epistles arent random side stories in the bible, they're one of the most applicable and relevant portions of the whole text

Jesus coming and dying is alluded to before it happens, prophesied, then recounted and written about multiple times throughout the whole text. It is indeed a significant event. You don't need the text to focus literally on the cross itself for it to be a symbol of the event that occurred. Which is what I've already said prior. "the cross as a symbol is directly supported in the text" is exactly what I already said is not being discussed. You seem to be arguing points that no one is arguing.

Look, you read the Bible, you study the text, and you realize Jesus death which happened on a cross is a big deal, the cross then is merely a symbol of that event. It's that simple. The cross is not a symbol of itself, which is what your analysis seems to imply. The cross being a symbol is not some conspiracy about gaslighting people on what the bible says about the cross. It's just an easy way to represent what is one of the most significant events of the bible in addition to the direct references to it