No The OP's idea of their theory is missing some logical component. Currently, it appears to be a category error. (How can a real act be an abstract representation?)
I hope my post(s) will reveal the nature of the category error.
It is possible you're overthinking the difference.
Now, let me take a moment to remind that your overthinking the difference would not inherently mean our neighbor is correct.
Okay, so, here's a little list:
2018↗,
2019↗,
2020↗,
seven weeks later↗,
2021↗. You don't really need to click through; the important point in those posts is a notion of
literary crticism.
For instance, are you at all familiar with the idea that we ought not let people we know are wrong set the terms and boundaries of discussion? While an important point with diverse contexts of application, in this case it's really straightforward: It's a
story, Dave; read it like a storybook.
It feels strange to remind that many people use the word "theory" incorrectly, but in the moment, just let it go; our neighbor's use of the word "theory" is not any high priority: I'm uncertain if you're aware, but outside hard science, the standard for an arguable thesis is pretty low, and its value is all in the argument and support. It's how that kind of discourse works. You probably had to write at least a couple papers for lit or history class attending that standard of arguability. Our neighbor's "theory", as such, is an arguable thesis that is generally wrong. It's not that I can't imagine where he's coming from, but the support is largely modern interpretation of latter-period, imposed symbolism.
Beyond that, look, once upon a time, someone put a crown of thorns upon someone else's head. By tradition, this was part of mocking a purported King of the Jews. However, if the person who crowned Jesus actually thought or said something to the effect of, "Redeem this, motherfucker," that, indeed, would count, within the literary criticism, as representation. If Jesus had received the crown in some context related to those sins, that, too, would count as representation.
What stands out is the particular wording:
"all the false sins placed on the heads of mankind, by the scribes and the pharisees".
The actual innovation, there, is not the fact of interpreting the crown as a symbol of sin, but the particular sins it is asserted to represent:
False sins that were
placed on the heads of humanity by the
lawyers of the day, the
scribes and Pharisees.
Inasmuch as it's a story, and should be read that way, our neighbor's telling would transform, and even reject, the Crucifixion, largely nullifying the story as it comes to us.
The problem with chasing down a category error is that our neighbor doesn't necessarily care. The
"theory"↑, as such, is arbitrary, and the
explanation↑ of how it works reads like mockery, even provocateurism.
Compared to everything else, you might be overthinking representation.
