While applying modern analysis to a literal interpretation may get an answer that is preferred or not by one camp or the other.

I've always believed that any number of religious denominations would happily see me burned at the stake but it is particularly irksome IMO that atheists offered to bring the matches!

A literal cross? How about a cross? We know the Romans used the cross for political executions. Jesus drew crowds, he was of the royal blood line of David on Palm Sunday the crowds insisted on calling him 'King'. That was enough for the Romans!

What we are sure of though... is that the Romans did use the cross as a means of execution. Was he nailed? You say that he couldn't have been for physical reasons. If I said that He was nailed and his arms tied with bindings etc... what would you say to that?

I'm guessing that you'd say that it "doesn't say that".

No it doesn't but the cross as execution was real. That detail is not figurative. Did they use nails? My point would be they didn't need to! Jesus died on the cross is the essential fact. 2000 years later despite the fact that people have believed that there were nails... the essential reality is the cross in whatever way it happened. The cross is verifiable.

So would you whom I assume is an atheist or at the very least agnostic (as far as atheism is concerned lol) say that the words were literal and inerrant and leave it at that... or say that we don't know and leave it at that instead?

Whether literally inerrant (the nails) or not... the cross is verifiable as a means of political execution.

You seek to prove something by using evidence that you reject? How does that work?

I on the other hand feel more or less confident that my understanding is correct at least about the cross. It is you and the literalists that need to prove your sides . Mine is already proven.