Revelation should obviously be read for what it is, an apocalypse with all the symbolic trappings therein. It’s an incredibly elegant book with layers upon layers of fractal structure and poetry. Clearly the work of a person highly trained in Greek composition and apocalyptic.
The point remains that the most expansive portrayal of Christ’s coming, be it symbolic or literal, is in any case not a defense of religious tolerance as you seemed to suggest. To the contrary Christ is portrayed as a demolisher of unbelievers.
The Jesus of Q and the authentic Paul are arguably more progressive. Maybe this is what you had in mind?
not very familiar with what Jesus Q or the authentic Paul is. I tend to think Paul wrote hebrews with help and some of his other letters by himself. some doubt peter 2 nowadays but I have no problem getting something out of it so it does not matter to me.
in my view the bible has a shadow to it and I don't accept the shadow of it as real or valid. so my method of interpretation of the bible is going to be different to someone who only depends on some kind of "historical science" to understand it, which I think can be useful but is not sufficient.
history is an interpretation of various kinds of people with certain kinds of methods. it is not what I hold as fundamentally real even though the events that occurred that people utilized to make history out of are real in some sense. but that kind of real is the osage orange fruit surface of reality and there is more depth called the spirit, which I hold to be a most fundamental and general reality.
my interpretation of Jesus and Paul are based on whatever kinds of spirits are influencing me. to some measure I ofc use some of the available history. for me it's not a problem to accept the entire NT as real and true, as I think it went through a spiritual process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit and whatever angels were assigned to the task (which are many).
osage orange fruit
I'm wondering, would that be a Cosmic type of Christ? Or maybe a Universal Christ?
well according to my tradition origen said that all men who are rational partake of the Logos who is a person of the Trinity. that certainly has a bit of a greek spirit to it. the NT says Christ is the new adam.
I don't have a problem with the Son of God being a universal but it is important that we not erase the soul of Jesus either, or anyone else for that matter. if I was to say that the image of God that man is made in is Christ, then I would not be bothered by such since I think the christology Christians were developing is closely linked to our anthropology.
but I try to keep in mind that one main aspect of being is to become and since there is such a thing as freedom it also means that man is not like Christ, if that is what they become. in fact the bible does not call sinful men men, it calls them beast.