‘If not, why do you believe the lake of fire is literal? Revelation is written in imagery, in the Apocalyptic style. It is not all literal.’
“Ah, now we are getting to the point. This statement suggests you do not hold that there is a destination for all unbelievers called the Lake of Fire. Do you also reject the millineum, the judgement of Satan, the New Jerusalem et al?”
It’s interesting the part of my reply you ignored. It was too important to ignore. Here it is a second time:
“Not all of Revelation is literal. For example, here is the Revelation description of the birth of Christ:
“12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she *cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.
[The Red Dragon, Satan]
3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.”
snip
“13 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she *was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 And the serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth.”
Do you believe that is literally what happened when Mary gave birth to Jesus?”
Since you believe this is the “heart of the matter”, let’s agree it’s important. So I will wait, however long it takes, for you to answer the question. I.e.: do you believe all of the above, plus the in-between vss I didn’t cite, happened *literally* when Mary gave birth to the Christ?
I did not think the assertion deserved a response. But since you insist, of course the description of Jesus' birth in Rev 12:1-4 is figurative.
The general hermeneutical principle outlined by Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society is this:
When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;
Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning
Unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light
Of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise.
Thus, most would say the "great sign in heaven" of Rev 12:1 was allegorical or figurative, whilst the "great white throne" judgement of Rev 20:11 was literal.
Yes, as a summary of the events, that is literally what happened. But, in order to be literate/literal, one must use the information given in the manner given in scripture. For example, we’re told that the serpent and the dragon are the same. The woman, however, is not Mary. The woman is clothed with the sun, and the moon at her feet, and with a crown of 12 stars. The woman is persecuted, she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time (3.5 years from other passages), and a flood is sent to destroy her.
This is not Mary. What other could be said to have given birth to Jesus?