I agree that to some extent, with reflection one can fathom some of the deep symbolism but doesn't that really make the conclusions people come to subjective?
It bothers me that we are presented with translations into English that must, to some extent (how much I wouldn't know but others might claim they do!) depend on the interpretor's own version of either a) what they've been taught it "really means" or b)some subconscious influence as to what it should mean that they have injected - not necessarily the original intention. This is possibly the case in translations of hieroglyphic texts as much as (in this instance) biblical texts, which is why I tend to not entirely trust what I'm told is the official accepted version of meanings of texts (Gnostic, Egyptian, Biblical or otherwise you must understand!)
We have to go on trust sometimes; I just can't trust that just because the men who put things like "Revelations" together say they were "God's words" if you like, that we have to believe them, no question. Are they claiming it was dictated word for word, or that they had visions, or that they were simply "guided" by Divine forces when they wrote down those words? And who then influenced the translation into English? This is why I think to some extent we can't emphatically say that any written word is the ultimate in wisdom and understanding the deep lessons we have are all obviously trying to learn.
Milo questioning Jesus in the flesh is something I would love to witness
:-) Front row tickets would change hands for squillions of pounds/euros/shekels or whatever!!