There is No Literal Meaning

The opposition between literal and metaphorical is as useless as it is damaging to understanding how reality actually unfolds in the Christian cosmology. I look at problems of the very concept in a neutral description of reality a
nd how the notion of Symbol can give us a better alternative to meaning.
My links:
Support this channel: thesymbolicwor...
Patreon: / pageauvideos
Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
Paypal: www.paypal.me/J...
Website: www.thesymbolic...
Facebook: / thesymbolicworld
Twitter: / pageaujonathan
Bitchute: www.bitchute.c...
Dtube: steemit.com/@s...
The unofficial facebook discussion group:
/ 1989208418065298
The outro to my videos was written by Matthew Wilkinson
My website designers, Anomalist Design: www.anomalistd...
The music at the opening is Russian Eastern Overture, by Rimsky Korsakov.

[@cabal4171]

Never thought I'd hear Jonathan say: "His ass got whooped!"

[@andrewkelly2028]

I was thinking the same thing.

[@Kolajer]

That's not the raciest thing he ever said, especially if you count his interview on other channels

[@lisaonthemargins]

@c Omg lmao

[@vivianieantegelo9277]

Neither. Shitting.

[@actually_a_circle]

Before watching I was sure this would be about some donkey in a bible story, but I was wrong, literally I guess

[@DoubtX]

I think the point about there being no literal an no metaphor is really great. I've thought to myself when describing things symbolically that I'm both describing things literally and metaphorically. But now I see that to talk about anything is both literal and metaphorical, and the two modes of communication are actually on a spectrum, where nothing is all of one and none of the other. There's really no hard separation. People just generally have a cutoff where things become too abstract and they start to call things metaphors, even if those things are perfectly clear and coherent.

[@christophersurnname9967]

Wow golden comment, perfectly articulates how I’ve felt for a long time now, especially in relation to the Bible.

[@jimfoard5671]

Piddle.

[@heavens00]

Somethings are just literal tho. Like my kitchen floor being literally just tiles, mortar, and grout. But there's probably a metaphor in there somewhere......🤔

[@Babeman12]

I feel like I'm slowly beginning to grasp this symbolic view of reality, but it's difficult because I've been so torn away from it through modern "literal" thinking. Why does it seem like NO ONE is teaching this though?

[@icarovdl]

Because modern age just cares about rap music and naked woman. After the French Revolution and the Enlightment the west merged in this age of materialism and relativity, which is completly dumb and just a bunch of ideologies. Theres no search for a high knowledge, only dumb political ideologies

[@sonicman52]

@@icarovdl To be honest, I’ve had alotta fun listening to rap music and hanging with naked girls 😂 don’t knock it till you try it 😉

[@icarovdl]

@@sonicman52 there's nothing cool about that, it is mortal sin, fornication, sodomy, adultery...and rap music is drugs and black dudes

[@Verulam1626]

@@icarovdl Pageau has reccomended a book by Renee Guenon: Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times. Great read. There is a chapter called the Hatred of Secrecy which is basically explaining what you are saying. Also look into Leo Strauss and his rediscovery of esoteric writing. It recovers an old way to read (hermeneutics) that is abandoned with the advent of mass democracy or the rational society promulgated by the enlightenment. Also look into Clement of Alexandria's Stromata about writing and secrecy. The old sense of literal actually meant what was intended to mean by the author, which doesn't necessarily have to mean one, singular meaning. Intention and meaning can be layered. The intention of meaning is the intention of the "letter. It is obedience and adherence to its details. Understanding this clears up a lot of confusion and false dualities in how to read. All very interesting stuff.

[@Verulam1626]

@@sonicman52 Yes. The flesh was meant to be enjoyed, but make sure it is salutary and not toxic. all in moderation

[@TheModernHermeticist]

In the middle ages, both Jews and Christians used the four levels of interpretation: 1) the literal (better thought of as the 'historical'), 2) the analogical/metaphorical, 3) the moral, and 4) the anagogical/mystical. I think this system still has merit, which is why it endured for so long among so many people, even across religious boundaries.

[@TheModernHermeticist]

...but your point stands, context is everything, and there is no such thing as purely descriptive writing (except maybe in instructions?), every text has a methodological approach.

[@jerikayemagdalena]

Anyone who studies linguistics knows this: all language is figurative. I've always thought that was hugely important for biblical exegesis. A lot of my work back in cog sci / neuroscience days on SYMBOLISM is echoed in your lectures, albeit from a different angle. I appreciate your work

[@papercut7141]

@The Theosist you understand that language and concepts can be wrong, right?

[@foolfether]

@The Theosist I think you're not seeing the difference between 'language as a figurative cognitive process' (if I understood jerikaye correctly) and 'figurative language'.

[@jabrown]

@The Theosist Can I follow your work anywhere?

[@jimfoard5671]

Phooh Phawh

[@KrustyKrabbz2]

Thomas said to him, “Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?” 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way..."

[@mmccrownus2406]

I AM is the way

[@JiveTurkey1618]

It’s funny that “Literal” means actual but is also the root of “literature.” Which is always metaphor. Any time you use words you’re being literal about metaphors. 😂

[@oambitiousone7100]

💣🔥

[@pontification7891]

YESSSSSSS THANK YOU

[@CuB_sTaR]

Literally

[@jamesahern9864]

Literally doesn't traditionally mean actually, but it has in current usage

[@XxMadermanxX]

And that is called "idolatry" (reductionism of supreme quality).

[@lisaonthemargins]

The important question is: Is he sitting or standing? Who knows

[@UtarEmpire]

or if he has pants on

[@oambitiousone7100]

@@UtarEmpire 😅 Pants or no pants. That is the question.

[@maxsiehier]

Or... Does the man have legs at all?

[@cabal4171]

It is irrelevant to the meaning of the video P.S. I think he's floating

[@diarmaidobaoill4141]

@@cabal4171 Ha! Nailed it.

[@Querymonger]

This is going to be one of your most misunderstood videos lol. For people not used to ancient/symbolic thinking this just sounds like post-modern "it's all relative; reality is subjective" poison. For those thinking that, this is actually pretty much the opposite of postmodernism. Mr. Pageau is not attacking the idea of objective or absolute truth, just the modern materialistic concept of those things.

[@christophersurnname9967]

Yes! It is so not the post-modern line of thought at all, but could be so easily misconstrued as such.

[@ladyowl9187]

Yeah, I have no fucking idea what his going on about in most of his vids??? Its all a huge headfuck for me....

[@jimfoard5671]

I guess most of us aren't as astute as you apparently are. Pity us, ignorant souls all.

[@uchechukwuibeji5532]

I'm starting to open my eyes to it. From what I understand he's not attacking objective truth at all. I think he's talking about the patterns in which the objective and subjective work in the 1st place. There's a way that we observe reality, and that particular way is structured in a certain order/placement so that it gives us meaning. Everything gravitate towards meaning. Symbolism is when the "literal" and "metaphorical" marry one another. Which literally(lol) happens all the time. That's what I've understood from it anyway. I'm a bit new to symbolism.

[@ryanjordan6295]

Above poster is on the right track I think... the moment you perceive reality, it has already begun to bridge into the symbolic, because of the way your consciousness works, selecting out details to work into a narrative frame. You have no access to objective reality as such, without a frame. The stories we encounter in scripture just have more condensed language, more selective filters applied, making them more transmissible and meaningful long term. That doesn't make these stories less real.

[@oambitiousone7100]

This is the comment section par excellence of all my subscriptions.

[@stefangernert3499]

You are LITERALLY saving my life with what you do. I've came a log way since I discovered you in 2017. Thank you and God bless you

[@davidvanvranken1595]

I metaphorically can’t even right now with nothing being literal

[@sennewam]

I can't even, it's odd

[@scorpiss9]

literal isn't a noun unless you're talking of litter cuz littering is very literal

[@scorpiss9]

@@Martin-cp5bb that's right. no-thing isn't a thing which means literal isn't a thing. Phew... It's a lot more pleasant when things aren't literal or else I'd be a headless king.

[@scorpiss9]

@@Martin-cp5bb do You mean it "Literally"?

[@itsokaytobeclownpilled5937]

I literally enjoy the hand gestures and facial expressions every time you say “I’ve said a million times” I enjoy your videos. They are thought provoking.

[@hrkellem2848]

"There's no such thing as literal" is right up there with "Of course Santa Claus exists." Love it!

[@AvB2106]

Thank you so much for this video. This topic is so helpful for people who come from modern traditions of christianity. A point one has to stress here is also that there is a tremendous amount of arrogance in expecting the bible to be written for a person like yourself, with your particular way of thinking and your understanding. As if its only about you. The lack of willingness of certain groups of christians to try to understand the worldview of previous generations and dive into exegesis the way it was done centuries ago is indeed a true tragedy.

[@itsokaytobeclownpilled5937]

Thank you.

[@Tyler_W]

I don't necessarily think it's arrogance, at least not all the time. I think it stems from helplessness and fear of confusion. They would suggest that it must have a simple, straightforward, readily transparent meaning because otherwise, how would most people be able to even understand what they're reading without a highly academic understanding of ancient Middle Eastern culture, symbolism and literature (something most people either don't or can't do). It's like if we were told that there's a life-saving cure to your terminal cancer inside a box and being unable to read it because the directions to open the box are in an abstract, ancient language that you don't understand. The fear is how will the average, common person anywhere around the world regardless of their own cultural context, intelligence or education level be able to understand biblical truth and way to eternal life on even a basic level if there isn't a meaning is readily apparent and simple enough to understand? While I fully acknowledge that biblical truth goes beyond purely the descriptive into the symbolic, there is a serious problem of making it overly intellectual. It limits the understanding of truth so that it can only truly be communicated to the common folk by enlightened philosopher-kings, and that sort of gatekeeping to God-given truth seems kind of antithetical to the idea that the gospel is supposed to be for everyone, even children, to know and understand.

[@rexoffsender1322]

The pursuit of meaning is a feature that is built into us. We are born to seek meaning, being the development of speech the earliest manifestation of this. Religions serve as frameworks to guide this instinct because we inevitably will confront events in which the meaning eludes us, and thus provide a framework which expands the meaning of reality and our place in the world. This is why atheist usually claim there is no meaning in life (even though most of them don't actually believe this). When we understand that religions serve as frameworks for reality, we can clearly see why Judaism, and then Christianity, have survived and replaced the ancient Paganism. Pagans had the problem that the framework was constantly shifting, with deities popping up all over the place, whereas Judaism, and by extension Christianity, centered the framework in God. A solid framework (solid as the rock Jacob placed where he dreamed with the gates of Heaven).

[@neonpop80]

Pagan religions had many deities that mapped to concepts, a big one is cosmological cyclical concepts. There was no problem with having many deities representing different aspects and no one faught over them until the Roman Cath church borrowed the Jewish one highest idol/ideal to represent Rome so it can centralize its power and rule over as many people as possible stripping them from the meaning inherent in a worldview that is tied to nature. This would be the militarization of religion as the Romans carried the XP flag, the Christus banner in which they would fight under, no different than a centralized concept of a higher ideal to fight for like contemporary Isis.

[@SpartaIndigo]

@@neonpop80 Good for you. Great defense of paganism and the archetypal physics we live under. True definition of archetype is; an archetype changes ones nature and causes a compulsiveness when activated. I go deeper on my youtube channel on how the Greeks and modern Western science understood archetypes.

[@neonpop80]

@rex And also, Jacob placed the stone from which to anchor and build on to look up and see the great pillar that leads man to god. It is there, the place you call Heaven, at the home of Orion;the gate of heaven. For literally that constellation has the biggest hole. And if it weren’t for our “pagan” myths we wouldnt know anything about this. That there is a gaping hole in the Orion constellation unseen anywhere else in the cosmos. The opening gate of heaven. Where you and I once dwelt in the promised place in the highest conscious state closest to unity.

[@ChibiBoxing]

Thanks to you and Peterson I was able to look at the scriptures in a more metaphorical way, when I was small and I made pilgrimage to churches far away from my city this wasnt taught to me, and I understand why, it might sound arrogant but the approach is far more intelectual, and that tends to throw people off, you need really really put your head into it and make an actual effort into understanding this, it took me 24 years. This is why at this age Im approaching little by little to the orthodox church, amazed and touched by their traditions and the focus on self, there arent a lot of orthodox churches sadly, but I'll be in contact with one in the future, thank you so much for your videos and for your words. Much love from Argentina.

[@Bicicletasaladas]

Si usted es ortodoxo de nacimiento, lo felicito por su regreso a la fe apostólica. Pero si es católico le pido que no abandone la Iglesia de su bautismo. Nada de lo que enseña Jonathan es estrictamente ortodoxo. Este razonamiento simbólico ya era común a ambas iglesias en el comienzo.

[@ChibiBoxing]

@@Bicicletasaladas Es muy acojedor ver a alguien hablando mi lengua nativa acá. Entiendo lo que me quiere decir, pero con todo respeto voy a disentir, jamás he visto la simbología que he visto a través de la fé ortodoxa, pero voy a seguir su consejo a menos en parte, voy a nutrirme de lo simbólico en la fé católica, le deseo lo mejor!

[@Bicicletasaladas]

@@ChibiBoxing cuando hable con ortodoxos, acuérdese de mí y cuénteme si sus sacerdotes tienen el entendimiento profundo que enseña Jonathan. Mi opinión es que no. Que ambas iglesias hemos sufrido una gran amnesia y ya no entendemos las cosas así. Pero por gracia del Espíritu Santo paráclito sí las seguimos viviendo así. Creo que el problema es que el símbolo, como la verdadera fe, se vive antes de pensarse. El símbolo nos comprende (a veces hacemos actos o decimos cosas que son simbólicas) y lo ejecutamos con nuestros actos, inclusive con el acto de pensar. Recuerde bien sus peregrinaciones de infancia. La vida cristiana no es en esencia llegar a una comprensión cabal de las sutilezas de lo simbólico y lo literal o el significado de un texto. Y sin embargo la vida cristiana si tiene un símbolo fiel en la peregrinación de un niño a un templo lejano. Ud. estaba viviendo un simbolismo profundo de la esencia de toda su vida como cristiano. Todo eso cifrado en la santa y piadosa costumbre de peregrinar que tenemos los católicos

[@ChibiBoxing]

@@Bicicletasaladas No veo con desdén mis peregrinaciones, sin duda fueron cuando menos momentos significantes. Puede que tenga razón en lo que dice; quizás Jonathan es una gran excepción, quizás el mejor camino es el propio que uno haga guiado por esos conceptos, tanto cristianos como ortodoxos, como dice usted, el símbolo nos comprende a todos y lo hacemos físico con nuestras acciones, mi vida desde hace unos meses sigue estos parámetros, aunque es difícil, jamás viví tan plenamente. Gracias por sus palabras amigo, son de gran ayuda a alguien que está "buscando".

[@lindenbrook1320]

Jonathan Pageau, what a blessing you are to the world! As a new Orthodox convert from Protestantism, this discussion has really helped me to connect the dots.

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@sastracaksusa2728]

I'm Hindu, but I find these videos very helpful for understanding our scriptures, too.

[@AlexLGagnon]

That's because Jonathan speaks in tongues. 😂😄

[@LukeShepherd-x9q]

Interesting

[@kennyblobbin]

Seems very easy for you. Go easy on us JP. We are trying. Thankyou for all your help!!!

[@sophrapsune]

This understanding of representation is so very critical. It goes to the heart of the modern world and the assumptions of thought and language that have ultimately broken our society. We need to recover a more sophisticated use of language and narrative to be rescued from our cultural and moral collapse.

[@jaysonbirmingham1889]

I love the new video format. The background allows you to use pictures that really aid in understanding.

[@apowave]

This is Pageau at his finest. 👏🏼👏🏼

[@spearofsolomon]

Also funny about metaphor: for Protestants, when God finally came to earth in human form and spoke in man's words directly to men, saying, "This is my body," oh well that's just a metaphor. But the book of Genesis, somehow transcribed by Moses (?) as God spoke in his ear: that must be a literal description of what happened.

[@johnrockwell5834]

@Nathan Spears It is symbolic as the context shows. But the Book of Genesis. Yeah I agree with you with a lot but there is literal history.

[@williampotter7572]

Substance is what is most real, symbols only describe accidents.

[@RoyalProtectorate]

There is a historical aspect to the bible in the sense that everything in it did happen

[@nicoladibara1936]

The creation story from the book of Genesis MUST be understood LITERALLY. Why? Because God says so in Exodus 20:11. And God cannot lie.

[@spearofsolomon]

@@nicoladibara1936 Genesis 1:7 says "So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it." Did God lie about that?

[@Brad-RB]

Is a dictionary literal? A word is defined by other words and the definitions of those words eventually circle back to the first word. It's a giant book of comparisons. We compare things we don't understand to the things that we do understand.

[@jungatheart6359]

"Every original language near to its source is in itself the chaos of a cyclic poem: the copiousness of lexicography and the distinctions of grammar are the works of a later age, and are merely the catalogue and the forms of the creations of poetry." -Percy Bysshe Shelley 'A Defence Of Poetry' (1820) This "cyclic poem" is essentially the linguistic aspect of Logos, and dictionary definitions in Shelley's formulation are more metaphorical than literal. Literal truth is, ironically, perhaps the most academic and least 'real' thing of all.

[@DavidianCrest]

Brad Bilski Fine point.

[@neonpop80]

Such is consciousness, building a map or a conception/ideal/idea/idol of an object giving it dimension as a subject. Building on layers and layers of map and before you know it we are convinced we're in a simulation because the world is so layered now that it is in fact a simulated map of some base reality that now has receded into memory.

[@Brad-RB]

​@@neonpop80 Exactly. Civilization is itself a virtual reality.

[@Brad-RB]

@@jungatheart6359 Your comment really has me thinking. It would seem that early written language would have copied the oral tradition which probably used poetry or songs to help remember the stories. Prior to that humans would have used body language and dramatic interpretations to convey ideas. So literature is just an advanced form of the game of charades.

[@TheScriptureTruth]

Jonathan is completely wrong here. There is meaning behind the events and stories in scripture, there are deeper truths and deeper understandings to be found if you only choose to see them. Also, there truly is such a thing as literal meaning in scripture, as there are spiritual and prophetic meanings as well. In fact, a true Bible study reveals that many (most) passages in the scriptures have three valid interpretations: The Literal (the story taken at face value), The Spiritual (The deeper meaning teaching God's Will and God's Way), and the Prophetic (That which is to come). Jonathan used the story of Adam and Eve as an example. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden is A LOT more than just a simple story of eating an apple and making God mad. In fact, the entire redemption story of Jesus Christ is beautifully told in the story of Adam and Eve and it has all three valid interpretations (literal, spiritual, and prophetic). It is one of the most amazing passages in all of scripture when understood deeper than the simplistic way Jonathan seems to want. The Word of God is not a John Grisham novel, you don't just read it and "enjoy the simple stories" as nothing more than that. The Word of God is exactly that. It is God's Word given directly to us in a supernatural and powerful way, and the fact that stories in the scripture have many different meanings, some literal and most more than literal, is proof of the supernatural nature of its creation.

[@lzzrdgrrl7379]

Does Jordan gets closer to what you have in mind, using Adam end Eve as example?....... kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5fMZn6hjc6aadU Also Jonathan is looking at how the human mind works and how that mind (should) approach scripture, the supernatural and the limitations of our consciousness.......

[@thomervin7450]

I love when people say, "if you only choose to see," as if heathen atheists like me are all of a sudden able to forget their beliefs. lol.

[@mythosandlogos]

From the very first chapters of Genesis, it’s explicitly clear that the Bible isn’t a literal, scientific, or historical textbook. I just finished a video on this last week! Please accept an earnest thank you for all of your influence on my understanding of the world. Our community is so much better for having you in it.

[@mythosandlogos]

@The Theosist Please let me clarify! It can be difficult to get ideas across clearly in a small comment. I don't use the word "myth" on this channel in the sense of "something untrue" but in the sense Webster describes in definition 1 here www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth That being a traditional story or parable. Also, of course there are historical intention and narratives in the Old Testament! What I meant to communicate was the difference in a textbook, which is about facts, dates, statistics and such, and scripture, which uses history as a tool in a story about salvation. Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify my words! Wishing you the best.

[@fullarmorofgod8270]

#Mythos & Logos .... 🤔God says what he did... how he created the earth , sun, moon, man, woman, animals, the stars.... everything... God tells us exactly what he did in non metaphorical language (now of course the bible has depths such as Genesis 1:16 "and God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also) not only is God telling you about how he created and intended the lights, the sun & moon which he made clear he LITERALLY created the sun moon and stars but u can go deeper and see that the greater light ruled the day being analogous to God and Jesus being greater then the lesser light the devil.... but if anyone cannot see that the bible is literal then the truth is not in you not only that but you are LITERALLY blaspheming God Almighty by calling him a liar... creation itself testifies to the Creator... to put your faith in your own understanding rather then God? You cannot even understand the literal word let alone the deeper mysteries of Gods word bc God is not in you... repent before its too late

[@eugeneylliez829]

A very nice video, thank you! It is rare to find such well done content on symbolism on the internet. I have studied the question of interpretation on several occasions at the University of Freiberg, both in theology courses and in the Yeshivot in which I was able to participate. I can therefore say that I have a solid initiation into hermeneutical problems from both the Christian and Jewish sides, both theological and philosophical, so I find your discourse really fundamental and I thank you for spreading it! My idea is the same as yours : there is no dualism. (N.B.: I replace italics with capitals in order to be able to vary the graphics of the text.) On the one hand, it is true that one must absolutely pass through the symbolic sense in order to understand the Bible, but in order to do this one must "enter" into the symbolic mentality, otherwise reading the Bible with a nominalistic understanding of symbolism will, in the long run, only be detrimental. In fact, if symbols are only representations ("allegories" would say Goethe, who dealt with the modern classification of symbols), then it matters little that they represent the divine: a gulf remains between the symbolised and the symbol, which no longer unites anything. Instead, 'symbol' means union. For this we need a logic, a semantics, a metaphysics and an anthropology of the symbol that are not nominalist but profoundly realist, as in Dionysius the Areopagite. On the other hand, one may wonder what a literalist reading means. In reality, those who believe they are reading a text 'literally' are only projecting onto the text their own narrow idea of what it means. Those who read literally are already interpreting... badly. Instead, Christians must learn to read as it is done in the Jewish Yeshivot. One must pay attention FIRST to the literal sense, because contrary to what many Western symbolists think, the elaborate (symbolic) sense never leaves its literal sense. One must question the literalness of the text: ask oneself why an event, of which the text is only a trace, has left that trace in writing and in that precise form, with its inconsistencies, and not another. Then one will discover that reading the text literally IS the way to understand it spiritually (symbolically, etc.) as well. Easy separations between literalism and symbolism are a thing of the past. As the jew proverb goes: < Even the researched sense of a verse never leaves its simple sense >.

[@PhilLeith]

This really helps me understand the things Jonathan talks about and how he talks about them.

[@jasonroberts2249]

Spot on analysis. Nothing is ever literal or ‘ordinary’; everything everywhere is simultaneously physical (profane), mental (psychic, subtle or symbolic) and spiritual (transcendent). Words themselves are symbols-“fingers pointing at the moon.’ You are getting right at the core of reality with this stuff. Jonathan do a video on René Guénon, I’m begging you. You are right in the same lane as him. Father Seraphim Rose said “It was René Guénon who taught me to seek and love the Truth above all else.”

[@tasfa10]

How do you go from "there is no such thing as an absolutely complete description of an event" to "there's no such thing as a literal event"?? Those are very different! You do know what people mean when they ask if you think Christ literally walked on water - it's the immediate, most obvious, interpretation of the sentence. When I say I drank coffee this morning, altho you don't know each detail, such as the color of the cup, the temperature and amount of coffee and how many sips I took (because the description can't be 100% complete), you do know exactly what I mean by the small information I'm giving you and you know it's a description of a literal event! You could check the security camera and confirm it or disconfirm it. It's not up to interpretation and altho details are missing, the central idea is to be taken as the immediate sense of the sentence "I drank coffee this morning". If you're in court being accused of stabbing your neighbor, there is no confusion behind what it means that you did or didn't. It doesn't have any obscure meaning, it's to be taken literally and either you did do it or didn't. No juggling words around. This has nothing to do with such a thing as a "scientific view of the world"! It is just the most basic common sense and the only reason why we can understand each other at all when we talk - we agree on what sentences mean! Otherwise we couldn't talk, there would be no difference between History and fiction, poetry and technical texts, and you couldn't follow an instructions manual! Instructions manuals are to be read considering the immediate sense of the words. When people ask "Did Christ literally walk on water?" they mean, and you know it, "did he move by placing one foot in front of the other, in liquid water, while not sinking, contrary to what everyone else's able to do, in the immediate sense of the words, in the same sense that I literally drank coffee this morning and in the same sense people are asked if they stabbed their neighbors in court?". The answer is either "yes" or "no". "There are no neutral events behind the descriptions of the events" is avoiding the question because you're upset the other person is thinking of the story in those terms. Yes or no. You can then add that you believe the stories are not very useful if read considering the immediate sense of the words (literally) but you can't honestly pretend you don't know what you're being asked or that there's no answer for the question. You can say "I beat the crap out of that guy!". That's valid! But if I ask "did you literally beat crap out of him?", the answer is "Obviously no!". You can say "I broke a girl's heart". But if I ask "did you literally break it?", the answer is "Obviously no!". You can say "Christ walked on water". But if I ask "did he literally walk on water", the answer is NOT "You can't access neutral events behind the description of events!" Just because you think of the stories as useful descriptions of reality, like figures of speech and poetry are, you shouldn't refuse to say their meaning is not the immediate sense of the text. Everything else sounds like acrobatics to avoid saying "no, they didn't really happen" (IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYONE AGREES FOR THE WORD "HAPPEN")

[@jawz2005]

Reading through the comments I was quite worried by the responses; seeing yours was a relief. I wonder if he has children? If they see this video he will be in danger.

[@hrkellem2848]

Sorry, didn't read the whole comment, just wanted to say: no one is going to care if you drank a cup of coffee this morning in 2000 years. Security camera or not ;) Terrible example.

[@tasfa10]

@@hrkellem2848 well, I don't know what that has to do with anything, but to engage with you, apparently people do still care if those guys drank wine during that supper 2000 years ago

[@cameahgill8464]

you’re missing the point completely.

[@nodakrome]

So did Elijah appear before the Messiah came?

[@justice3043]

Phenomenal content brother. Truly outstanding!

[@raymonddunne7153]

For someone who dabbled in a lot of stuff prior to becoming a catechumen in the Orthodox church this is helpful. It occurs to me that both literalism and purely poetic camps are lacking. Im getting help from my lectionary practice. One thing about this practice its dynamic. Every day another verse. So that day I ponder meaning and the next day gotta let it go to ponder another. Hopefully some seeds from the previous day will be planted in my heart that will bloom later. Then on Sunday hearing my priest comment on something I have been pondering just enhances the whole process.

[@josepharnett7256]

WOW ... thank you Jonathan. This is so meaningful to me I can't help but to feel it was sent to me today. Thank you.

[@johnnyd2383]

This is an exaggeration on the side of this Orthodox brother. Two ancient schools of theology: Alexandria and Antioch were originally understood to be using two different exegetic approaches to the Bible interpretation - Alexandria was predominantly symbolic, while Antioch was predominantly literal. Recent analysis revealed that they were much closer in exegetical method than was previously imagined. Both schools stressed the importance of literal interpretation, both allowed that literal interpretation did not exhaust the meaning of the biblical texts. Alexandrians adopted the allegorical (symbolic) techniques of the philosophical schools, whereas the Antiochene reaction was the protest of rhetoric against such a way of handling texts. Both schools were in some respect correct, as Bible is indeed to be interpreted in both ways - symbolic and literal.

[@Schixotica]

This a really powerful and concise video to use against the purely materialistic view of religion, thanks 🙏🏻

[@johnmainwaring6556]

This was pretty helpful, but in answer to your question at 17:00, why it's not as weird is because IT IS metaphorical. In the physical world we inhabit to literally, e.g. "cut off your hand because it offends you" would be wrong/weird and illegal/impractical. So surely Christ used metaphor to communicate spiritual realities using physical imagery. In other words we use 'token' gesture sometimes in this world. Perhaps in an alternative world we might do some of the things we say metaphorically here in a more literal way. I personally do not hold to transubstantiation as you appear to, but you might clarify here whether, during communion, you still are eating bread, but by definition and interaction with the logos in that moment by faith you do - in a true sense - eat of His body because He willed it so. I believe the bread and wine are symbolic, invoking a spiritual reality to be experienced by faith, as with baptism.

[@Okayand33]

2 videos in 2 weeks and my mind has been blown twice. Thank you Johnathan for the uploads! Im trying really hard to understand this topic: So stories/narratives/descriptions can not be literal because it would lead to including all that can be included(the indefinite). The literal perception requires only measurement-like and quantifiable thinking that will not allow for its viewers to narrow in on the purpose which it was seeking. When asked "how was your day?" You do not sit down for hours and go over every single minute. You cant remember every minute of your day. Literal interpretation begs the impossible. Literal interpretation is impossible The metaphorical perception tells viewers that any narrative that sounds absurd, irrational, distasteful, or doesnt clearly outline a set guideline or plan to achieve something,.. simply outright has no meaning or purpose. "It is just there for decoration. Thats all" "Its just for fun." Is it?

[@DryRaven]

Jonathan, I have had a problem with your videos recently that distracts me from your content which I greatly enjoy, and makes me personally worried about you as well. When you speak about those who see the world from the dominant cultural perspective, I sense some frustration and anger and impatience, and even some condescension and some laughing/joy/pleasure at their humiliation. It seems to me that people are lost and trying their best to find some anchor from the suffering, and have all sorts of burdens in their lives that prevent them from investing the kind of time you've had to develop a meaningfully different perspective. The position that appears obvious from your eyes was probably once not obvious to you, and certainly is not obvious to those people. I wonder if it might be useful to see if you can find a way to look at folks like the protestants, in such a manner that they don't involuntarily inspire your contempt. Your videos have greatly enriched my life, I just wanted to point you in the direction of what looks like a blind spot from my perspective.

[@JonathanPageau]

Yes, you have a point. I have an arrogant streak that I need to work to trample down, so thanks for the reminder.

[@kristgalitsina]

Thank you for this comment! It best captures what I try to avoid in my speech and it made me even more aware of the reason for why I shouldn't engage in such patterns of thought.

[@SpartaIndigo]

Do you literally mean there is no such thing as literal?

[@ENTERTAINMENT-tc3uq]

😂😂😂 I think you know the answer to that. Literal is literally not literal.

[@heavens00]

@@ENTERTAINMENT-tc3uqSometimes a thing is simply just literal. My window pane is literally glass, for instance. I wonder what the manufacturer was trying to say with that.....🤔

[@primitivaroots]

Ok, I think I got your point, and I could grant that in several cases. But let me try to go a little further. What about Jesus's crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection. Are these spiritual realities which find their best description in the story, or did they happen the way they are told? I mean, do you think Jesus was a phisical man, with a phisical body, being phisically crucified in a phisical wooden cross? Was His phisical body put in a phisical tomb, for a real span of time around 3 days, and was His phisical body phisically resurrected after that time? For me as a christian it seems important to hold that these are phisical descriptions of reality and not just simbolic descriptions. Agreed at least on this? Can your method of interpretation maintain all these facts as phisical descriptions of reality, though always revealed in a frame of meaning that is spiritual?

[@MrTimberwolfsden]

I think his response would be similar to the conclusion I have reached on these manners, I think. Whether they physically occured in that description isn't as relevant as the reasons why they are described and communicated and what the story represents. Some hold it as significant because that is a clear indication of divinity and reinforces faith. For me, imagining that it was purely symbolic of death, sacrifice of son and father, forgiveness, transcendence, would that make the truth of the Bible or the words of Chirst less true? Would the message or meaning change?

[@MrBenbenbenbenny]

Hi Luccas. Just a random Christian who's working through similar thoughts. I think there's a variation among the different types of stories. The Genesis stories, from my understanding, were stories that took common myths of the time and changed them to provide a more accurate description of who the Israelites saw their God as. Genesis 1 shows God is greater than the lesser things other people groups worshipped, showed people have value, and God is willing to rest among many other lessons. As you move through Genesis you start to see the stories transition more and more to historical accounts, still with selective details provided to highlight the meaning of the story. In my opinion, Christ lived recently enough where his life, death, and resurrection is afforded credibility by eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses gave their lives for what they experienced with Jesus. There is of course details omitted in any story like Jonathan explains well, and they may have incorporated symbolism into their personal accounts of Christ's life but I don't have any issue believing the resurrection occured and that the authors of the gospels did not add this untrue detail to help propogate the message. Just my thoughts.

[@MrBenbenbenbenny]

@@MrTimberwolfsden see I think the meaning there would change because while the gospels incorporate symbolism, I also think they are recounting events of Jesus' life. I don't know how we can jump to Acts and understand the story without the resurrection occuring if that makes sense. Thoughts?

[@JH-ji6cj]

C'mon now, can we at least let this person know there is a *y* in physical, not two *i* (s)

[@PenMom9]

I think JP is saying at least the reality is not an ‘either/or’. Whether he thinks is a ‘neither/nor’ I could not say. I personally think his descriptions here and elsewhere show a ‘both/and’ philosophy, which is where I generally land as well.

[@erfeyah1401]

Hello Jonathan and thank you for another interesting video. I understand what you mean but I am not convinced at all about the church acting as a genuine spiritual body. I am from Greece so when I see these photos of the priests of the streets I also know first hand what many of these people are doing and thinking cause I have experienced it. One thing I can say is that the priests are full of greed for power and wealth while the believers dwell in superstition, fanaticism and magical thinking. Where is the work towards inner development? I know it is in the scriptures, the saints and some scholars but if it is to be found in the church today I can not see it. It would be interesting to talk about how the church today can assist in genuine inner development and how to find the wise among the hypocrites.

[@JonathanPageau]

Yes, I understand the problem you are suggesting. In this case, I think the best is become that which we want the church to be, rather than look and complain about all those that are falling short. Once you start on that path, you will find, like a magnet, that you will attract around you people, priests, monks, hierarchs who are attempting the same.

[@ChibiBoxing]

@@JonathanPageau "I think the best is become that which we want the church to be" the more people do this, the bigger the message it is, I hope the churches that we commune to change their ways.

[@nicholasdonin1465]

God knows who is and isn't the body of the church. The last sermon at my church, the physical building, described the function of the church, the body of Christian peoples as a whole, to the actual human body. A hand doesn't understand the function of an ear, a foot the function of the nose etc. But the foot cannot say that it has no need of the hand and vice versa. But when you look at these priests, yes you can judge their actions as being against logos, but when it comes to their spirit, only God can judge if they're his. And when referring to the body, just rest assured God knows who's with salvation and who isn't. All you can do put your home within logos and disassociate from those who would detract you from that.

[@michalolos1715]

Dear friend, i pretty much understand your point of view as this was the way I was looking at things pretty much still very lately. Coming from Roman-Catholic background then switching to Protestantism I also was missing this inner development - it just was not to be found and experienced there and I felt like all the ceremonies going on around were just empty for me. The more i try to study the Orthodox Christianity the more I come closer to understanding that the Orthodox Church its theology and practices is full of inner spiritual development. The Father's teaching on passions, virtues, prayer, liturgy, man as a creation, God, etc. - it is just loaded w/ inner spiritual development within the community of Church. I honestly do not know whether the inner spiritual development is still taught in most of the Orthodox churches in Greece, but there are churches where all the traditions are still adhered and the inner spiritual development is available and taught - for example churches at the Mount Athos are the places where you could find what you are looking for. The tradition of Hesychasm as elaborated in the book of Philokalia is loaded w/ this. As Jonathan says: ''Once you start on that path, you will find, like a magnet, that you will attract around you people, priests, monks, hierarchs who are attempting this true inner spiritual development within Orthodox Church.

[@itsokaytobeclownpilled5937]

urnotfunny atall Why would any Christians be interested in the Talmud?

[@tgenov]

Much of what is being said here intersects neatly with the work of pragmatist philosophers in the wake of Richard Rorty. Some relevant quotes: There are no privileged descriptions. No description; or interpretation comes closer to reality than any other. Some descriptions are more useful for some purposes than others. No description is true in a vacuum.

[@franciscafazzo3460]

I hope I heard you correctly because it helps me to classify you with the rest. You said there's no such thing as the literal ridiculous statement

[@aryanz66]

Thank you, I love Christ and may he help us

[@MissingTheMark]

Something curious is I've found that the literal/metaphorical distinction is very useful when dealing with very young children. E.g. I ran into problems when explaining to my 3 year old child that he had to let me clean him after he used the potty so that the poop monster wouldn't eat his bumm (i.e. so he wouldn't get a painful rash). Then I discovered he was imagining something with teeth and fangs that would rip large chunks of him out, like a dog or a tiger. Employing the literal/metaphor distinction was the quickest way I could get him to understand what parts of the description were significant and which were not, especially going forward for later things where he imaged the wrong thing. All of this was a way of navigating that he didn't have the attention span to understand the ways in which bacteria in the wrong place for too long can cause painful sores, and other such things where he simply didn't have the capacity for detail. But he also had a hard time knowing which parts of a simplified description were the most relevant ones, too; eventually saying to him, "this is a metaphor, not literally" came to mean "don't assume you know what I mean, ask which are the most important parts", except in a way that worked.

[@LagMasterSam]

This is why I can't wrap my head around the idea that people didn't make a literal/metaphorical distinction in the past. I remember being barely 4 years old and not having a clue about anything that was slightly metaphorical. I remember it bugging the hell out of me that people would say things that didn't make sense to me. So... how can anyone grow up and not gain the ability to distinguish literal and metaphorical statements?

[@MissingTheMark]

@@LagMasterSam it's not that they don't have the ability. It's that when you grow up more, you realize that about many important things the distinction is irrelevant. Eg kids have to be older to learn that "a few" is not 3, but rather an indeterminate number that depends on context, or that one cannot measure "a moment". In like manner, there are all sorts of things where the details are completely irrelevant.

[@Verulam1626]

I think you kind of missed the point. You are alluding to the fact that there are multiple interpretations for different interpreters. Johnathan is not excluding this possibility and is merely pointing to a spectrum of interpretation that transcends the dichotomy by including them and thensome. He is getting to the more original meaning if the word literal which simply means how something was intended to mean according to the details, it is adherence to the letter. That is why he says "yes" to Genesis. He is more against anachronisms of interepration , and the jaded meanings of metaphor and literal have become too skewed in modern times to be of any use. That is why your example is somewhat irrelevant. In the case of a three year old, they simply don't have the cognitive development to understand what you mean in your own words, that is why you use terms somewhat fathomable to them. If we're to use your own terms to someone who could not fathom them, it would also be somewhat of an anachronism. Your example is ironically inapplicable to what Johnathan is conveying.

[@franciscafazzo3460]

Why could you just teach your son? What instead? You might as well tell him santa claus is gonna wipe his ass

[@MissingTheMark]

@@franciscafazzo3460 I'm sorry that you're stupid.

[@Elpolloloco52]

I get the point, but the distinction between literal and metaphorical is not modern. Certainly our understanding of these terms is distinctly modern, and it is important to understand that. Yet I see a lot of problems with insisting that the distinction itself is meaningless, and, while what I wrote below isn't exactly a thought out argument, it's a sort of sketch of the direction my thoughts go when confronting these sorts of explanations of things. The story cannot be separated from its subject. And all stories have a subject. You may not have unfiltered access to that subject, which is fine. Even the story itself does not have unfiltered access to its subject, and perhaps one can make that its own access is also mediated, ad infinitum. How deep this continuum goes is irrelevant, because, while Zeno-esque paradoxes can be used to "disprove" the possibility of a real connection between the story and the subject, such paradoxes would fall victim to the exact same problems that the original Zeno had. Diogenes famously disproved Zeno by standing up and walking, and Aristotle disproved him by stating that the entire way he framed the question was faulty. The same can be done here. The subject is as important to the story as its purpose. Sometimes the subject is not obvious. Often there are multiple subjects, all taken in different contexts and relations to the story. But when people ask "Is this story literal," they are simply asking a question that everyone understands: did the events in the story happen? Or, what is the relation between the story and its subject? These are not absurd questions. We ask and answer such questions all the time. Take, for example, the question in court case: did John Doe kill his wife? The issue is of course not value free, and nor will the answer be; and no one, not even John Doe, has direct access to the events in question. Memory is, after all, a tricky servant, and it is only via memory, internal and external, that anyone can access the event. But when we say that John Doe did in fact murder his wife, we collapse the infinite series of worlds between us and the event, and do so either justly or unjustly. Similarly, when we ask whether Adam and Eve existed, whether the whole earth flooded, whether Christ died on a Cross, we are asking questions that everyone in history has been able to understand the meaning of. The fact that we expect the answer to such questions to work in line with modern scientific rationalism is not unimportant, but undermining this specific framework for answering does nothing to the question. The question still stands, and both can and must be answered in a way that does not devalue the question. Because devaluing the question itself reeks of sophism to me.

[@Elpolloloco52]

I should clarify that I'm not exactly disagreeing. This is an important topic, and I'm not sure I completely understand the position you are taking. These are just some issues I see with taking this interpretation a certain way.

[@splitdog]

This is great. Thank you. GTG

[@8JFTW]

Thanks for this video Jonathan - your explanation of reality as neither metaphor nor literal/factual but as the confluence of both of these realities has really helped me. I’m new to the faith and my only contact with other members of the church is with materialist Protestants who believe in evil spirits; I suspect they are generally staunch literalists. Literalist/overly “accurate” interpretations have always felt “off” to me, so this has given me both insight and relief. Thank you!

[@bondedoreneguenon3202]

Thanks for the content, I watch your videos to help me speak english, you pronounce your language very well and i can fully understand everything you say.

[@moderbro5608]

I think what people are asking is if the Bibel was video material instead of text would the pictures match with the descriptions , im not arguing the point just trying to understand it better . Can you elaborate?

[@TheRealValus]

"A perfectly true thought, expressed in very sound terms, can satisfy the reason without giving any impression of the Beautiful; but in that case certainly there is something false in the statement. *It is essential that Truth be in Glory.* Splendor of style is not a luxury, but a necessity." ~ Léon Bloy (Pilgrim of the Absolute)

[@justinw947]

Points for picking Lomachenko for your fight pic

[@catw5294]

Your "fight" description example was eye opening for me. Thx

[@_Eamon]

The term 'symbolic truth' is really helpful as an idea totally outside of the literal-metaphor dichotomy. Thank you.

[@markocms]

If you receive communion, the molecules of bread and wine will integrate in your body and blood. So the union is both spiritual and in flesh. No metaphor.

[@charlesclaxton993]

I've really enjoyed William Lane Craig's Defenders Class and the idea of Mytho-Historical for 1st few chapters of Gen. It's the True Myth that Tolkien talked about...... Literally.

[@RabbiSteve]

Well done and said, as are so many of your video talks. Thanks for sharing this.

[@joanebf]

The quality of this camera is better. The content as good as always.

[@Mr.MattSim]

On this subject, I recommend Owen Barfield's "Poetic Diction" (book), and "The Meaning of Literal" (The Rediscovery of Meaning and other essays)

[@robiszabo903]

This is the most important video you have made yet.

[@jasonroberts2249]

What you describe about the combination of heaven and earth, logos and tropos sounds a lot like the Hindu concepts of purusha and prakriti, or yang and yin of Taoism, which comprise the male and female, or purpose and substance. This is why Christ often refers to His church as the bride and Himself as the bridgegroom. Because He represents the masculine essence of Heaven acting upon the passive potentiality of the material substance of Earth.

[@RogerTheil]

Great points

[@AlannaBoudreau]

Great points indeed - echoes Jung's concept of the anima and animus, too.

[@YouTubeComments]

so what youre saying is, the resurrection didnt actually happen??? (jkjkjk, but seriously many people will still come away thinking this)

[@maxsiehier]

What ya mean by "actually"

[@oambitiousone7100]

I'm missing the secret knowledge as this is exactly what I thought. It's the keystone of Christianity, but it won't penetrate my materially-biased mind. I can apply Jonathan's not literal/not metaphor premise to stories like Jonah and the Whale, but the resurrection isn't as easy. The whole faith pivots on accepting that it happened, really and truly. A guy died and came back to life, walked around, talked to his friends, then went away (rose?). Is there a book I can read? Would love to unstick this thistle.

[@sunbro6998]

His brother wrote a book called "The Language of Creation", you can get it on amazon. It is a technical manual on symbolism. I also have a video about it on my channel.

[@peteroleary9447]

@@oambitiousone7100 Christ's disciples, who witnessed His death and _literally_ saw Him afterwards didn't believe. Peter, James, and John - who witnessed the transfiguration of Christ - questioned among themselves what Jesus meant by "risen from the dead". So it's not a question of a guy dying and becoming alive again. These Apostles glimpsed for a moment a reality that transcended their categories, that is seeing someone as He truly is.

[@SAR-re1fx]

@@peteroleary9447 I always took the resurrection as him accomplishing was he was supposed to do. He entered heaven when he died... Thats it. It might be literal resurrection or symbolic.

[@tgrogan6049]

Ever heard of retorsion? "Proposition p is such that anyone who denies it falls into performative inconsistency; ergo, p is true." The phrase "nothing is literal" is a classic example of this fallacy and "literally nonsense."

[@christoffersjogrentrombone3913]

Let us who enjoy The videos by Jonathan be the light for other people. It will take time but that’s our mission in life.

[@jake9674]

Interesting video - I do have a couple questions: 1) In your worldview how would you define lying? 2) How is your theory of truth different that espoused by postmodernists? 3) By what authority does God judge us, if any judgement he would make must necessarily come from within a frame? I realize given your understanding of God this question doesn't quite make sense, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. Put another way - if Christianity wants to say it's "better" or "superior" or "the truth" by what reference point does it make this claim? 4) Similarly, what does Jesus mean when he says "I am the truth"? From whose frame is this claim being made? Is he the truth unto himself, is he truth from my perspective, or is it both, or something else? What if I am not living a Christian life or don't believe in Christ? In what sense then is Christ the truth with respect to my worldview?

[@Theodore_Pugin]

I would've snubbed this 2 years ago, but it makes more sense each time I think about the nature of meaning and truth.

[@christophersurnname9967]

You are doing a good thing with these videos. That literal vs symbolic duality that so many ppl perpetuate is very annoying and limiting to ppls understanding. Often ppl think that interpreting the Bible in any way other then literal means it is taken less seriously, when that is not necessarily the case at all.

[@Theodore_Pugin]

4:10 Pageau describes a dwarf fortress battle report

[@alteracco2715]

According to this, everyone experiences religious symbolism subjectively depending on the events of one's life, it is like a moral map towards everything that is good for us But this gives rise to a question : Is is the right thing to communicate the end product of the subjective meaning acquired from the divine scripture to other people?

[@daisyviluck7932]

I would say “yes” because they may have an insight that helps you and vice versa. And if we can take these insights to help other people , that’s good

[@Cephalonimbus]

Owen Barfield wrote several books on this subject. I highly recommend "Saving the Appearances": it goes into great detail about how this "illusion of literalness" began, what its problematic side-effects are and what we might do to overcome it. Other books of his go more in depth about the specifics of language and meaning that also tie into the same topic, but Saving the Appearances is probably the best general overview.

[@SamuelAdamsT]

I don't think "literal" is the enemy Pageau is actually after in this video. I think he means something more like "pure objectivity". He seems to claim that a "literal" statement can never have value it in, but that's just wrong. If I say "I like apples better than oranges" that is a literal, subjective, value bearing statement. If I say "apples are the bees knees but oranges, meh." That is a idiomatic statement because insects don't have joints constructed of fruit. Literal has more to do with how we, the speakers, intend our language to be understood. Objective has more to do with how we understand our words to correspond to reality. I think Jonathan should have titled this video "There is no OBJECTIVE meaning". The distinction between literal, idiomatic, figures of speech, metaphor, poetry etc... is a real distinction that has to do with language, not necessarily the relationship between our words and "reality".

[@Querymonger]

SamuelAdamsT You're right, but he did use "literal" for a reason. I imagine he gets a lot of Protestants criticizing him for not "taking the Bible literally." When they say that, they assume there is a single and objective meaning to the text---that event "behind the text" which he mentioned.

[@cameahgill8464]

Thank you Jonathan 👏👏👏 I’m not a Christian and it’s partly because I’ve always been frustrated with both Christians who put disproportionate importance into a simple literal interpretation and over emphasize dogmatism without giving a why to the how and broader society who likewise interpret the Bible literally and over simplify in order to tear up the straw man. It’s only been recently that my soul has begun to reconcile this for my mind these erroneous interpretations and teachers like you have popped up to help.

[@jimfoard5671]

You're right. He IS a genius. Remarkable. He is just so . . . so . . . well YOU know!

[@ruslpit2615]

Love the way you explain our reality.

[@monicamurphy1792]

Jonathan, I sent this to my dad via email and he enjoyed it, but in his reply to me he wrote that he wouldn't take the statement, "There is not literal meaning" literally.

[@GameFunHQ]

Modernity really made a number o us when it comes to understanding meaning.

[@Tyler_W]

Kinda feels like certain aspects of "modernity" is a prison I sometimes have a hard time thinking my way out of

[@andrewweisbrod4506]

Why does Jonathan equate literal meaning with excessive detail? Literal meaning doesn't need to say everything, but what is said equates to reality directly, often materially. A commentator doesn't mention every swing the boxers take at each other, but when he says that a punch connects, the statement is either literally true or literally false; no poetic license. Radio audience members need to trust the commentator to tell the literal truth, because they can't be present to see the fight themselves. Similarly, although the event of the resurrection points to the reality of God's endless mercy, we trust the latter is true because the former is literally true. As St. Paul says in Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." If the Church ceased to be, and was re-founded, would that fulfill the bodily resurrection promised in the Gospel? I don't think so. Language isn't perfectly literal; it involves the imagination of every speaker and listener, making sense of a chaotic world. But the world is more than what we say about it. Don't deny the literal aspect of language. Don't deny the reality that literal language aims to describe. Jonathan says he doesn't understand how people believe in a neutral reality, as if he has a similar blindness to neutral reality that science has to spiritual reality. As I write this, there's a scrape in the wall beside me, centered 27.5 inches above the floor. Why not 42? It doesn't appear to matter. There may be some reason it exists, and I'm using it as an example in a philosophical argument, but none of that pertains to why it is where it is. For the purpose of this argument, it is neutral, literal. Reality exists beyond the resolution of our language, and meaningful events produce apparently neutral accidents. Without Tycho Brahe's laborious measurement of the positions of celestial bodies, Johannes Kepler would not have discovered the beauty of planetary orbits.

[@telemarq7481]

This is very challenging for someone still stuck viewing the world from a materialist perspective, but in a good way!

[@jasminemariedarling]

I'm a newer Christian, trying to understand what to make of Genesis... Too many questions come up throughout. If it's simple and literal, there are a LOT of leaps of faith necessary. If it's more metaphorical, ok, that makes more sense, but I have Christian friends who disagree. This concept of "there is no literal" was interesting, I'm not sure if it solidifies anything for me- i guess a lot of these questions just won't be answered until we die.

[@karlasears9985]

So helpful I would more talks on this subject I know I will listen several more times to embody it more and recieve a better understanding. Thank you Jonathan!

[@Isabel-fy1er]

But, you know, people in Jesus time believe in re incarnation, and it was normal to ask this question. Catholicism usted to believe in that as well. So, John the Baptist really is a story of blood and soul beyond time. I mean, is also a literal tale, a complex, full of reallity. Beautiful video. Thank you.

[@lisaonthemargins]

"The guy got smashed, you know, totally, his ass got whooped" - Jonathan Pageau, 2019

[@flavertex658]

Language is about communication. If I can communicate my ideas clearly, I've succeeded. There are some cases in which oblique or indirect communication is best, because not everything can be spoken about directly. Poetry captures complex emotions much better than does everyday speech, although the latter can be used in a poetic analysis. Metaphors and analogies are better at communicating new concepts to people than dense technical descriptions, although the latter can be helpful once you've got the main concept down. I think that's what you're saying here: that the spiritual realities behind the stories of the Bible are not things that can be spoken about simply and directly; not because they aren't true, but because they're subtle truths that go above and beyond our normal categories and everyday experience. That's totally fine and understandable. But you must recognize that when people ask "but is it literal," what they are trying to get at are the questions "Are miracles real, such that i could experience a miracle today? Is God real, such that i could come to know him right now, such that I could hear his voice? What would that sound like? Was Jesus a real, historical person, who miraculously rose from the dead after being killed in Jerusalem in the first century AD?" These are statements about reality that are not ambiguously framed. The Bible appears to say that miracles can really occur, that God is a real being you could somehow spiritually speak to, that Jesus was a real historical person who, if you had a time machine, you could go back and eat fish with among the disciples in the same way that i can go and eat fish with my friends at the restaurant across the street today. I understand that the Bible may ALSO be communicating a spiritual reality far above the confines of my rational mind. But I don't think we can ignore the questions being posed above if they make us uncomfortable, if we don't think that we could answer them confidently, if our best answer is "I'm not sure, but tradition holds that this is the case." That's a good enough answer to be honest, even if it won't convince a nonbeliever.

[@RogerTheil]

Thank you Jonathan, everything is integrated.

[@MojoMicah]

What's a cup? What makes that cup not a bucket? Surely that cup can also be a pond or a lake, right? Is it not also an ecosystem?

[@hglundahl]

8:27 I agree, reality is not value neutral. Again, this does not in any way, shape or form imply it cannot be literal or literally described.

[@nickyalexa7744]

I literally believe (almost) every bible story occured. BUT there is dual purpose in every story, and the metaphorical/symbolic meanings are more important, but also require initiation to understand and are harder to master/grasp. For example, Job. I believe he literally lived and went through those described things, BUT the deeper meanings of the story are why it can still be relevant today. Same with Jesus.

[@Mateus-fh8dp]

The video you referred in the beginning and this one are giving me an "overdose of symbolism". It is as if Christianity is "the" story of mankind, of the human condition. The stories in the Bible describe a reality, but I think the problem with the materialist is that, for him, it is as if "reality" is only one particular section of reality as such, the corporeal modality one could say. The story of the Fall describes something which is not restricted to that section which comprises the narrow mental horizon of the materialist.

[@mikemcgowan7946]

I found this video interesting & entertaining! But I wasn't convinced by the retelling of the fight analogy. I would say there is a "value neutral" way of establishing what actually happened in the fight as a sequence of events in history, and that's by watching the fight on film (with the commentary turned off). The use of the adjective "accurate" when describing the minutiae of the fight is, I think, misleading. It's possible to have a brief, accurate (and "value neutral") description of the fight (e.g. fighter A landed 80 legal strikes whereas fighter B only landed 20.) And it's possible to have an inaccurate yet highly detailed description. It's possible I'm not smart enough and I'm missing the point. But it seems to me that while, yes, a retelling of (e.g.) a fight to (e.g.) a friend in the pub is likely to be embellished for the purpose of entertainment, that doesn't imply there's no "value neutral" series of events that actually happened in history (that we can "get at"). At 13:33, it's claimed that the stories in the Bible are the "best" possible versions of them that have been handed down. But how can that be known with any confidence? Surely all that can be said is that (in most cases) they're the only versions of the stories that have survived.

[@williammiller1299]

A couple of comments below ask the question "is he sitting". The question is not is he sitting. The question is "is his back, upper leg and lower leg at right angles to each other while resting on a solid surface that is strong enough to support his weight." I know, what he is saying is a little hard to understand but he is right.

[@theranova99]

I agree 100% with you, even if what you say is almost unintelligible.

[@hoolialynn26]

This is why I love the passages about the potter and the clay. That's some logos meeting tropos right there. :)

[@ambassadorcarlousdewayne3082]

Agape unconditional Love 💯🎯🥶💯 continue keeping your head held up high and eyes 👀 open wide open keep painting 🎨 Theses pictures to frame purpose as above so below Real realized reality explained

[@y3ll0wk1ng9]

The very nature of universe is a symbollic one, so does we, the human beings. The same is for the Holy Grial, the Philosophal Stone, Crist. "All the myths are true, Sophie. Because they last longer, they are even more real that the so called 'real world' ". - Promethea, by Alan Moore.

[@ctucker1129]

To view the world symbolically is to understand that reality includes a hidden, non physical component that should be privileged over the empirical/historical.

[@christinezaslavsky647]

Relationship between Natural and Supernatural, huh.

[@jabrown]

Jonathan, are you familiar with the work of George Lakoff? He pioneered the field of cognitive linguistics, and he and his colleagues showed that our language and cognition are thoroughly metaphorical. We understand everything in terms of something else. It just keeps going on and on. So what's at the bottom of it all? Well, according to Lakoff and his colleagues, all of these metaphors and concepts are ultimately rooted in our experience of the world: our physical, sensory embodied, subjective experience. So you're right: there is no literal and in the deepest sense, no metaphorical either. We make sense of things according to what's relevant to us. I am a linguist who studies meaning from the point of view of language, and I greatly admire Lakoff's work, and yours, too.

[@falcon00jr75]

I think one thing to distinguish is the various types of literary genres in Scripture. I think Jonathan would affirm an historic Adam and an actual Fall of man into sin. If mankind did not fall/ lose communion with God/ be under His wrath and curse/ made liable to all the miseries of this life. . . Then there is no need for an historic Savior. The patterns in Scripture are amazing and daily I'm in awe of the comprehensive providence and redemption story that is sufficient in the Word, manifested in worship, and experienced through our life.

[@AlannaBoudreau]

Flannery O'Connor's quip "If it's just a symbol, then to hell with it" (speaking of the Eucharist) always struck me as unintentionally ironic (though I can never know that for certain: I really wish I would ask her directly, "What is it you're really saying, madam?"). I was Catholic for 25+ years but left about two years ago for a number of reasons, one of them being the erratic literalism that's wielded in a triumphalist manner. It often struck me as intellectually and spiritually lazy/arrogant: epiclesis equals hyper-saturation of God, QED, and don't you forget we've got the monopoly on Him. Some Catholics are able to exist within the tension borne out of a mathematical certitude toward the Divine, but for me personally, it felt disingenuous and caused too much cognitive dissonance. Language is symbols. The woman needed symbols & metaphors to express disdain toward symbols & metaphors- to express anything and everything! - as we all do.

[@cabal4171]

I suggest reading his brother's book: Matthew Pageau, The Language of Creation. It provides even more context to what Jonathan says in all his videos; but especially this one.

[@vbrelisa]

I am having trouble understanding what it means: "There is ☆>No LiteralNOT

[@Hitlerbaddaringood]

This video was done very well.