https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=bRFzoOgpLTU
Alright, so Justice Hibschman, or Seven Likes says, Dear Jonathan, people tried to pin you down on whether the incarnation is literally true. Understandably, you reject the notion of literal. However, since the ideas associated with words each have their own lower darkness, it seems that we can modify the naive idea of literal. With the realization that texts have lowest possible symbolic readings, thus we can ask, did God make a human body in the lowest sense of a human body? And did he also die in the lowest sense of human death? You seem to think this when you say that Christ needs to come all the way down. Other times it seems that you think the lowest sense is silly. Or is it just that you think the lowest sense is silly if it is not coupled with all the higher senses? If the higher senses are all true, can we also accept the lowest sense is true and we’re celebrating? And so, you know, I’ve said it before. I’ve said that the tomb was empty. I do believe that Christ rose from the dead. I also believe that the disciples saw him and that Thomas put his finger in the hole. But I also, the reason why, especially for the resurrection, I insist on being careful, is that the scripture makes a big effort to be ambiguous about the nature of Christ’s body. And so, I think they’re trying to make, to help, they wanted to avoid being too precise in terms of the mechanism. So, this is going to be weird for you to understand, but the pattern of the story is what’s stable about the story. The mechanistic aspects of a story, or the way that things happen, is less stable. It tends towards possible change at least. And so, what’s important about the story is what it says and what that means. That’s what’s important about the story. And like I’ve said before, one of the problems is that you can’t go back in time. You can’t go back to the time of Christ, you know, and then whatever witness would happen, and then assure yourself that according to your standards of description and manifestation that it fits, you don’t have access to that. You have access to the story. The reason why you care about the story is its meaning. And like I’ve said many times, it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. It means that if you try to find your certainty in the happen part, and you find yourself some mechanical cause or whatever thing, you know, it was like people who, when I was young, would talk about this wind that blows through Sinai, and that there is a wind that could be strong enough, you know, in certain circumstances to like blow a road through the Sinai, this really narrow stretch of the Red Sea. And you’re like, dude, who cares? Like what are you doing? Like who cares? I mean, if you put your trust on that, instead of just seeing that the story is true in all these different ways, if you’re like, well, yeah, we’ve got it. We found, we proved that it’s possible, you know, science changes all the time, folks. This is the funniest thing about science is that people think that science is the thing on which you should base your decisions and your life, but it’s like science changes all the time. So the idea that that’s stable, that you should build on that is ridiculous. And it means that people’s lives are put out in the, are like out in the balance, you know, they’re hanging in the balance. I mean, imagine if you did that for a lot of the things in your life. Like imagine if you based your relationship with your spouse on what you could prove forensically you know, that your spouse isn’t cheating on you or that, you know, this or that. I mean, it would be ridiculous because then all of a sudden someone tells you like, I’ve heard the story and then it’s like, they found, they, you know, they saw this letter and now they might be that. So if you try to like, if you, so I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be attentive to that forensic part, but you can’t base your everything on that. It’s just because it changes. Think about, you know, think about what happened during COVID. You know, they told us don’t wear a mask, then wear a mask. You know, think about, think about health. Think about how when I was young, we ate, you know, all the food groups in equal parts, you know, and we ate all this bread and we ate all this, these, these different food groups. And now based on science, now there’s like a million diets and there used to be these, they used to be this scientifically proven diet and now there’s like a scientifically proven millions of diets and everybody’s arguing, everybody’s basing it on science. But it’s like, that’s what, that’s the nature of science. Science is actually not stable. Science is actually always changing. Which is funny. I don’t know. I just think, I just find that funny. It’s actually the opposite of what people want you to think. They want you to think that science is this, this rock that you can like build on. But it’s like, no, because, oh, we have this new proof. Oh, well, we made a mistake. That proof doesn’t, isn’t valid anymore. In the meantime, you’ve invalidated the, the faith of, you know, half of the population because you, you, you’ve said that, I don’t know, like you’ve, you’ve found some text in the desert and through proof texting, you’ve shown that this, this one sentence, you know, is different in that text. And then all of a sudden everything’s up in the balance again. And then you really, I mean, think about what they did with the, with the story of Christ for years. They don’t do it so much anymore. But when I was a teenager and then in my twenties, it was like every single year, every single year they found like a new proof that this or that and oh, it’s all completely new and wrong and everybody got it completely wrong. You know, this is what it is. You know, Jesus is actually Mithras or, or this is how you pronounce the word Jesus. You’ve been doing it wrong all this time. Oh, and it’s like, there’s a million things like that. They’re constantly telling you, oh, you’ve been, you know, we had it wrong and now we’ve got it right. And it’s like, no, you don’t. At least not in the like detail of it in this weird, this weird kind of idea that this is stable, that this, this basing your life on these kinds of things is stable. The pattern is more stable than its manifestation. The story is more stable than the messiness of, you know, what happened. Not that they’re completely disconnected. It’s just that one is more stable than the other.