This is a very strange quote becasue of it's use of the word truth. The word truth according to Nietzsche is nothing more than the invention of fixed conventions for merely practical purposes. To one that had never read Nietzsche, this quote would be perhaps detrimental to the readers view of art, having supposed that they took the word truth in the literal since that we hear today. Nietzche seems to me like he is on a good tract, but I dislike his usage of the word truth, if fact he seems to be almost contradictory in that he is proclaming but yet a "truth" and is therefore dilluting his own words.
in the quotation Nietzsche's notion of true art and truth are exposed. In his three part polemic On the Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche writes: “—art, in which precisely the lie is sanctified and the will to deception has good conscience, is much more fundamentally opposed to the ascetic ideal than science”
"the lie is sanctified", creation is possible. freedom from the morality which binds us.
thus we have art in order not to suffocate under the restrictions of 'truth'
And of course, for N. breaking free from the bonds of truth was breaking free from all the shackles of western morality--Christianity in particular. There is no need, N. says, for belief in God, Jesus, religion, morality, etc. All we need is the freedom to see our lives as a canvas upon which to paint the picture of our choice--provided it brings 'life' as he would say. Whether a response to dead orthodoxy or not, there is no way to slice the kind of quote you've put up, Esteban, as anything but entirely contrary to the real, historic, resurrected Jesus.
Its not so much that it's I who have some special, secret knowledge of the historic Jesus. I do, seriously, appreciate your critique. And its a valid question--about the historical Jesus. Of course, this goes away from Nietzsche, but still, tangentally relevant I suppose. Since Schweitzer in the early years of the 20th century (and really, long before him) the question of the Jesus of history (in dubious contrast to the 'Jesus of faith') has been a bee swarm of scholarly debate. But I do really think we are, and should be able to speak of Jesus as one who actually lived, breathed, died, and...rose. You're comment about the Gospels is apt, I think. But I would disagree that their differing perspectives nullifies the historical validity of Jesus (though, I agree...it does raise a lot of questions). But I guess I see it this way. The Gospel writers have 3 years of Jesus' life they've witnessed--or 'witnessed' (as in Luke's case) and that makes for a lot of information. I think its John who says something like 'if we could compile it all, it would take books and books.' So, each writer, as a writer, has a theme and compiles the information in such a way as to highlight that theme. Take the Johnny Cash movie, for instance. There are definite themes (or 'perspectives') to that movie (e.g. redemption through love, father son relationship, guilt, etc. whatever)and the screenwriter/ director has a certain agenda in reporting Cash's life the way he does; but that doesnt make the details of the movie untrue...necessarily. Of course, they could play with the details of his life...but, the organizing of Cash's life in a certain framework does not, by necessity, discount 'historical validity.' Anyway, this opens up a whole realm of dialogue...which is good. But I think there is plenty of firm ground for scholars like Richard Hays, E.P Sanders, James Dunn, N.T. Wright, to stand on in talking about the 'historical Jesus' as opposed to guys like Luke Johnson, Dom Crossan, and Marcus Borg. (Sorry...I dont know if any of those names are relevant here...but I wanted to just throw out an array of peeps to see if any were familiar.) In any case, I enjoy reading this very thoughtful blog and wanted to get in on the mix!
Your perspective is a refreshing one—it’s nice to converse with someone that has gone deeper than listening to a sermon on Sunday (or conversely one who has never actually given one a chance).
Luckily a class of mine has pushed my curiosity to a point where I can recognize some the names you mentioned. It’s kind of funny this has come up from an excerpt regarding art—but i welcome the dialogue. I recently finished writing a paper about Paul’s understanding regarding the resurrection and I had to address the historicity of the empty tomb. First of all, I do not think an empty tomb is necessary concerning Paul’s understanding of resurrection—but there is a lot of support to counter the accuracy of Jesus’ resurrection historically.
But is there such a thing as true accuracy in the way of historical thought? Innocent-neutral history tells us what is most probable. I find it hard imagine any historian put something such as the resurrection in a history book. It brings up a number of tough philosophical questions. The rest of history, well…I often find myself associating history with journalism, and as Jawad said –Objectivity is a legend.
There is no way for us to get into the depth of this argument here, but:
I am sure you would agree that ‘Mark’, ‘Matthew’, ‘Luke’, and ‘John’ did not sit around a table and decide who was going to write what. They all had a sociological and theological context that clearly colored their separate portrayals. I am not saying that a Christian should disregard them due to their lack of historical perfection—the choice is up to them.
I do think the differing perspectives challenge the historical accuracy of the canonical gospels…but hey, Marcion (who was wrong about a few big things…) made the decision to start combing the texts together and well…the proto-orthodox Christians weren’t exactly great either.
As you can probably guess—I’m not a very big fan of the fundamentalist movement.
When it comes down to it—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is tough to pin down. History won’t help us with that.
Going back to Nietzsche, in the preface of --On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History For Life, Nietzsche uses Goethe’s words to suggest the question we must ask here:
“Moreover I hate everything which merely instructs me without increasing or directly quickening my activity”
Nietzsche soon after writes, “…we require history for life and action, not for the smug avoiding of life and action…only so far as history serves life will we serve it…”
There are number of conflicts here: You said: there is no way to slice the kind of quote you've put up, Esteban, as anything but entirely contrary to the real, historic, resurrected Jesus.
I would respond with: OK, I can see how your perspective on the real historical Jesus may perhaps create an irreconcilable disagreement with Nietzschean thought. And for you, in this case, history serves life. But please do not challenge my thoughts and beliefs within the frame of your perspective.
Esteban....this might be a long one! Forgive my verbosity!
I certainly share your…lets say apprehension…to mainline, evangelical, intellectually unstimulated, not very Christian, Christianity.
You posed a great question about “accuracy in the way of historical thought.” Though I immediately recoiled at your appeal to ‘innocent neutral history.’ I agree with you totally: “objectivity is a legend.” But what do we mean by objectivity? If we mean that you or I come to a particular issue without any bias, predispositions, etc. than I would again affirm, no such thing exists. But I don’t think the response has to be a relative-izing claim: “for you I see how this can work but It doesn’t for me.” Of course, to be a bit cliché, when you say (or when Nietzsche says) ‘history serves life…but please do not challenge my thoughts…” you do undermine an implicit normative quality behind what I mean by history. Nietzsche is influenced by a scientific, Darwinian-esque, presupposed non-supernatural view of how the world works. For both Nietzsche and Freud, it seems (well, definitely for Freud), there is a very presupposed materialistic perspective through which they see the world. So I don’t think there is anything less ‘biased’ about them than, John, for example, when he writes of the empty tomb. I think the real trouble is, as you said, how can we have any sense of the ‘accuracy’ of something. And I would affirm that in the logical-positivistic, materialist, sense of that word, we can’t. But I don’t think that means we therefore can’t “know” anything. Without really being able to develop this (for lack of space…since Im already being verbose!) I’d throw out for dialogue’s sake that there is a way of ‘knowing’ that acknowledges the reality of the thing known as something other than the knower (against Idealism) and also acknowledging that this reality does nevertheless lie in a dialogue between the knower and the thing known. Our assertions about ‘reality’ must acknowledge their own provisionality while keeping a stiff arm to the idea that reality is only bound up in my mind or my perspective. A presupposed framework does exist for all of us; there is no blank slate. And knowledge of particulars can only take place within this larger grid—which determines how we see ourselves in relation to our surrounding world. I think the best framework is the one which makes the most sense of the particulars (and I take as one of those particulars about this world we live in---that Jesus lived in the first century and was crucified, died, and rose in space and time). Ebeneezer Scroodge sees the ghost of Marley and says “there is more of gravy than of grave about you” because Scroodge is a good materialist (I guess Dickens is being nasty to the empiricists of his day?). But what Scroodge needed was a different lens to see the world with; his framework had to get rocked. Anyway, I know that opens up a TON of stuff. But like you said, this is refreshing and I appreciate your take on things. I hope I’ve made at least some sense!
I hear you. I think you might have misunderstood some of my thoughts though, which I would probably say is my fault. Putting my thoughts into words and having other people seeing my thoughts in those words, rarely works out for me.
My notion of ‘innocent neutral history’ is the lifeless mechanical pursuit of history—the most probable is what goes into the books. Conversely, anybody with the slightest degree of imagination or ambition paints their own picture…to some extent. There is nothing really wring with this. It is inevitable.
I don’t see how you could say there is anyway we can “know” what really happened. The most reliable sources were written decades after the events…early Christian writings are as sticky as they come…the subject matter was highly controversial, everybody had an opinion.
I know you experience these types of discussions all the time, but saying “I think the best framework is the one which makes the most sense of the particulars” and one of those particulars being the “fact” that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, died, and rose seems a bit of a jump to me…as said before, the first two ill give you…they kind of go hand in hand, but to say that Jesus’ resurrection is a particular of the world we live in is ridiculous. Who is the relativist now? What about the approx 4.5 billion non-christians? Are they living in a different world? A particular to western society, ok, yes. Yet I don’t find that a good reason to believe in something anyway.
Mark Twain said something along the lines of “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to reform”
I have always liked that. I tend to question all of the particulars.
I rejoice in Nietzsche’s philosophy. There is so much to be learned, so much progress to make.
Hearing, “if your going to wear white socks, you’re not allowed to wear dress shoes” doesn’t phase me in the least.
Help me out. Im wrestling with what your saying about the historical validity of the resurrection. I think I hear what your saying, but could you clarify? It seems to be a crux of Christianity; beginning before Christianity (but appropriated by it) with texts like Daniel, Ezekiel 37, and even 2 Maccabees 7; to Paul (e.g 1 Cor 15; and the poem in Phil 2 be a prepauline formula), to Polycarp (turn of the that century: "how could I forsake my king, who died for me" granted he says "died" but he is going to his martyrs death when he says it), to Ignatius, to Tertullian...and logically into the Apostles Creed (which actually may be within a decade of the event);(what is a lame Roman governer doing in my creed other than grounding it in actual history). Totally not trying to be argumentative. Just want to make we understand what the other is saying.
on another note. Is it that Nietzsche's philosohy is in ther minority in the spheres you live in that you like it so much? Or is it for the philosophy itself? Just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying at the end. THanks! Thanks for the correspondence. Im enjoying it.
I enjoy Nietzsche’s actual philosophy, not his obscure nature…although he is not necessarily ‘obscure’; his philosophies are definitely not part of popular culture (he meant it to be that way I think).
I would say that belief in the resurrection is the crux of Christianity. I don’t know if you got the impression that I thought one could both be ‘christian’ and not believe in resurrection…but that’s not what im getting at. You brought up the language of “real and historical” I challenged that. I am saying that history is a silly foundation for the Christian religion. The religion is built on faith. Some people are much more inclined than others to take ‘the leap.’ Good for them, go ahead and jump.
There were prophesies regarding a resurrection of the dead, but Old Testament prophecies hold no more tangible truth than the teachings of Muhammad. Once again, you can have faith that they do, I am not saying a person isn’t allowed to have faith or believe in something. Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Tertullian were not historians, they were Christians. Just because Pilate is given a shout out doesn’t mean Jesus rose from the dead. Unfortunately, there are practically no pagan records of Christianity or Jesus…it was simply a very quiet movement for the first century or so—as far as I know at least. Modern historians result to using theological text and letters addressing theological and sociological conflicts between churches because they are the only records.
Josephus, a Jewish historian said that Jesus was the messiah and did indeed rise on the third day. Yet this is troubling…because he never converted. Scholars believe the document was altered.
What is important here is that anyone can choose to believe these texts and stories. They may be true, despite their evident lack of historical credibility.
No one knows. You can only believe. In believing one chooses to pretend they know—but they do not know.
I have said it before (I am getting tired of saying it) but I will say it again:
The conversation could go on and on. I do have objections to some of the things you're saying; but I respect your thoughts and I hope to continue to wrestle like you, and with you, about these things. I have no blog of my own, as of yet, so I post anonymously. But in any case, thanks for your efforts here.
Thank you for your comments—I hope you didn’t stop because I seem too obstinate. With me it’s all about the dialogue, not about your estimation versus mine. I look forward to more.
not at all. I appreciate the dialogue and will be around. Im trying to set up one of these myself so I can not post as anonymous! I just think that this particular discussion (historical Jesus) would require a greater delving into some immense issues that will hopefully continue to surface. peace
16 Comments:
remember who you wanted to be...
i am not following you...
This is a very strange quote becasue of it's use of the word truth. The word truth according to Nietzsche is nothing more than the invention of fixed conventions for merely practical purposes. To one that had never read Nietzsche, this quote would be perhaps detrimental to the readers view of art, having supposed that they took the word truth in the literal since that we hear today. Nietzche seems to me like he is on a good tract, but I dislike his usage of the word truth, if fact he seems to be almost contradictory in that he is proclaming but yet a "truth" and is therefore dilluting his own words.
in the quotation Nietzsche's notion of true art and truth are exposed.
In his three part polemic On the Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche writes:
“—art, in which precisely the lie is sanctified and the will to deception has good conscience, is much more fundamentally opposed to the ascetic ideal than science”
"the lie is sanctified", creation is possible. freedom from the morality which binds us.
thus we have art in order not to suffocate under the restrictions of 'truth'
And of course, for N. breaking free from the bonds of truth was breaking free from all the shackles of western morality--Christianity in particular. There is no need, N. says, for belief in God, Jesus, religion, morality, etc. All we need is the freedom to see our lives as a canvas upon which to paint the picture of our choice--provided it brings 'life' as he would say.
Whether a response to dead orthodoxy or not, there is no way to slice the kind of quote you've put up, Esteban, as anything but entirely contrary to the real, historic, resurrected Jesus.
Using Nietzschean thought:
that all depends on your perspective regarding "the real, historic, resurrected Jesus."
the bible is full of perspectivism...take a look at the Gospels--four versions of one story, each different in fundamental ways.
if you have knowledge of the real, historic Jesus (ressurection entails a whole nother body of belief)...please tel me. I am very interested in him.
Its not so much that it's I who have some special, secret knowledge of the historic Jesus.
I do, seriously, appreciate your critique. And its a valid question--about the historical Jesus. Of course, this goes away from Nietzsche, but still, tangentally relevant I suppose.
Since Schweitzer in the early years of the 20th century (and really, long before him) the question of the Jesus of history (in dubious contrast to the 'Jesus of faith') has been a bee swarm of scholarly debate.
But I do really think we are, and should be able to speak of Jesus as one who actually lived, breathed, died, and...rose.
You're comment about the Gospels is apt, I think. But I would disagree that their differing perspectives nullifies the historical validity of Jesus (though, I agree...it does raise a lot of questions).
But I guess I see it this way. The Gospel writers have 3 years of Jesus' life they've witnessed--or 'witnessed' (as in Luke's case) and that makes for a lot of information. I think its John who says something like 'if we could compile it all, it would take books and books.' So, each writer, as a writer, has a theme and compiles the information in such a way as to highlight that theme.
Take the Johnny Cash movie, for instance. There are definite themes (or 'perspectives') to that movie (e.g. redemption through love, father son relationship, guilt, etc. whatever)and the screenwriter/ director has a certain agenda in reporting Cash's life the way he does; but that doesnt make the details of the movie untrue...necessarily. Of course, they could play with the details of his life...but, the organizing of Cash's life in a certain framework does not, by necessity, discount 'historical validity.'
Anyway, this opens up a whole realm of dialogue...which is good. But I think there is plenty of firm ground for scholars like Richard Hays, E.P Sanders, James Dunn, N.T. Wright, to stand on in talking about the 'historical Jesus' as opposed to guys like Luke Johnson, Dom Crossan, and Marcus Borg. (Sorry...I dont know if any of those names are relevant here...but I wanted to just throw out an array of peeps to see if any were familiar.)
In any case, I enjoy reading this very thoughtful blog and wanted to get in on the mix!
Your perspective is a refreshing one—it’s nice to converse with someone that has gone deeper than listening to a sermon on Sunday (or conversely one who has never actually given one a chance).
Luckily a class of mine has pushed my curiosity to a point where I can recognize some the names you mentioned. It’s kind of funny this has come up from an excerpt regarding art—but i welcome the dialogue. I recently finished writing a paper about Paul’s understanding regarding the resurrection and I had to address the historicity of the empty tomb. First of all, I do not think an empty tomb is necessary concerning Paul’s understanding of resurrection—but there is a lot of support to counter the accuracy of Jesus’ resurrection historically.
But is there such a thing as true accuracy in the way of historical thought? Innocent-neutral history tells us what is most probable. I find it hard imagine any historian put something such as the resurrection in a history book. It brings up a number of tough philosophical questions. The rest of history, well…I often find myself associating history with journalism, and as Jawad said –Objectivity is a legend.
There is no way for us to get into the depth of this argument here, but:
I am sure you would agree that ‘Mark’, ‘Matthew’, ‘Luke’, and ‘John’ did not sit around a table and decide who was going to write what. They all had a sociological and theological context that clearly colored their separate portrayals. I am not saying that a Christian should disregard them due to their lack of historical perfection—the choice is up to them.
I do think the differing perspectives challenge the historical accuracy of the canonical gospels…but hey, Marcion (who was wrong about a few big things…) made the decision to start combing the texts together and well…the proto-orthodox Christians weren’t exactly great either.
As you can probably guess—I’m not a very big fan of the fundamentalist movement.
When it comes down to it—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is tough to pin down. History won’t help us with that.
Going back to Nietzsche, in the preface of --On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History For Life, Nietzsche uses Goethe’s words to suggest the question we must ask here:
“Moreover I hate everything which merely instructs me without increasing or directly quickening my activity”
Nietzsche soon after writes, “…we require history for life and action, not for the smug avoiding of life and action…only so far as history serves life will we serve it…”
There are number of conflicts here:
You said: there is no way to slice the kind of quote you've put up, Esteban, as anything but entirely contrary to the real, historic, resurrected Jesus.
I would respond with: OK, I can see how your perspective on the real historical Jesus may perhaps create an irreconcilable disagreement with Nietzschean thought. And for you, in this case, history serves life. But please do not challenge my thoughts and beliefs within the frame of your perspective.
Esteban....this might be a long one! Forgive my verbosity!
I certainly share your…lets say apprehension…to mainline, evangelical, intellectually unstimulated, not very Christian, Christianity.
You posed a great question about “accuracy in the way of historical thought.” Though I immediately recoiled at your appeal to ‘innocent neutral history.’ I agree with you totally: “objectivity is a legend.” But what do we mean by objectivity? If we mean that you or I come to a particular issue without any bias, predispositions, etc. than I would again affirm, no such thing exists. But I don’t think the response has to be a relative-izing claim: “for you I see how this can work but It doesn’t for me.” Of course, to be a bit cliché, when you say (or when Nietzsche says) ‘history serves life…but please do not challenge my thoughts…” you do undermine an implicit normative quality behind what I mean by history.
Nietzsche is influenced by a scientific, Darwinian-esque, presupposed non-supernatural view of how the world works. For both Nietzsche and Freud, it seems (well, definitely for Freud), there is a very presupposed materialistic perspective through which they see the world. So I don’t think there is anything less ‘biased’ about them than, John, for example, when he writes of the empty tomb.
I think the real trouble is, as you said, how can we have any sense of the ‘accuracy’ of something. And I would affirm that in the logical-positivistic, materialist, sense of that word, we can’t. But I don’t think that means we therefore can’t “know” anything. Without really being able to develop this (for lack of space…since Im already being verbose!) I’d throw out for dialogue’s sake that there is a way of ‘knowing’ that acknowledges the reality of the thing known as something other than the knower (against Idealism) and also acknowledging that this reality does nevertheless lie in a dialogue between the knower and the thing known. Our assertions about ‘reality’ must acknowledge their own provisionality while keeping a stiff arm to the idea that reality is only bound up in my mind or my perspective. A presupposed framework does exist for all of us; there is no blank slate. And knowledge of particulars can only take place within this larger grid—which determines how we see ourselves in relation to our surrounding world. I think the best framework is the one which makes the most sense of the particulars (and I take as one of those particulars about this world we live in---that Jesus lived in the first century and was crucified, died, and rose in space and time). Ebeneezer Scroodge sees the ghost of Marley and says “there is more of gravy than of grave about you” because Scroodge is a good materialist (I guess Dickens is being nasty to the empiricists of his day?). But what Scroodge needed was a different lens to see the world with; his framework had to get rocked.
Anyway, I know that opens up a TON of stuff. But like you said, this is refreshing and I appreciate your take on things. I hope I’ve made at least some sense!
I hear you. I think you might have misunderstood some of my thoughts though, which I would probably say is my fault. Putting my thoughts into words and having other people seeing my thoughts in those words, rarely works out for me.
My notion of ‘innocent neutral history’ is the lifeless mechanical pursuit of history—the most probable is what goes into the books. Conversely, anybody with the slightest degree of imagination or ambition paints their own picture…to some extent. There is nothing really wring with this. It is inevitable.
I don’t see how you could say there is anyway we can “know” what really happened. The most reliable sources were written decades after the events…early Christian writings are as sticky as they come…the subject matter was highly controversial, everybody had an opinion.
I know you experience these types of discussions all the time, but saying “I think the best framework is the one which makes the most sense of the particulars” and one of those particulars being the “fact” that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, died, and rose seems a bit of a jump to me…as said before, the first two ill give you…they kind of go hand in hand, but to say that Jesus’ resurrection is a particular of the world we live in is ridiculous. Who is the relativist now? What about the approx 4.5 billion non-christians? Are they living in a different world? A particular to western society, ok, yes. Yet I don’t find that a good reason to believe in something anyway.
Mark Twain said something along the lines of “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to reform”
I have always liked that. I tend to question all of the particulars.
I rejoice in Nietzsche’s philosophy. There is so much to be learned, so much progress to make.
Hearing, “if your going to wear white socks, you’re not allowed to wear dress shoes” doesn’t phase me in the least.
Help me out. Im wrestling with what your saying about the historical validity of the resurrection. I think I hear what your saying, but could you clarify? It seems to be a crux of Christianity; beginning before Christianity (but appropriated by it) with texts like Daniel, Ezekiel 37, and even 2 Maccabees 7; to Paul (e.g 1 Cor 15; and the poem in Phil 2 be a prepauline formula), to Polycarp (turn of the that century: "how could I forsake my king, who died for me" granted he says "died" but he is going to his martyrs death when he says it), to Ignatius, to Tertullian...and logically into the Apostles Creed (which actually may be within a decade of the event);(what is a lame Roman governer doing in my creed other than grounding it in actual history).
Totally not trying to be argumentative. Just want to make we understand what the other is saying.
on another note. Is it that Nietzsche's philosohy is in ther minority in the spheres you live in that you like it so much? Or is it for the philosophy itself? Just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying at the end.
THanks! Thanks for the correspondence. Im enjoying it.
I enjoy Nietzsche’s actual philosophy, not his obscure nature…although he is not necessarily ‘obscure’; his philosophies are definitely not part of popular culture (he meant it to be that way I think).
I would say that belief in the resurrection is the crux of Christianity. I don’t know if you got the impression that I thought one could both be ‘christian’ and not believe in resurrection…but that’s not what im getting at. You brought up the language of “real and historical” I challenged that. I am saying that history is a silly foundation for the Christian religion. The religion is built on faith. Some people are much more inclined than others to take ‘the leap.’ Good for them, go ahead and jump.
There were prophesies regarding a resurrection of the dead, but Old Testament prophecies hold no more tangible truth than the teachings of Muhammad. Once again, you can have faith that they do, I am not saying a person isn’t allowed to have faith or believe in something. Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Tertullian were not historians, they were Christians. Just because Pilate is given a shout out doesn’t mean Jesus rose from the dead. Unfortunately, there are practically no pagan records of Christianity or Jesus…it was simply a very quiet movement for the first century or so—as far as I know at least. Modern historians result to using theological text and letters addressing theological and sociological conflicts between churches because they are the only records.
Josephus, a Jewish historian said that Jesus was the messiah and did indeed rise on the third day. Yet this is troubling…because he never converted. Scholars believe the document was altered.
What is important here is that anyone can choose to believe these texts and stories. They may be true, despite their evident lack of historical credibility.
No one knows. You can only believe. In believing one chooses to pretend they know—but they do not know.
I have said it before (I am getting tired of saying it) but I will say it again:
The only thing I know is that I don’t know.
At the moment I am fine with that.
The conversation could go on and on. I do have objections to some of the things you're saying; but I respect your thoughts and I hope to continue to wrestle like you, and with you, about these things.
I have no blog of my own, as of yet, so I post anonymously. But in any case, thanks for your efforts here.
Thats effectively me saying...lets respectfully agree to disagree and hopefully converse more in the future.
Thank you for your comments—I hope you didn’t stop because I seem too obstinate. With me it’s all about the dialogue, not about your estimation versus mine. I look forward to more.
not at all. I appreciate the dialogue and will be around. Im trying to set up one of these myself so I can not post as anonymous! I just think that this particular discussion (historical Jesus) would require a greater delving into some immense issues that will hopefully continue to surface. peace
Postar um comentário
<< Home