What Would Jesus Teach?

My boss is awesome.

It seems that she’s been getting some heat (the intensity of which I am still unaware) from some students and parents who identify as Christian.  The fact that this has been happening completely outside of my perception is part of why my boss is so awesome; she’s been dealing with it without involving me at all.

The little that she told me is that there are a number of people who are expressing concern that CHS may be a hostile environment for people who identify as Christian.  They’re upset about some of the issues that our books bring up, they’re wondering about the class discussions we have, they’re concerned that we’re not offering up a Christian perspective on the topics we engage.

You know what?  They’re right; we’re not.  That doesn’t make our environment hostile to Christians, though, any more than it makes ours a hostile environment for Muslims or Taoists or Jews or Secular Humanists.

I have often been accused of having an agenda in the classroom, and this is an accusation I do not deny.  I’ve written about it before, but it bears repeating: my primary purpose in the classroom is to get my kids to think and to question and to argue.  My secondary purpose is to get them to consider that there is more than one way of thinking, and while I don’t advocate that all ways are equally valid, I DO require that my students engage in some critical inquiry of the material I give them.  I am sure that some of the things I ask my students to think about are things that some people who identify as Christians may find objectionable.

Honestly?  I don’t care.  In fact, I’m that’s kind of what I’m going for – not to piss off Christians specifically, but to push everyone a little bit outside of their respective comfort zones.  That’s where the good stuff happens; we don’t grow if we don’t venture outside our boundaries. If your faith imposes boundaries that you are not able to challenge, even a little bit, then perhaps ours isn’t the right environment for you.  There are two Christian religious high schools in our town that I’m sure will accept your application.

I’m not asking anyone to accept what I say as truth.  I’m not putting up any of the issues or concepts we discuss in class as truth – I mean, come on; I use a speech from an admitted Nazi in a few of my classes, for crying out loud – and I’m always completely open to (well-articulated and supported) argument about anything that I use in the classroom.  I make a point that my students understand that it’s perfectly okay to disagree, as long as one isn’t disagreeable; if a student argues with something that I personally believe, and that student argues it well, that student will never get a bad grade.  I was impressed by this when my undergrad Ed. Philosophy professor gave me an A on a paper upon which she’d written “this is an excellent argument.  I think you’re completely wrong, but you made your case extremely well.”

I’m not here to support anyone’s spiritual life.  I will be respectful of everyone’s right to practice their faith, but I will not tiptoe around their sensibilities, either.  My job is to get you to think, and to back up your thinking with evidence: if your belief system can’t withstand a little rigorous thinking, then perhaps you ought to reconsider your belief system.

About these ads

43 Comments

Filed under Civics and Citizenship, compassion and cooperation, concerns, critical thinking, ethics, frustrations, I can't make this shit up..., I love my boss, I love my job, I've got this kid...., parental units, really?!, self-analysis, student chutzpah, Yikes!, You're kidding...right?

43 responses to “What Would Jesus Teach?

  1. I know at least one of my college professors was tougher on papers that agreed with his position than on those that took the opposite stance. Makes sense to me.

  2. M

    I agree with everything you say. I can also be a bit, well, controversial in my views, but again it’s not to make people mad. I’m respectful of everyone’s beliefs, but that doesn’t stop me from doing what you say, which is to push people to get them to think critically and focus on the outside world. The first time I taught Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” I was terrified that I was going to get an angry parent phone call about why I was discussing abortion and that Jesus clearly hates me. I wholly believe that one of my purposes as a literature teacher is to get kids to think of outside the box of to learn about experiences they may never have. If this means discussing religion or politics critically, then so be it. That was my long rambly way of saying you’re awesome.

  3. I teach at a Christian high school, where our belief system IS taught as truth. But I have been known to say, almost in the exact same words, “My job is to get you to think, and to back up your thinking with evidence.” I don’t want to send anyone out into the world without those crucial skills, regardless of beliefs.

  4. Hi, Mrs. Chili. I agree with your overall message, which is that you want kids to question and think critically and not accept things blindly. I also agree that any religion that can’t stand up to this is not worth having. The Bible is pretty clear that Christians are supposed to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ and analyze the messages they hear both in and outside of the faith.

    You mentioned something in this post (https://teacherseducation.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/what-is-reasonable/) that I wanted to comment on a the time but decided to let go. It’s relevant to this post’s discussion, however, so I’ll bring it to your attention:

    “Reasonable people do not generally abide extremes, they decided, nor do reasonable people generally rely upon “faith” to make their decisions; they are more influenced by their own experiences and observations and the facts that they encounter than they are by scripture or the words of their particular flavor of clergy. ”

    I consider myself both reasonable AND someone who relies on more on faith and scripture to make decisions than my own observations of the world (since I believe my observations are far more limited than that of an omnipotent, omniscient God.) You’ve implied that these factors are at odds with each other. So I think these are the types of ‘anti-Christian bias’ that parents at your school are detecting. It certainly came across that way to me.

    Obviously, I am a person who has a pro-Christian bias and it often shows through in my writing as well as my teaching. Very few people don’t have a bias one way or another. That’s okay, as long as we’re aware of it and do our best to shelter our students form it so they can make objective decisions for themselves.

    If you’ve implied to your students that relying on scripture means they are being unreasonable, you can probably expect some backlash. And that’s good–it means people are thinking and questioning.

    Thanks again for the thought-provoking blog posts, always enjoyable. :-)

    • I remember that post, Angela, (its here – http://teacherseducation.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/what-is-reasonable/ – if anyone wants it) and I stand by what my kids decided constitutes “reasonable.”

      Here’s my thing; I have no issue with someone’s faith INFORMING their choices. When someone substitutes a line of *insert belief here* for actual critical thinking, though, I DO have an issue. I make it a point to be as open and accepting as I can possibly be. Are there some stances that I do not tolerate? Of course; I would never allow someone to bully or belittle another because his “beliefs” tell him that sort of thing is okay, a’la the “God hates fags” idiots. All things being equal, though, it matters not a bit to me whether you pray five times a day or once on Sunday or only before tests (or not at all); your relationship with God/Allah/The Spaghetti Monster is YOUR relationship – it has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Further, I take no issue at all with someone’s faith informing his or her responses to the work that we do; if someone wants to start a comment with “My faith tells me…” I’m totally okay with that. That person will be subject to the same kinds of critical thinking questions that everyone else gets, though; “because the Bible/my mother/the Pope/Mrs. Chili says so” is an ENTIRELY insufficient reason for thinking something – they need to be able to back it up with a convincing argument or bit of evidence, and “just because” doesn’t cut it.

    • “Faith” is the excuse that people give themselves to believe things that they would otherwise have to admit are completely unfounded by evidence and are objectively stupid. If you claim that faith is a good way to know things, or proper foundation upon which to base your behavior, you are telling me that you feel that stupid is just as good or even possibly better than smart.

      Relying on the ancient writing of a bunch of murdering, sociopathic, outrageously ignorant Hebrew authors is worse than wrong:; it is flatly and obviously evil. If you accept the Bible as anything more than the anthropological-intriguing ramblings of a bunch of unethical shit-weasels, there’s something seriously wrong with you as well. The Bible and its imaginary “God” character advocate racism, rape, sexism, bigotry, genocide, incest, mass-murder, slavery, and a shit-ton of other things that are obviously unethical to the vast majority of modern human beings. My ethics are better than anything in the Bible… and so are yours, and so are the ethics of almost everyone you could ever possibly meet in your whole life.

      I could go further, for instance to note that your “omnipotent, omniscient God” cannot possibly exist, but your illogic thus far is more than I feel like dealing with in one evening. The main point is that any teacher being honest in teaching will conflict with your religion, because your religion is completely and utterly stupid.

      • To be fair, I don’t think religious belief is necessarily mental illness. With so many people believing in some religion or other, most people will accept the majority view the same way they accept any other things without bothering to do any thinking or research first.

    • Anonymous

      Nice try Angela :)

      • Anonymous, if you’re going to be snarky, be snarky out in the open. Hiding behind an anonymous name is cowardly. Further, I reject the tone of your comment. Do it again, and I’ll delete it.

        The fact is that there are a great and growing number of people in this country who think the way Joe does (though they may not be as vehement in their expressions of those beliefs); I personally know a lot of folks who truly believe that a belief in God/Allah/The Spaghetti Monster is a legitimate form of mental illness. Look at any number of recent polls and you’ll see that, despite the increasing rhetoric of the folks in religious groups, the number of people who don’t affiliate with any particular faith (and the number of people who say they belong to a group, but do so in name only) is growing.

        Here’s the thing – if we’re going to be tolerant of all beliefs, don’t we have to be tolerant of ALL BELIEFS?! What makes Joe’s belief that religion is a crock any less valid than someone’s belief that the Bible is the word of God?

      • I left the anonymous reply – it was not meant to be “snarky” or anything of that sort. Just wanted to let Angela know that I supported her right to express her point of view without being attacked and called names. Just as not all Americans speak for me, and not all teachers share my educational philosophies, nor should I be lumped in with anyone who claims to be a Christian. If I, as a mature adult Christian, feel nervous and threatened about sharing an “opinion” on a blog, especially after seeing the treatment and lack of protection for Angela – I do wonder about how those people that feel that CHS has a hostile environment when it comes to their families and/or beliefs are being treated with the same respect that you would expect from others.
        “Do it again and I’ll delete it” – now who is being intolerant of others? And apparently if I believe in God I “have a mental illness”… again I am finding contradictions and dare I say it, hypocrisy about being “tolerant of ALL BELIEFS”. Tom Roth (aka Anonymous)

      • Tom, thanks for coming back. Please recognize that I have an anonymous troll (who isn’t so anonymous to me, but that’s another story) who delights in dropping in and baiting me. Since I had no way of telling where your comment came from, it was reasonable for me to assume it was this guy. I’m not interested in entertaining his crap anymore. That’s where my severity came from.

        It’s completely unreasonable to assume that I run my blog the way I run my classroom. Like I said in one of my later responses, we’re adults; I don’t feel responsible for the tenor of the comments that get made here the way I do in the classroom where students aren’t accustomed to freely expressing their views in adult ways. I’d LIKE to assume that everyone who comes to my sites feels free to say what they think, and that we’re all grown-up enough to look through whatever offense we might take to see to the point of the message, but I’m not going to censor the comments in order to make someone else feel good. Again, I say, if we’re not pushed past our comfort zones, we don’t have any opportunity to think critically.

  5. Darci

    In my daughter’s Senior seminar class, parent will not allow her child to read “My Sister’s Keeper” because she fines it “morally repulsive”. The teacher, who I am good friends with, explained that is exactly why she is teaching the book. Instead her child will be reading “Frankenstein” – with her child not involved in class discussion and having to leave class for 3 weeks. Lovely

    • Like there’s nothing for Christians to object to in Frankenstein. Sigh….

      I don’t think that parents realize what their kids miss out on when they get alternate assignments. Reading something in isolation is a COMPLETELY different experience than reading with a group. That kid’s not going to get anything useful out of Frankenstein, and she gets the bonus of being singled out of her class, and EVERY teenage girl wants that. Awesome.

  6. … and I’m not at all surprised that Angela Watson is too much of a coward to respond to me, especially considering that it means that she’s spitting in the face of her Bible to do so. Hey Angela Watson, maybe you want to read your “good book” and live up to the admonition of Peter 3:15, and give the answer for your faith.

    After all, it is already embarrassing that an atheist knows the Bible better than you do, but for you to dodge it completely means that you have as little faith in your idiot book as I do. Either way, I win and your joke of a (nonexistent) savior loses.

  7. Wow, and I forgot the obvious answer to the question posed in the title of the post:

    Assuming that Jesus even existed, which is questionable, any teachings he might have would be based on the knowledge of an illiterate carpenter and itinerant street preacher in the Middle East some 2000 years ago. Which means he could maybe share some knowledge about joists and how to make Iron Age nails, and not a whole lot else that we couldn’t get from other sources.

  8. s parker

    joe, decaf………….. :0)

    • Are you offering?

      I don’t ingest caffeine as a regular thing. Perhaps instead of insinuating that I’m under the influence of a drug, you’d like to actually attempt to refute or even merely address what I’ve said… unless making nasty little insinuations is the limit of your intellect?

  9. Pingback:   The Education Buzz — Scheiss Weekly

  10. What I got from the responses in my assignment was that the people who put it all on God didn’t have to do *any* thinking at all about the assignment. I read different views for an hour and then thought about it for another hour before I posted my answer because it is a tough question. The Christians that chose god as their answer didn’t have to think at all. Easy peasy lemon squeezey

  11. Btw, I’ve been told that I would get more Christian visitors on my blog if I’d stop posting pictures of naked people, which is good to know. It must work like a cross to a vampire. =)

  12. Wow, so Christians don’t do any thinking… what a surprise! :)

  13. Mrs. Chili,

    *I* think each commenter’s belief system is equally valid. That’s part of the reason why I don’t resort to name calling or deem other people’s belief systems as ‘stupid’. It’s also part of the reason I took the time to compose a thoughtful, respectful comment sharing my view point.

    I would love to continue the discussion, but I think it’s the responsibility of the blog moderator (in this case, you) to make sure that the conversation is respectful. If someone chooses to make a personal attack against me, I expect the moderator to address that and set the standard that’s it’s not appropriate. I don’t believe I anything I wrote warranted the response I got from Improbable Joe. The fact that he also got nasty with another commenter (who was polite to him) is an even greater indicator that there’s some trollish behavior going on that should be addressed.

    It troubles me that you don’t find his approach inappropriate. The fact that you didn’t address his personal attacks (and instead pointed out that his belief system is equally valid) doesn’t create a safe atmosphere for readers to interact. I would like to be able to share ideas with you (as we have done all along) but I’m not going to do so if you allow a commenter to be so disrespectful.

    It’s your choice how to moderate, but it’s also my choice to decide whether I want to be engaged in conversations. I’m not going to be baited into discussing something I didn’t come here to discuss. You’ve allowed someone to make it difficult for me to respond to your post/comments and maintain a constructive, valuable conversation. It’s obvious that this comment I’m writing–which is tactful and polite–will result in another disrespectful comment from Improbable Joe. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t allow that when facilitating a discussion in a classroom, and I had hoped you would follow the same principle in moderating blog responses. If you choose not to, that’s okay, but it will be the reason I won’t make any further comments on your blog.

    Best,
    Angela

  14. … and when a Christian doesn’t get her way, she calls for silencing critics. Don’t you wish you had an Inquisition? *rolls eyes* Nothing I said is nastier than that, and nothing I could possibly say is nastier than the Bible.

  15. Joe, Joe, Joe, you know what the rule is. If you don’t agree with the Christians, you don’t get to say anything.

    Angela, save your breath with the moderator. Chili believes in free speech. She would *like* polite speech but she’s not going to start censoring someone for stating their belief because it was rudely stated. If she stepped in every time someone had their little feelers hurt, the comments section would be empty.

    • @Success Warrior: Chili can and does censor blog comments. She ‘rejected the tone’ of the comment above that said “Nice try, Angela” (a comment which didn’t offend me at all) and threatened to delete any further anonymous snark. That’s why I was surprised she allowed Joe’s comments to stand. Anonymous snark=deletion, name calling and hateful personal attacks against a person who was polite and respectful=okay?

      I’m sorry so many people have such hatred toward Christians, but I don’t want to be your scapegoat. I didn’t come here preaching or saying anything offensive, and so I didn’t expect disrespectful treatment to be tolerated.

    • Dammit, I forgot the “rules” about how they can damn me to eternal torture, and I can’t say a single negative word about their religion. I apologize for the use of the word “coward”, but otherwise I’m fine with what I posted. I understand that the “rules” are that only some people have free speech, but I’m just going to have to bear the burden of my heresy. :)

  16. Kagen Alexander

    You notice, Angela, that Chili DIDN’T delete Anonymous’s snark? I’m not putting words in her mouth, but I’m betting that she’d be more likely to delete something that came in as “anonymous” than she would if that something came in with a name and email address attached. You may not be aware of this as a new reader, but those of us who’ve been with her for a while know that she has a history with anonymous trolls.

    I know I’m jumping into some pretty shark (snark?) infested waters here, but I’m going to respectfully ask you this – is it the message of Joe’s comment that offends you, or is it the way he expressed that message? It may be that this is exactly the kind of thing that Chili was talking about in her post – people don’t like it when they feel challenged and instantly assume that it’s a personal attack. Would you feel differently if Joe’s comments had been directed at someone else, say at Lara who told us that she DOES teach at a Christian school? Would you feel differently if it had been a Jew or a Muslim whose comment attracted Joe’s attention? Is it because it feels personal to you, or is it because you think the premise of his argument is flawed?

    If it’s personal, I can’t really see much point in your hanging around because there’s little anyone can do to make you feel better. If it’s about the point Joe is trying to make, then push back – challenge him about what you disagree with, give him proof to make him reconsider his argument. I’ve been hanging around Chili’s blogs for a while now and though I rarely comment, I have been impressed by some of the really strong opinions that get discussed here, and by some of the things I’ve personally learned from reading them.

    • @Kagen: I’ve been reading this blog for about three years. I rarely comment (I think the last time was when Chili was first thinking about working in a high school, and I wrote some words of encouragement for her in the job-seeking process.)

      I read the blog because she’s a fellow educator, and I’m interested in her opinions on schooling. I subscribe to around 200 blogs on education and one thing they almost all have in common is that they encourage respectful dialogue on how we can improve our teaching practice. I left a comment that I thought might be helpful to Chili as a teacher. I was not expecting anyone to then demand that I defend my faith or call me a coward for not doing so. Namecalling and derogatory language about another person ARE personal attacks. I don’t think they have any place on a blog about education, and I assumed Chili felt the same. I’m giving her the opportunity to share her point on that, and then I’m done with it.

      • Kagen Alexander

        Angela, I get that you’re upset, but you didn’t answer my questions. If you look past the bluster, you’ll see that Joe is asking some valid questions: is it right to substitute faith for reason? What about the contradictions in that faith – like that it’s okay for Christians to criticize homosexuals and non-believers, but no criticism can be leveled on Christians without it being a personal attack? What about the parts of the Bible that believers choose to ignore while clinging desperately to the parts that serve their agenda? I think these are valid questions – it’s not about defending your faith – you can believe whatever you want…until it affects someone else. What I’m seeing is Joe asking you to think critically about how belief systems work in the real world.

      • @Kagen: I didn’t push back with Joe because Joe did not ask any questions in a way that insinuated he was looking for open, honest, respectful dialogue. Once you say “There’s something seriously wrong with you” and “your beliefs are stupid”, you’ve pretty much established yourself as a person who wants to rant, not learn.

        Your tone is different. I get the sense that you are, in fact, interested in getting me to think critically, and I appreciate it. But I didn’t answer your questions because I’m not here to do that. I’m here to discuss how our biases influence our teaching, which was the content on the post and my comment. I don’t feel any obligation to discuss my religion.

        Why do I need to defend the “Christian view” of homosexuality and non-believers? How in the world does that fit into the conversation? I don’t like being criticized for what other people have said and done in the name of Christianity. There’s so much talk here about how Christians are so quick to criticize. But *I* did not criticize or bring up anything offensive. I made a point about biases in teaching. Why should I now have to debate theology to prove that I am not one of those “Christians” who can’t deal with people who disagree with them?

        I’m not a right winger. I voted for Obama and Keith Olbermann is (was) my favorite commentator. I don’t tell gay people whether they should get married and I don’t condemn other people to hell. I’m educated and intelligent and live in New York City where I peacefully coexist with all sorts of people who think differently than me. So I hate being lumped in with the crazies and having to defend their way of being.

      • Kagen Alexander

        Yeah, but here’s the thing – this DOES have to do with the post. Chili’s been criticized for not creating a supportive envrionment for Christians. My question is, why should she have to? What is it about Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) that makes them so special that accommodations need to be made for them in school (or here, even)?

        I remember a bumper sticker from a while back that went something like “You don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church.” Chili loves the first amendment, and I’m betting that having parents and students complain about having to think about things that their religion has taught them are bad really pisses her off. Of course, she’s too nice to say that…

  17. Wow.

    Okay, here’s the deal:

    Angela, I genuinely apologize if you’ve been offended by anything that’s happened here. I assure you that my intent was not to offend, but to antagonize. Seems I’ve managed that quite nicely.

    Joe, I’m going to direct you back to my syllabus; it’s okay to DISAGREE, but it’s not okay to be DISAGREEABLE. I’m good with passion, but please do make an effort to send your message in a way that isn’t specifically designed to piss people off. My experience is that stuff like this happens, we get distracted, and very little good work gets done.

    This is a blog, not a classroom. I’m making the assumption that we’re all adults here and that it’s not my job to teach you all how to engage in adult discourse. I’ll correct my teenagers’ delivery in my classroom because they may not know any better, but I’m not in this to correct anyone here.

    I despise censorship far more than I despise rudeness. We cannot have a free and open exchange if we only limit those exchanges to what is nice or comfortable. By the same token, I recognize we can’t have a free and open exchange if half the audience is intimidated into silence. It behooves us all to try to meet somewhere in the middle.

    My refusal to delete a comment should not be construed as an endorsement of that comment; I have literally never deleted anything anyone has left on my blogs, even those cracks aimed directly at me from trolls intent on provocation. I’m sure there will be someone who’ll say something that will make me push that button, but it hasn’t happened yet. If that means some of you choose not to frequent my spaces, I’m sorry. I’m a huge fan of the First Amendment, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

    • @Chili: Thanks for that response. I never expected you to delete Joe’s comments. I was only expecting a response from you to him. When you left a comment that threatened to delete a basically harmless comment from one person and defended the perspective of another person who made rude personal attacks, I found it confusing.

      Because I don’t often venture into your comment section, I had forgotten that many of your readers are not in the field of education. They are not here because you are part of their ‘personal learning network’ and are not looking to engage in productive, supportive, encouraging conversations about improving their teaching practice. They come here simply because they like you, or because you’re a good writer and tell interesting stories, or because they like your worldview, or any other number of reasons. They don’t have the expectation I do that we’ll refrain from personal attacks and stay on topic. That’s an unwritten (and sometimes written rule) in the edublog circle that those outside it don’t necessarily adhere to. I think this was a perfect example of that.

      Congratulations on succeeding in your attempt to antagonize. :-) Apology accepted, explanation understood, no hard feelings.

      • You understand, don’t you, that I’m not apologizing for Joe. I think that he makes a lot of really important points, even if he does so in a very pointy way. I think that voices like his are important because they push us to think more rigorously and carefully about our own positions. I can tell you with certainty that the thinking that Joe makes ME do has made me a much better person.

  18. @Chili: Yes, I get that. My understanding is that you were apologizing for any misinterpretation of your intention that resulted in offense.

  19. Bob

    The irony of this is when I teach Music History and spend a large amount of time discussing the church and involvement in the start of Western Music, I hear a ton of complaints about teaching Christian values.

  20. @Kagen: Apparently only 2 replies can be made to a post and then you have to leave your response at the bottom of the pile, so sorry this is becoming a bit disjointed.

    You said: “Chili’s been criticized for not creating a supportive environment for Christians. My question is, why should she have to? What is it about Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) that makes them so special that accommodations need to be made for them in school (or here, even)?”

    THAT’S a question I agree is interesting and relevant, though I don’t have a ready answer.

    Maybe it comes down to the school system’s interpretation of inclusion and tolerance? In general, teachers are encouraged to create a learning environment that is not just tolerant of but supportive of ALL beliefs. It’s not enough to encourage divergent thinking, but you must also include divergent points of view in your instruction. Literature in the curriculum guide (at least at the elementary level, I can’t say beyond that) is typically very multi-cultural and touches on almost every religion and culture and way of life. There’s an underlying assumption that all belief systems and lifestyles are supposed to be not just tolerated, but actively included in instruction.

    Or maybe it’s about ‘supportiveness’ and ‘accommodation’ which in general are huge themes in education. Teachers are expected to accommodate learning styles, learning interests, reading preferences, reading levels, disabilities, behavioral needs, languages, etc etc etc. They actively work to make students feel that their beliefs and perspectives and ideas are valuable no matter what–it’s part of the school culture, largely I think as a result of the self-esteem movement. Unfortunately, though, there is a sense among some students and parents that they are entitled to be coddled and have their viewpoints catered to in all situations.

  21. The key to any academic setting is that of discourse. The great thing about America is the fact that we can believe what we want to believe. A secular state is the best state; it allows for an honest debate/discussion. I love the few atheist students I teach. They are so very bright; I also embrace my Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters too; however, the conversation must be on impact. No preaching.

  22. THE language in which Jesus taught has not been preserved to us. Who recorded his actual words, or if any real record ever existed, is all matter of guess. Who translated the words of Jesus into the Greek no one knows. In the compass of four pamphlets, attributed to four persons,
    thanks for blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s