Dalferth's Der auferweckte Gekreuzigte
I discovered Ingolf Dalferth a while ago, through his book, Radikale Theologie. I since purchased his book Der auferweckte Gekreuzigte and am trying to wrestle with a few questions I have about Christology, objectivity and subjectivity, the theological location of early Christian confession and such like. In one passage he writes:
Die Festlegung des Bezugs eines Bekenntnisses ist aber etwas anderes als die Beschreibung und begriffliche Bestimmung des Bezugsgegenstandes
Which roughly translated is:
The definition of the reference of a confession is something other than the description and conceptual definition of the reference object
He references Kripke and H. Putnam at this point, but my question pertains to the present philosophical veracity of such a claim. Does not language "go all the way down" (to loosely echo Derrida's engagement with phenomenology)? If so, can we neatly distinguish matters as he does?
If any specialists out there could help me - a humble NT teacher - on this, I would be most grateful as I am out of my depth!