Jesus, the Apologist

[Gravey]

So i'm doing Jesus and the early church (Matt-Acts) for seminary...And I can write an interpretive topic, so I was thinking 'you know what, I haven't read ANYTHING about Jesus being an apologist...So why not write about the Apologetic Method of Jesus.

I was thinking 'what i'll do is start by writing about Apologetics in general, what it is and it's goal, then I'd talk about Jesus the chief apologist, and then I would go through and extract all the dialogues Jesus had in the Gospels and categorise them into different groups of, for e.g.: (1) Socratic Method (questioning the questioner), (2) Reductio ad Absurdum (3) The A Fortiori Method etc. etc.

THEN - as I started google searching, I found out that Geisler (the president of my seminary, yes I'm at VES) has written a book titled "The APologetics of Jesus" and after a quick survey of the TOC, amongst a wealth of other information, he breaks down the methodology like I was hoping to do...

So, my question is - should I find something else to write about? I mean, if I went ahead with this topic, I wouldn't read Geisler, lest I just become a clone of him...I don't know...I was hoping this might be original, but it seems not...

Thoughts?

 

[God'sElectSaint]

So i'm doing Jesus and the early church (Matt-Acts) for seminary...And I can write an interpretive topic, so I was thinking 'you know what, I haven't read ANYTHING about Jesus being an apologist...So why not write about the Apologetic Method of Jesus.

I was thinking 'what i'll do is start by writing about Apologetics in general, what it is and it's goal, then I'd talk about Jesus the chief apologist, and then I would go through and extract all the dialogues Jesus had in the Gospels and categorise them into different groups of, for e.g.: (1) Socratic Method (questioning the questioner), (2) Reductio ad Absurdum (3) The A Fortiori Method etc. etc.

THEN - as I started google searching, I found out that Geisler (the president of my seminary, yes I'm at VES) has written a book titled "The APologetics of Jesus" and after a quick survey of the TOC, amongst a wealth of other information, he breaks down the methodology like I was hoping to do...

So, my question is - should I find something else to write about? I mean, if I went ahead with this topic, I wouldn't read Geisler, lest I just become a clone of him...I don't know...I was hoping this might be original, but it seems not...

Thoughts?

That's sounds like a really good idea brother. You can break this down from a reformed perspective as well Jesus Himself did.

 

[RamistThomist]

He used enthemymes in logic. Dallas Willard writes about Logic as a Spiritual Discipline in the Life of Jesus in The Great Omission

 

[MW]

Thoughts?

It would have to be carefully constructed to ensure our Lord is not made to bear witness of Himself and thereby nullify His claims. There were specific redemptive-historical factors which bore witness to Him. That was one of the main reasons for the apostolate. The Gospels and Acts are the apostolic witness to Jesus.

 

[Gravey]

Thoughts?

It would have to be carefully constructed to ensure our Lord is not made to bear witness of Himself and thereby nullify His claims. There were specific redemptive-historical factors which bore witness to Him. That was one of the main reasons for the apostolate. The Gospels and Acts are the apostolic witness to Jesus.

Thanks Rev. Helpful points for me to remember. (Also, good to see some other Aussies on here!)

 

[Gravey]

He used enthemymes in logic. Dallas Willard writes about Logic as a Spiritual Discipline in the Life of Jesus in The Great Omission

Thanks Jacob. I have that book on my shelf, time to read it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Our Lord was quite adept at using logic:

Matthew 12:24-30

1. Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
2. The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
3. Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
4. Argument from analogy (v. 27)
5. The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
6. Argument from analogy (v. 29)
7. The law of contradiction (v. 30)
8. The law of excluded middle (v. 30)

See also:
http://www.equip.org/article/Jesus-philosopher-and-apologist/
http://thecollegeoftheology.com/god-and-logic/ (from which the above 8 points appear).

 

[Gravey]

Our Lord was quite adept at using logic:

Matthew 12:24-30

1. Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
2. The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
3. Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
4. Argument from analogy (v. 27)
5. The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
6. Argument from analogy (v. 29)
7. The law of contradiction (v. 30)
8. The law of excluded middle (v. 30)

See also:
http://www.equip.org/article/Jesus-philosopher-and-apologist/
http://thecollegeoftheology.com/god-and-logic/ (from which the above 8 points appear).

You're quite right Patrick. I wonder if it would be more strategic to focus in on one portion of scripture, such as Matt 12:24-30, or do more of a broad survey across the gospels of how he used logic...
Thoughts?