Pastors and degrees

[Bobby Hamilton]

Pardon me Dearest GB,

But if you think or equate "manipulating people" with what the essence of rhetoric is then you surely are mistaken.
I am sorry to correct you publicly but I just could not let that pass without a corrective comment, if indeed that is what you meant? I did not mean any slight towards you on any level and please do not take this personally.

But what I find most of the time when someone makes a statement about the use of rhetoric, they basically show their ignorance and have not the clue of an idea of what they speak.

Present company excluded particularly.

"That is all!"

What would Plato say about that?

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Taking the most watered down definition of Rhetoric, of course Paul (and Jesus) used it. Now how in depth and to what extent they used it is probably something that is up for debate.

But Paul wasn't just going to walk right into any city (unless the aid of the Holy Spirit was for that purpose alone) and just turn people to Christ. If he was going to do that, he would've spent very little time in prison, and we all know that isn't true.

The question would be where was Paul more persuasive? In his writings, or in his verbal teachings?

Hello to one and all:

I nearly always get tickled with folk who say that Paul could not speak, or that he was a better speaker than writer. He probably was the best around in his day from both disciplines of Communication theory: Public Speaking and Interpersonal Communication. One can particularly be seen in Athens. Surely if you have not studied his rhetoric in his few sermons you should make your business to check out rhetorical applications in his writing.

In saying that he "did not come with persuasive words of speech" is, in fact, a persuasive (can we say "rhetoric?") device in itself.

There is no doubt that in the present parlance he would have had at least two PhD degrees. And he would have had a large measure of what we are trying to go back to today, the Classical Education Model. He would have been trained in the best rhetorical schools in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. He would have know well the writings of Quintillian, Seneca, Aristotle, et al.

So this is Paul's way of using, say merging, homiletical delivery with Bibilical thought wrapped in the the mechanics of rhetoric in both its written and spoken forms.

Please excuse the following shameful self promotion, but Dr. Richard Wells and I are editing a book of academic essays. There are based on Aristotle's Rhetoric and how it applies to Homiletics. It has a stellar lineup of scholars (except for me), if I mentioned some of them you would want me to sell you an advanced copy of the work. :thumbs: Look for it later this year.

"That is all!" :wavey:

 

[gb93433]

The question would be where was Paul more persuasive? In his writings, or in his verbal teachings?

Who knows? My guess is that he was so skilled of a communicator that he could have debated most anyone with great skill and won but that is not what living for Jesus is all about.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Who knows? My guess is that he was so skilled of a communicator that he could have debated most anyone with great skill and won but that is not what living for Jesus is all about.

Paul spent a lot of time in Prison. I'd say his effectiveness came more about from his writings. I'm not saying that guy couldn't speak, but he seemed to be much more useful when he was using the likes of Timothy, Epaphroditus (SP?), etc to help spread the word while he was ministering in prison and sending letters to the Church.

Right now I'm teaching the teens in my Church and we're working our way through Phillipians. Some great, great stuff for teens.

 

[gb93433]

Right now I'm teaching the teens in my Church and we're working our way through Phillipians. Some great, great stuff for teens.

Good for you! Those teens will appreciate it a lot more later than they do now. They are the next generation of leaders. The gurus and religious politicians have been around too long.