Socrates Meets Jesus: History's Greatest Questioner Confronts the Claims of Christ

Great read!!!

The last reviewer was right-on. Considering its intended audience, it hits a home-run. I read this book several times, starting in 1983 and bought it several times to give to people. It's #1 characteristic is its humor. You cannot help but smile or burst out laughing at "Socrates" reactions to various things, especially in light of his being transported to a "progressive, 20th century age". The theme/idea is marvelous, and its treatment genuinely intriguing.Of course I am a believer in Jesus Christ, but also studied Socrates from an atheistic English professor who introduced our class to the real Socrates in a fantastic way. Always lucid and sensitive. When this book was handed to me by a friend, I could tell, just by the concept of the book, that it had a more-than-likely chance of being fun to read. Well it was, and it is very thought provoking about what our world esteems as good.Even if you are dead set against books which you think attempt to trick you into meeting God, this book is a fun read. Very witty, too.

First of all, if I may get away with answering some critics. I was a philosophy and religious studies student at a secular liberal arts university where Christianity was not thought of fondly. I then went to a divinity school where I learned that not everything called "Christian" really is. Though I may not be an expert, I know what kind of things go on in the setting that Kreeft has offered, a divinity school. If nothing else, Socrates criticizes modernist "Christians" who try and have it both ways (All the success of the spread of Christianity without any doctrine or personal piety). Now with regards to the critics, many of them use two words: "straw man" and "fundamentalism." The irony is this: anyone who does not want to critically consider the claims of Christianity calls even its basic, central beliefs (crucifixion, resurrection, Bible) "fundamentalism." Anyone who goes to Divinity School will (hopefully) learn that there have been Benedictines, Puritans, and Lutherans; however all these people had in common basic beliefs about who Jesus was and what he did. After a belief is deemed "fundamentalist," it is no longer studied. Fundamentalism becomes such an all-encompassing, and thus poorly defined staw man, that Christianity is considered easily dispatched. However, it would serve such critics well to read the sociologist of religion Martin Marty's "Fundamentalisms Observed." In it, he dispels the popular notion that fundamentalism is the predominant mode of Christianity, and second, contends that many "conservative" Christians really aren't fundamentalists. In fact, this irony is aptly exposed in chap. 3 of Kreeft's book when Socrates concludes that the definition of fundamentalism employed currently is too broadly conceived. Furthermore, this Socrates, for better or worse, is exactly the "gadfly" of the Apology/Phaedo, the eternal questioner. The central method of Socrates was to start with a set of premises and follow them to their logical conclusion. Aristotle later criticized Socratic logic in his "Prior Analytics," suggesting that premises themselves might have to be established from a more empirical basis, preventing an ad nauseam of logical progression. However, this Socrates is the very rationalist who Aristotle criticized. The exact reason for some of the philosophical overlaps between Socrates and Christians (theism, monotheism, ethical holiness of God) is still a subject of great debate; Kreeft just offered an answer to that overlap that displeases the philosophical secularist. Perhaps the bottom line is that several critics don't want to acknowledge/consider even the most basic premises of faith. In this sense, they are ironically dogmatic. Either Jesus was who he said he was or he wasn't. This much is a tautology. We'll call it J v ~J. If he wasn't, it is because the Scriptures were untrue or the ones who wrote Scripture were deceived (argument in pp. 169-170, one critic stopped reading at 150). The argument is logical. What it really means is that Christianity is an all or nothing. You either accept it or mightily refute it as a lie. There is no middle ground of "Jesus was just kinda nice." The historical character and teachings of Jesus simply burned that philosophical bridge. I guess my bottom line to critics is, just read the book. Don't read the book reading your stereotypical view of a Christian apologist such as Kreeft into the book (an inherently ad hominem read). Just take the premises as they come; avoid gratuitous emotion or subjectivity, try to look at the ideas themselves. That is the true task of the philosopher, and Socrates makes that evident, unlike an "intoxicated hippie" (to use words of a profound critic of this book). Socrates may yield to some foundational propositions that are occasionally questionable, but each argument he makes necessarily follows from the starting premises. Whether you believe or do not believe, I implore you to look at the ideas and logic itself, and judge the book on this basis, not on the basis that this book is written by a Christian apologist. I think then you will realize one thing that both a secularist and I can agree on: Jesus was, and will continue to be, one of the most influential figures of all time.

Kreeft is one of my favorite authors. I can't say that I agree with him on every point but more often than not he gives me new things about which to think. He is a treasure to his university and I have enjoyed being in on these discussions through these books. Logic, logic logic !!Socrates coming alive in the year of 1987 and having a discussion in a modern theological seminary is truly one of the more unique ways to view Christianity and Christian thought. I often come away with a better and more thorough view of the creeds and beliefs that I hold dear when set against the backdrop of other opinions, theories and philosophies.

It stays very true to the historical Socrates, at least as I understood him and raises very good points. I had a very hard time putting it down and would have finished the book in one sitting if I had started it earlier in the day. A page-turner for sure.

The alleged proof hinges upon the following claim: significant events must have causes that are no less significant (?!). "Therefore", since Christianity has been one of the major forces in history, the Gospels have to be true.The first claim is too dumb for the real Socrates to utter. Suffices to think of many natural phenomena with chaotic development, e.g. weather changes, or of major events in human history strongly affected by chance, e.g. the effect of random sea wind patterns on the outcome of the naval battles at Salamis during Persian invasion of Greece.The second claim can equally be (mis)applied to the other major religions of the world. It is akin to claiming that "the truth is whatever the majority thinks is true", since it amounts essentially to "the truth is whatever the majority (or the largest minority) has lived according to"I would only give 1.5 stars for "philosophy" and argumentation in the book. However, I have found instructive and amusing its humorous criticism of the current trends in the academia, such as political correctness at the expense of factual correctness, fake "cool dude"-ness of the Professors, and their paranoic fear to express their own opinions.The book also models a healthy look at the modern society from an outsider.

It definitely made me consider religion but Christianity specifically in a different way. Never put much thought into the subject before this I kind of just went along with what I was taught. I believed parts and felt others were obviously false but never considered what made me think that way.

Such a delight to read. It was this month’s choice for our theological book club. I’m sure it will stimulate a good discussion about the interaction of philosophy and theology.

Nice read. You would not want to put it down before you're through it. A very engaging book.

This seems to be a continuation of the Socratic style used in the conversation about abortion in Kreeft's previous book. The idea of Socrates going to "sleep" drinking hemlock and waking up in modern times is brilliant. The way Socrates is characterized is surprisingly believable and the conversations never cease to make one analyze one's beliefs. I found myself asking throughout the book: could the Socratic method be used to educate people and advance them from knowledge to wisdom or is this too illogical. If I could ask Kreeft one question it would be: what is your formula for the Socratic dialogues you write so well?

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Other reviewers have criticized its portrayal of Socrates, even that Kreeft dares portray Socrates, but I find Socrates less of a holy cow, and consider the book a work of light-hearted fiction. I do not seriously expect to find accurate critique of Socrates here. I have read a some Plato whilst studying philosophy at theological college, and as well as finding him stimulating enjoyed the experience; the adaptation seems witty and appropriate. It is not profound apologetic of traditional Christianity, nor is it profound critique of liberal theology, but it does raise some profound questions about that liberal methodology, and characteristically for Socrates, examines some of those assumptions. The thrust of Socratic method is about examination, and that is what Kreeft does; he lightheartedly examines. I would recommend it as a beginning to conversation or thought, and as entertaining encouragement to orthodox Christians beleaguered by unbelief and fallacies. It is useful to see how examination and questioning can be applied in this context, and that method of examination thus used in the daily walk of faith.

I'm an agnostic believing in what makes the most logical sense, currently the simulation theory; I've done many psychedelics. Recently i've decided to read and study Peter Kreeft's "Socratic Logic" to improve my method of questioning and season to spot issues in my own and others arguments as well as construct them more rationally. It was the best book ive ever read and truly challenged my previously more negative view on religion. Im looking to read apologetics and this book hass been a much appreciated gateway to it.

The book is okay but unfortunately the religious biases of the author can become a bit overwhelming if you are not a Christian. I was expecting a more impartial look at these historical figures but unfortunately it seems even from the introduction that the author is more interested in apologetics than philosophy.It still has its interesting and mildly amusing parts, but the apologetics spoiled it a bit for me.Will probably be more appealing to Christians than agnostics, atheists or theists of other denominations.