Talk:True Vine

Parable status
Catholic Encyclopedia: Parables: "There are no parables in St. John's Gospel."

Raymond Brown's Into to the NT "In the narrative sequence the metaphorical discourse on the good shepherd (10:1-21), although it has a certain autonomy, is directed to the Pharisees whom Jesus accused of being blind in 9:40-41. This and the description of the vine in 15"1-17 are the closest that John comes to the parables so common in the Synoptics. In John there is a mixture of metaphors offering different ways of looking at the same reality: Jesus is the gate by which the shepherd goes to the sheep, and by which the sheep come into the fold and go out to masturel and Jesus is the model shepherd who both knows his sheep by name and is willing to lay down his life for them." p.348 and he cites a work called "The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and Its Context". Then on pages 364-5 "A comparison of the Fouth Gospel to the first three Gospels shows obvious differences. Peculiarities of John include: ... long discoursed and dialogues rather than parables". And Ehrman's NT "In John, however, Jesus does not speak in parables, nor does he proclaim the imminent appearance of the kingdom. He instead focuses his words on identifying himself as the one sent from God." p. 162


 * Simply search Parable of the Vine in any search engine and you will find tons of sites that classify this as a parable. Do you know what the majority of bible scholars classify it as? Roy Brumback 06:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See Reliable sources. Number of search engine hits is not considered a reliable source. Catholic Encyclopedia is a reliable source, so is Raymond E. Brown. 75.15.203.141 07:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of hits is not a reliable source, but several of those hits are reliable sources. Calvin held it was a parable for instance. Again, do you know what most scholars, now or over all time, hold this to be? Roy Brumback 06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The Vine → True Vine – WP:THE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. "The Vine" could be anything. This is parable/allegory is better known by the name "True Vine".  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 18:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: among other things, Andrew Murray wrote a book on the subject called The True Vine. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 5 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

True Vine → Allegory of the True Vine – I know we just had an RM here, and while The Vine → True Vine was an improvement, I've noticed that other biblical parables/allegories are named "Parable of the...". I believe naming this "Allegory of the..." would be more WP:CONSISTENT with those other parables, as well as with articles on other generic allegories (e.g. Allegory of the Cave). Jujutsuan ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 15:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose we just had a RM. Can we take a break first? ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀   17:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)  (not a valid argument)
 * I don't think that's an argument. :)  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 19:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, my friend! ;) I am officially neutral on this matter. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀   21:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: not universally called an "allegory". StAnselm (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's described in the lead as an allegory, and it's established pretty clearly that it's not a parable per se. Which sources object to labelling it an allegory?   Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 19:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this is an example of calling it a "parable". I'm certainly not arguing for that in the title, but it makes me want to avoid "allegory". StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.