Template talk:Parables of Jesus

The fig tree
current problem: There are two parables involving fig trees: The Parable of the Fig Tree is found in, , ; the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree is found in. 75.0.4.217 09:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's split the Fig Tree page into Parable of the Fig Tree (the parable that Jesus told) and Jesus and the Fig Tree (the incident in Jesus' life). Jonathan Tweet 00:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lazarus and Dives"?
Can we change this page to "Lazarus and the rich man"? Jonathan Tweet 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a little confusing
Should we put parables that aren't in a normal Bible someplace else, instead of lumping then together with all the other parables? For example, I have never heard about the "Parable of the Assassin", and neither have most Christians. Especially when the message sort of contradicts Christian faith. HighInAZ


 * The only parables here that aren't in the Bible have a decent chance of having been said by Jesus. (Jesus must have said lots of things that didn't make it into Matthew Mark Luke John.) The leads to Assassin and Jar should point out that they're not in the Christian canon. Just like the leads for certain other parables (two debtors) should point out that Jesus might not have said them. Let the reader sort it out. Let's not make the readers decisions for them.Jonathan Tweet 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with HighInAZ. "Let the reader sort it out" is not an argument for an educational text such as an encyclopedia. Should a 15 year old who is tryingto understand these things have to guess and sort it out? Not at all. Personally, I was VERY surprised to see the Gospel of Thomas mentioned here. And it is given high prominence by being mentioned in the lower footer, which gives it surprisingly undue weight. Unless there are solid arguments against, I will trim it in a day or two based on HighInAZ's suggestion. The addition of Gospel of Thomas would surprise "most Christians" and is not logical or appropriate at all. It must go for the sake of quality and clarity. Wikipedia should report on what Christianity is, not "define it anew". History2007 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No comment after 5 days, so I will go ahead. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't watching this template, and I doubt others were as well. I disagree with the removal. I think putting them in italics was fine, or even separating them out into another section. But deleting them seems very POV (as would be including them in a list without some sort of notation).-Andrew c [talk] 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for "most Christians" and "define Christianity anew", that isn't what this template is doing. It is neutrally listing the Parables attributed to Jesus. I agree that we shouldn't compile a novel list of what Christians should believe, but on the other hand we shouldn't allow a mainstream Christian perspective to be presented as the only perspective. I'm sure there is a way we can have an inclusive, holistic list, and present it in a manner that is sensitive to Christian belief, without pushing that sole believe as POV. If the italics don't work, perhaps a 2nd section. Jonathan brought up an interesting points as well. -Andrew c [talk] 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As is, it looks to me like an advertisement for the Gospel of Thomas and gives it undue weight. I will make a new template about just those in the Gospels. History2007 (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't, as that would be, IMO, a POV fork. Either get consensus to remove them from this template, or let's work on some way to present the information in a manner that you don't believe is an advertisement. -Andrew c [talk] 15:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking how perhaps it would be better to have two sections in the template - one for the parables found in the canonical gospels, and the other separated by a vertical (my preference) line, with both sides labeled. Come to think of it, are there other parables that exist in other noncanonical literature? Ngchen (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the heart of what you want to achieve NgChen. It is a question of design now. As is The St. Thomas Gospel is getting undue weight. My preference would be a horizontal division, and I will do a sample of it in a few minutes here. The two sections are: Proverbs in the Gospels, and Proverbs elsewhere. Simple. Cheers History2007 (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I think of the title "New Testament" being applied to the first list... My first reaction was "there are non-NT parallels to at least 11 of those". I'm feeling a word like "canonical" may convey a better meaning, and be more precise, but I'm worried that it may be a bit jargony for the lay reader. Theissen and Merz use the phrase "Synoptic parables". I've also been looking through college level "Parables of Jesus" course syllabi to get some ideas as well.-Andrew c [talk] 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Long and short of it is: Ngchen's idea will work, but the exact term to be used is to be figured out. I would actually say: The Bible. Is that not the clearest way to avoid Jargon? Take a look. History2007 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bible is worse because it broadens it even more, when clearly parables of Jesus are not found in the vast majority of the bible. We can easily narrow it down to the 4 gospels, if no the synoptics. Furthermore, it doesn't address my concern that parallels are found in "other documents". I don't want the illusion that say Parable of the Sower is unique to just "the Bible" or even "the New Testament". Saying those top parables are "canonical" at least explains that context, without implying they are only found in certain documents. It may do well to have a section on the Synoptics, a section on John (and note that their status as "parables" is disputed by some), and then a section for others. We could probably get even more detailed than that, showing the unique and parallel parables, but that probably isn't necessary (though the nerd in me thinks it'd probably be neat and useful to some). -Andrew c [talk] 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough talk ;), I've worked up a rough draft: User:Andrew_c/test. -Andrew c [talk] 19:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, I totally disagree. First John has NO place there, because by most accounts it has no parables but just allegories. The article says: "The Catholic Encyclopedia states: There are no parables in St. John's Gospel". And to elevate Thomas to the level of the Gospel is just insane. For God's sake, I have written over a hundred Wikipedia articles on religion and until a few weeks ago I had never, ever even heard of the "Gospel of Thomas". When I first saw it I thought there was something missing in my understanding of Christianity. The elevation of Thomas to a front row seat is totally unrepresentative of reality as the first comment above by HighInAZ said. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Catholic encyclopedia says that. John Calvin finds a parable in John, as do other notable sources. This list shouldn't be "the Catholic list" or even "the Christian list". We need a NPOV list. Even though it is a minority position, notable sources have found parables in John. Therefore, listing them here, and making a note that many sources do not consider them technically "parables" seems fine. I don't think citing one source representative of a single sect (the Catholic encyclopedia) should be the be all and end all. Furthermore, I find it entirely acceptable that public domain sources from the 19th century (like many of the ones you cite) one say a thing about "Thomas" because it wasn't discovered in full until 1945. But the fact of the matter, any seemingly neutral, scholarly, historical work from the past few decades (such as the work of Meier, Brown, Koester, Theissen, Ehrman, Crossan, Funk, Harris, etc) will reference as much early Christian material as necessary. Clearly the canonical gospels are given prominence (and rightly so for various reasons), but to entirely discount other historical documents (especially for theological reasons) seems to ignore a vast body of scholarly material and flies in the face of NPOV. I am really shocked you have never heard of Thomas until a few weeks ago. I really question the source material you are using. But perhaps this simply is a perspective issue. If I limit myself to scholarly, historical works, and you limit yourself to theological or religiously approved works, then there may be a disconnect. We shouldn't shut out either POV. But we need to find a common ground in presenting all notable views.


 * As to the specific issues in this template, currently it has a link to The Vine. If you object to any mention of the possible/disputed John parables, then we should remove that link (as we removed the Good Shepherd earlier). I'm starting to think it would be helpful to include them in a separate section with a note saying how most do not consider them parables. As for "Other historical documents:" I find the phrasing odd and misleading, because it would seem to imply that those two are historical documents, and the use of plural "documents" is wrong because those are only found in one source, Thomas. I'm leaning towards "canonical" and "extracanonical" probably being the best terms. "The four Gospels", if we remove the ones from John, as you seem to want to, would also be wrong, and we'd need to either list the 3 or say "Synoptic gospels" or something more specific, to make sure we aren't including John if we remove those links. Anyway, just some thoughts. -Andrew c [talk] 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting to be a TOTAL waste of time. This is a template, not an article. It just needs to list the key items, not minority views. And by the way, Parables of Jesus is mostly about Christianity, not quantum mechanics. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Sorry to have wasted your time. I don't appreciate your tone. Please allow me to waste some more of your time. If you don't want to participate, I'm fine with that as well. "Parable of the Vine and the Branches" or "Parable of the Vine" referring to John 15 1:8/17, gets over half a million google hits each, as "Parable of the Good Shepherd" gets clear over a million. We currently categorize both of those articles in Category:Parables of Jesus. It appears you have given two reasons not to include them "It just needs to list the key items, not minority views." and that the Catholic Encyclopedia says "There are no parables in St. John's Gospel". However, it cannot be denied that not only do various notable sources to consider them parables, but that a significant number (as illustrated through a basic google search, and a google book or scholar search) of them do. Since 2006, both of the possible John parables were included in this template. I think there should be a balance: a way to present those clearly on-topic links with also acknowledging their disputed status. I don't think this is about including fringe views (as I don't believe the belief that John contains parables is anywhere close to being fringe), and avoiding minority views (if it is such), is a violation of NPOV. -Andrew c [talk] 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Article says: Several authors such as Barbara Reid, Arland Hultgren or Donald L. Griggs comment that "parables are noticeably absent from the Gospel of John".   In Harmony of the Gospels, Cox and Easley provide a Gospel harmony for the parables based on the following counts: Only in Matthew: 18, only in Mark: 2, only in Luke: 18, Matthew and Luke: 4, Matthew, Mark and Luke: 6. They list no parables for the Gospel of John. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never once denied that some sources do not believe John contains parables. I have also explicitly stated that if we are to present those links, we need to do so in a neutral manner, making note of their disputed status. I'm not sure what you want me to do. Link more examples of source calling them parables? We already are at a "some say X, others say Y" situation. NPOV says we should present both sides, as long as one is not fringe. You do not have to convince me personally that they are not parables, because my personal opinion doesn't matter (and would agree with the your position). I just feel the view is common enough (even if some would call it a misconception) that it would benefit this template to include those. What about something that was collapsible, so that the synoptic parables were shown, and the other, more controvesial ones hidden. This sort of solution could help with any weight concerns. I've worked one up here, User:Andrew_c/test.-Andrew c [talk] 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. History2007 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Would you prefer if the John section was also collapsed by default? I'm sure there is a way to finagle that. -Andrew c [talk] 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is ok, as is. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Shepherd
Why is the Good Shepherd on this list? Doesn't seem like the article, nor sources, back it up. -Andrew c [talk] 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good shepherd? Where did you see that? History2007 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh! But I'm curious why Parable of the Growing Seed and Parable of the Hidden Treasure were removed as well.-Andrew c [talk] 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed? They are there... History2007 (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Grain of Wheat
The Grain of Wheat used to be in the parable category, but wasn't on the template. I've changed that, but now I'm coming here to see if anyone thinks it should be in the disputed John list or not? -Andrew c [talk] 14:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the article to suggest it's a parable, so I'd say don't include it. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me fix your sentence: There's nothing in the article. We should be going by what sources say, not what a terribly written, sorry excuse for an "article" says ;) I strongly feel that Wikipedia should not be Wikisource. It shouldn't be a place to just quote the bible. While it may be possible (well, I know it's possible) to write an encyclopedia article on the topic, I have half a mind to nominate that article for deletion, or prod it... or open some of my books and expand it myself :) Oh, sorry for the rant, what were you say? -Andrew c [talk] 15:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant was, the article lists no sources suggesting it's a parable (indeed, as you point out, the article lists no sources at all). Perhaps somebody will expand it into a decent article eventually. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Image on Parables vs Miracles
The image on the miracles template now looks bright & matches the blue background. The Rembrandt here is dark, depressing and just does not seem to work. Any better suggestions? History2007 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about the Good Samaritan? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on the right with the red and blue gets my vote. History2007 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's try that then. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. And it is one of the best known parables anyway, so works well. History2007 (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it really had to be an image from one of the well-known parables. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Viwiki
vi:Bản mẫu:Dụ ngôn của Chúa Giê-xu? Newone (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)