Talk:Parables of Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Examples
Obviously the sections under Examples don't yet add much to what's already in List of New Testament stories, but there's plenty of room for expansion with details that don't belong in that list. In progress. Andrewa 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Now not even a maybe stub IMO. Still lots of room for expansion, and one stub section. Andrewa 18:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reorganization project
I've just finished a big project of reorganizing all the parables and categorizing them. I've made a new template (Template:Parables of Jesus and moved all the pages to more consistent titles. Also, I did a lot of wikifying. Hope you guys Wikipedia series on the fascinating classic parables of Jesus. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Stevey, I like the new template and the work you have done. Thanks. Jeremy Conlin 03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Parables for Wikipedia
While I think it's very worthwhile to have Wikipedia articles on the parables of Jesus, it's important to remember that all articles on Wikipedia have to follow the Neutral point of view rule. That means that articles have to be accepted as factual by believers and nonbelievers alike. People do not agree on whether the Gospels are a factual account of what Jesus actually said, or even on whether Jesus was a historical figure. People do agree that the Gospels contain these accounts, so that's how the articles should present the parables--as accounts contained in the Gospels.
The interpretations of the parables have to be presented as interpretations, and not as their objective meaning. The parables are clearly not self-explanatory, given that Jesus' closest followers are depicted as frequently unable to understand them. They may seem to have a clear meaning in the light of modern Christianity, but that is not necessarily the meaning that Jesus and/or the original authors of the Gospels had in mind.
The persons or institutions who have these interpretations should be named. In other words, Cite Sources. Wikipedia should not contain the interpretations of Wikipedia editors; that would be Original research. Nareek 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inappropriate tone
I'm really meaning just the tagged section, not the whole article (the template doesn't have an option to tag just a section). That section reads like a bible-study manual, not like an encyclopaedia article.
And is there any copyright issue over the quotes from Packer and Matthews? Colonies Chris 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I confess it was I who wrote the offending section. Frankly this is the first Wikipedia article I have edited so I am still learning. I included that section as I thought others would appreciate it and find it useful. How could it be included and still be appropriate for Wikipedia? Also I belive the quotes from Packer and Matthews fall under the Fair_Use guidelines as only a small portion was quoted and references were given. What do you think?
- Jeremy Conlin 00:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have no expertise in copyright issues beyond a scan of WP:Copyrights, but I have doubts about whether this would constitute 'fair use' - that's really intended to cover quoting pieces of a work in order to criticise it, review it, or educate about it, and that's not how these quotes are being used here. It would be perfectly OK to rephrase it in your own words though, while continuing to acknowledge it as a reference.
-
- It's mostly item 5 that bothers me. Bear in mind that many readers will not be Christians, so e.g. a recommendation to 'pray for inspiration', is not appropriate. But it would be OK to mention that many Christians feel (with a reference to confirm this assertion) that better understanding of a parable can be gained by praying for inspiration. Colonies Chris 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That's a good recommendation. I have updated item 5; if you think it is better, let me know and we can remove the inappropriate tone tag. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll work on the copyright issues. Jeremy Conlin 19:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Untagged. Colonies Chris 09:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Re-tagged. You absolutely must not assert an opinion as a fact. Do not insist "this is how you study the bible", because many many different groups and divisions of christianity have wildly different opinions about how it should be studied. The entire section is totally inappropriate.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What you are permitted to do is mention how various different groups of Christians, and scholars (not necessarily Christian ones), study the parables. You should avoid presenting the views of only one side as much as possible - you should present as many major viewpoints as you can find; so that means including the Catholic viewpoints, and those of scholars who don't think Jesus was special but are studying the book as they would any other historic document. Ideally it would also include Muslim viewpoints (remember, Muslims regard Jesus as a valid prophet), and those of the Orthodox church, as well. Clinkophonist 20:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have changed the section title to show it is the opinion of Latter-day Saints. Is this appropriate? I don't know how other Christian denominations may interpret this so I had to limit it to the LDS interpretation. Those from other religions/denominations will have to contribute as well. Jeremy Conlin 12:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Tone
To maintain a more nuetral tone do not use the word truth in the Guidelines for studying the parables section 2ct7 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This lead sentence should be deleted as original research
They are the best known examples of stories referred to as parables, and so form the prototype for the term parable.
The parables of Jesus are certainly not the prototype for the term parable, it's very debatable that they are the best known examples. Unless this statement can be supported by a Wikipedia: Reliable sources, it should be deleted.
[edit] Proposed link
I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appd.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller