Talk:Parable of the Ten Virgins

message: Why is this article listed in Category:Church architecture? It seems that its only claim to be there is that there are sculptures depicting the virgins in some churches. I am going to peruse the article again, and if I don't see something I didn't see the first time, I will remove the category. --Sean Lotz 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church architecture?

message: The image entitled [Image:Strasbourg Münster Eingang.JPG] was not of the Ten Virgins, but of the Virtues laying low the Vices. That image showed the left entrance to Strasbourg Cathedral; the right entrance is the one with the Ten Virgins. I have added those images and deleted this incorrect image. -- Rebecca Kennison 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong image

message: By referring to "A large majority of fellows on the Jesus Seminar, for example..." as evidence to doubt that Christ told this parable, one may be drawn to the (intended?) conclusion that He (Christ) actually did not author it. By using reference of the Jesus Seminar, a creation of Robert Funk and John Crossan, to discuss authenticity of the scripture is clearly being academically dishonest since Funk's and Crossan's intent was to discredit orthodox Christianity (see quotes below). Using a known bias in a manner that seems unbiased is more apt to be part of a politician's playbook than to be part of an academic article for those seeking facts. If mention is to be made of Funk's work, then at least be honest by providing note of his bias that the reader can then research as needed. The correct way of including this would be, "A large majority of fellows on the Jesus Seminar, although led by anti-Christian academic R.W. Funk, designated the parable as merely similar to something Jesus might have said or simply inauthentic."
R.W. Funk - noted academic but decidedly anti-Christian as evidenced from some of his quotes below as seen at <http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/the-coming-radical-reformation/> in his "The Coming Radical Reformation: Twenty-One Theses":
"There is not a personal god out there external to human beings and the material world."
"The doctrine of special creation of the species died with the advent of Darwinism and the new understanding of the age of the earth and magnitude of the physical universe."
"It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine."
"A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible."
"The virgin birth of Jesus is an insult to modern intelligence and should be abandoned." 
J.D. Crossan, a resigned Catholic priest, who said according to Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan>, "many of the gospel stories of Jesus are not factual" and "that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb."
Clearly, use of Messrs. Funk and Crossan body of work to examine the authenticity of Jesus is akin to quoting a Republican right-wing party leader comment's on the validity of Mr. Obama's policies. Lastly, and as a side note, Mr. Funk's quote above referring to the "insult" of virgin birth is one that I think academics should re-investigate in light of recent medical advances ("modern" at the time of Mr. Funk's writing was 1998) with regard to Cloning and In-Vitro Fertilization (see <http://www.linacre.org/cloningethics&medicineWatt.htm>). 74.100.24.178 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity 

message: I couldn't find a source for this anywhere, but I believe the context for the version of this in Matthew 25:1-13 relates to the concept described in Matthew 24:23-28. (Or am I ruining some kind of scholarly joke?) Pilast (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinterpretation?