Talk:Parables of Jesus

message: 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)
replies: text: Now not even a maybe stub IMO. Still lots of room for expansion, and one stub section. Andrewa 18:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: 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)
thread_title: Reorganization project

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parables for Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: I have read many parables of Jesus, but I was wondering if, according to Christian teaching, the Holy Spirit would have the religious or social capacity to tell parables. ADM (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Parables of the Holy Spirit

message: I find the following problematic, so I've moved it here for discussion: 
:Throughout his ministry Jesus put great emphasis on his words, which along with his miracles, constituted major proof of his divinity (cf John 8:28 and 14:10).J. Dwight Pentecost, 1998 The parables of Jesus: lessons in life from the Master Teacher  page 10Biblegateway John 8:28 Biblegateway John 14:10 
It isn't clear to me how the passages in John relate to "parables" as Pentecost doesn't explain it, and John doesn't mention parables (nor contain any). Furthermore, the way it is phrased seems POV, in addition to being poorly grammatically constructed. The logic of the phrasing doesn't really follow, and the conclusion (that there is major proof of Jesus' divinity") is not apparent to the reader. It would be better discuss this further down, in the context of Christian belief, and explain how the parables relate to divinity in more detail. I also wouldn't mind a sentence summarizing that in the lead as well. Something like "Christians relate the fact that Jesus taught in parables to evidence of his divinity because... " only I don't have the information to fill in the rest. -Andrew c [talk] 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pentecost actually said "His person" which can start a whole 30 page discussion in Christology. The basic logic of Pentecost is that the miracles and parables of Jesus are key components of the "Person of Christ".  The importance of the words of Jesus from John 8:28 does not ONLY apply to parables, but to ALL words of Jesus, since as Eric Francis Osborn, 1993 The emergence of Christian theology  page 98 also says: John 8:28 states that Jesus does not say things just himself, but speaks according to the instructions of the father - hence a divine link. An easier way is to just use the "parables are words" argument that Pentecost is implying anyway, and I will add that as such. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm fine with your changes. I saw that Pentecost wrote "His person", and I agree there could be a 30 page discussion stemming from that! -Andrew c [talk] 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Parables and words

message: :Moved from Talk:Gospel harmony#Clear terms
:See also Talk:Gospel harmony/BaseTable  04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear terms

message: Dear Sirs
I have recently created a website that I believe is pertinent to the subject pages at Wikipedia. 
My website lists the -- Largest Source of Parable Books by Author and Title -- on the internet.
I also review Parable Book Topics of Interest to those who may visit the site.
You can review my sites content at ...
BooksOnParables.Wordpress.com
Thank for your consideration in advance.
Mirths (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the books are relevant they should go into a bibliography section or further reading directly, not externally linked. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add "BooksOnParables.Wordpress.com" as an external link  

message: I have been looking at tables that list miracles, parables, ministry, and Gospel harmony etc. to make them consistent. Most of the tables have missing items, incorrect links, etc. as would be expected through manual editing. First, please see: List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels which I generated from the list of all key episodes in these pages by parsing existing pages in Wikipedia. I am planning to automatically regenerate a consistent and less error prone table here from the list of key episodes.
Help will be appreciated in the following form:
:* Please review List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels that acts as a central repository for Wikipedia links to miracles, parables, etc. If you see errors or inconsistencies there, please correct them based on the format provided on that talk page, and leave a message to that effect on the talk page there.
:* Please comment here on what episodes should be considered parables. The table here lists 30 parables, the template has 32 items and there are 36 pages within Wikipedia that list Canonical parables, i.e. we do have inconsistency. To achieve consistency across templates and pages, there must be changes.
After comments have been provided, I will just regenerate this table with consistent links and Bibleverses from the key episodes page, and update the template to be consistent. History2007 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the 4 pages not included in the template? -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not gotten around to write the template generator, just because that is the easiest part by far and I left that for last. If you want to hand edit it for now please do, I will generate the template and the pericope links that Carl suggested later. History2007 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add some pages to the template if I knew which ones to add. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, we are getting close. I think that merge proposal will fail anyway on bushel. Then I think the first 3 are parables and the 4th is not. So I will wait a day or two for comments then regenerate the table without the sheep and goat. I think Carl had sheep and goat as a parable on the Harmony page and I just parsed it from there. I will leave him a message and if he does not object we will drop that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone just added The Sheep and the Goats to the template, but with a footnote. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Carl, he knows a lot about the topic, so I left him a message and asked for comment. Conclusion: It is not a parable, just as John has no parable, so it was added as a second class citizen. So I think that settles it, it is not a parable, but we list it in the template as a semi-parable just in case someone asks. History2007 (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency and harmony

message: *Parable of the Growing Seed
*Parable of the Two Debtors
And quite a few more, lacking (1) references, (2) a commons cat link, (3) images, or all three. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: List of problem articles

message: These are carefully hand-picked images, but in no particular order. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many other parables have no associated commons category, so that selecting a good image is impossible. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I've moved the gallery to the article page, with a tentative categorisation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good start. In general galleries are added to end of articles, as in Miracles, so I will just move it further down. I think in time we can clean it all up like the miracle articles that have an image each and have a structure. History2007 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a gallery of ART, but a gallery of PARABLES. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to put galleries where ever I liked but a few times people pointed to manual of style that says that image galleries go to the end, regardless of if they are artistic or medical or whatever. They all got moved in teh end. So if it is in the middle of teh article sooner or later someone will complain so might as well move it to end now and save time. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more of a visual index to the parables than an image gallery. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I say tomato you say tomato. It does not make a diff to me but in time someone will complain. And it uses the gallery command so it is a gallery, or maybe it is a tomato who knows. In the meantime, please see Talk:List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels/gallery, which my program automatically downloaded, using the first image on the article. So it is easier to see which are missing in the harmony altogether. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try not to argue on the basis of what someone else MIGHT say. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I notice your program sometimes picks up the image in the parables template, and sometimes doesn't. In any case, the first image in the article is often not the best image to use for a thumbnail. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: And there are some duplicates in the list, presumably due to redirects? -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the program is not perfect and has no artistic sense? I will have a serious talk with the programmer and tell him do do better - or else. Actually I never got to test that program, I just wrote it with my eyes shut and that was the very first output. The goal was to uncover the missing images and be a test in automating Wiki-access for general quality checks anyway. I will look at it again. What are the duplicates?  And if one orders the images as a harmony, an interesting side effect takes place: one gets one of those pictorial "Life of Christ" sequences. It was an unexpected item actually. I will eventually just post the simple few lines of Perl code that does that somewhere so everyone can use it for building bots etc. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: By the way, if you want to replace images on that page, please do, and I will then see if I can make it pick that image, else a default first. That would be nicer. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I converted the image tables to the standardized gallery code and saved 2,000+ bytes! Was there a reason the gallery coding wasn't used in the first place? Am I missing something? -Andrew c [talk] 02:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was converted from gallery code, in that it's actually a visual index which links to the parables, rather than a gallery which links to the images. That 2,000+ bytes saved also included a lot of mouse-over text. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are also forcing thumbnail size, which is a big no-no in my book. I don't really see the advantage of your way. Can you cite another wikipedia page (perhaps a featured article) which does this? Where did you get the idea? It's new to me, and I prefer the gallery code, it's simpler, easier for others to edit, doesn't force thumbnail size, takes less space and code, and seem more within our style and layout manuals. -Andrew c [talk] 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea was to have a map or diagram of the collection of parables as a whole, which didn't take up too much room, hence requiring a fairly small thumbnail size (the same size as Wikipedia:DYKSTATS, in fact). If your suggestion of gallery code was implemented, it would take up lots more room, generating pressure to have it moved to the end of the article, making it IMHO less useful. Also the gallery code would lose the clarifying mouseover text. And this is Wikipedia: we ARE allowed to experiment with new ways of doing things, surely? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial gallery

message: This puts the full mouseover text in the captions. Vertical space used has more than doubled, so that the "overall view" has been largely lost. And clicking on the images no longer jumps to the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia, clicking on images never take you to articles. I don't find that a problem, and I don't think we need twice as much code to hack around how the software works. The size of the icons in galleries is user defined. If you want them smaller change your preferences. If you want them larger, change your preferences. This is an accessibility thing. Forcing them to be 100 would make them too small for many with vision impairments, and a lot of older folk. When one makes such specific code that it looks great on one computer, that doesn't mean it looks great on all set ups. Furtermore, forcing to have 4 images per row could break the page if someone was viewing it on a netbook, in a small browser window, on mobile. On the other hand, someone with a giant monitor would have too short rows. Maybe there is a compromise to be had? But breaking the accessibility is a deal breaker for me. -Andrew c [talk] 18:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing is, it's not an image gallery, but a visual index of parables: something you can click on to jump to a parable (and, given that I used standard table code, your statement "clicking on images never take you to articles" is false by definition). Accessibility has been on my mind, which is why the alt text is there. It may not be perfect, but I'm reluctant to change it unless the alternative is clearly better. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are making very good progress on the categories and that you guys should agree to "suspend" the question of internal code that the reader does not see for about 10 days until the categories are complete. After that you can debate that. It can always flip back and forth after the fact and will make very little difference to the world. For the record, I do not think it makes much difference which way it gets done and you could ask for a 3rd opinion after 10 days. History2007 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't work: flipping back and forth would be too much work. As far as I'm concerned, my work on parables is on hold until the issue is resolved. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is funny - you are going on strike! Ok, you can have a 10% salary increase... else will 15% do? So why not ask for a 3rd opinion now? History2007 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If my arguments aren't convincing, they aren't convincing. I don't care too much about this. Someone else may in the future. That's all. -Andrew c [talk] 15:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The Parable of Drawing in the Net is eschatological. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but it's hard to update this visual index while the debate about whether to replace the tables by gallery code is going on. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Opinion research question: what % of Wkipedia readers know what eschatological means? The fuuny thing was that there was a knowledge survey about Chernobyl and some college students thought it was the last name for Cher! So if we are to educate that crowd maybe we need to lighten up on terms. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really hoping people will click on the word when it comes up in the "Themes" section, or that they at least ask themselves "what does this group of parables have in common?" -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bet on all users thinking too much. You can just say Parables on end of times or end times or something like that. In fact End times is about to get merged with Eschatology and that will make the decision for you anyway. History2007 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But not all of them are parables on end of times. Maybe "Parables related to the end times." However, I'm linking the word eschatological to Christian eschatology, which has no merge proposal. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Parable chart (gallery code version for comparison)

message: File:Teachings of Jesus 32 of 40. the faithful and wise steward. Jan Luyken etching. Bowyer Bible.gif|Faithful Servant (Door Keeper)
File:Schadow,FW-Die klugen und törichten Jungfrauen-2.JPG|Ten (Wise and Foolish) Virgins
File:AEL Saemann und Teufel - zweite Fassung.jpg|(Wheat and) Tares
File:Teachings of Jesus 28 of 40. invitation to the great banquet. Jan Luyken etching. Bowyer Bible.gif|Great Banquet (Wedding Feast)
File:Rembrandt - Der reiche Narr.jpg|Rich Fool
File:Teachings of Jesus 35 of 40. the wicked husbandmen. Jan Luyken etching. Bowyer Bible.gif|Wicked Husbandmen (Tenants in the Vineyard)
File:Ficus carica 01 by Line1.jpg|Budding fig tree
File:Teachings of Jesus 36 of 40. parable of the fig tree. Jan Luyken etching. Bowyer Bible.gif|Barren Fig Tree
File:Teachings of Jesus 4 of 40. parable of the dragnet. Jan Luyken etching. Bowyer Bible.gif|Drawing in the Net
:The Parable of Drawing in the Net is eschatological. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but it's hard to update this visual index while the debate about whether to replace the tables by gallery code is going on. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion research question: what % of Wkipedia readers know what eschatological means? The fuuny thing was that there was a knowledge survey about Chernobyl and some college students thought it was the last name for Cher! So if we are to educate that crowd maybe we need to lighten up on terms. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really hoping people will click on the word when it comes up in the "Themes" section, or that they at least ask themselves "what does this group of parables have in common?" -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bet on all users thinking too much. You can just say Parables on end of times or end times or something like that. In fact End times is about to get merged with Eschatology and that will make the decision for you anyway. History2007 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But not all of them are parables on end of times. Maybe "Parables related to the end times." However, I'm linking the word eschatological to Christian eschatology, which has no merge proposal. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eschatological parables

message: All parable articles have images now (I think) - not perfect images, but reasonable images. I finished the gallery and it is here on a talk page and also on Commons: Gospel harmony gallery. On the talk page all images show, because they are from English Wiki, but on commons they do not all show, because not all images are from commons. The sequence of life of Jesus was fun to see. But I am totally bored with this image project now and will take a break from images - the fun has stopped. So if you guys want to import teh images to commons and fix that, be my guest - it will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! I'll keep chipping away at Commons, but I hope you'll continue to maintain this code of yours. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And I will of course maintain the code (which is simple) and the approach, but if you look at my history of edits on Gospel harmony you will see that I worked on it for a while then stopped for a few months, then restarted etc. It often helps to take a break and start anew. I am actually going to use this approach to write a document modestly titled "a design for Wikipedia2". My real problem is that the ranking of the airports in the world (by passengers) continues to remain inconsistent everywhere in Wikipedia, as did the list of miracles. The Gospels provided a good first case because they are somewhat more stable than airports, although there is a rumor that a Gospel of Ringo is about to be discovered in a earthenware jar in a park in North London. However, until that happens the Gospels and the parables were a good example. Anyway, let us wait and let technology takes its course. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery

message: I believe all the stub parable articles have now been de-stubbed, and all outstanding cleanup tags have been handled. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we tackle James now?  "The Parable of the Ear of Grain", "The Parable of the Grain of Wheat", and "The Parable of the Date-Palm Shoot". None of those articles exist, but I don't see why they shouldn't be created, assuming enough sources discuss them. -Andrew c [talk] 13:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We? I think I've just about used up all my energy as far as parables are concerned. Are those three really on anyone's list of parables of Jesus? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear in both the gospels of James and Ringo, so they are solid, solid... wink. But seriously James is apocryphal at best, and in my opinion, even less reliable than Ringo. The main Google result for "The Parable of the Date-Palm Shoot" is this article itself! Compare that to all the other references for the other parables and these are far-out from side stream let alone main stream. History2007 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Including Thomas in the list may have been justified because of the frequent references to it in literature on parables, but the "gospels" of James and Ringo are out of scope, I fear. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: And not just the main Google result: the only Google result, if you filter out clones of this article! -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I so wish you had not said that. It is going to get me started on computing the reflexivity of how Wikipedia will affect things that will then be used as references in Wikipedia, via multi-level self-refential method.... but I have to stop. You think about it, call Erdos (if you can not reach him, rotate your cell phone 90 degrees, will get an imaginary number) and discuss the theory - I do not want to think about it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you need to belittle noncanonical texts every chance you can get. -Andrew c [talk] 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if you were offended for some reason, but the fact is that, apart from the book cited in this article, there are simply no sources for the three articles you suggest. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Andrew was referring to my Gospel of Ringo joke. But I joke a lot. Now, at the risk of getting off the charts, was belittle a joke on "infancy"? just kidding.... By the way, I read the 90 degree cell phone joke on Wikipedia - I thought that was funny too. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're referring to the wrong James. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what do I know? History2007 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But you were right about multi-self-referential Wikipedia. I've even seen (trashy) books with verbatim quotes from Wikipedia, and publication dates after the article was written. Then other people try to use the book in a citation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I certainly won't try to stop you writing the articles, although I wonder what evidence there is that the parables in the Apocryphon are (1) parables of Jesus and (2) independent of the synoptic parables.  And please don't call it "James", as that invites confusion with the Gospel of James. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean "of Jesus". Can you elaborate? -Andrew c [talk] 04:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean authentic (in the view of at least a notable minority of scholars). There are, after all, doubts about the Apocryphon, which purports to be a Coptic translation of a Hebrew document, but seems more likely to be a Coptic translation of a Greek one. If you do write the articles, though, Craig A. Evans: The Historical Jesus: Lives of Jesus and Jesus outside the Bible is also relevant. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you say that all of the articles we currently have in the parable series are "authentic" or "of Jesus"? Thanks for the reference suggestion. I have that citation in my list (Evans is just the editor, the section dealing with parables in Ap. Jas. is by Stroker, and I believe was previously published in the 1988 in a work edited by Hedrick)-Andrew c [talk] 05:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't what's authentic, the issue is what a notable number of people believe is authentic. Traditional scholarship takes the whole NT as authentic. A notable number of scholars, like the Jesus Seminar, add Thomas to the mix (as well as questioning parts of the NT). Far fewer people take the Apocryphon seriously. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (and have no proof) that if one stopped 3,000 people on the streets of NY, LA and London and asked them about parables of Jesus, among the 9,000 very few would consider the obscure parables as parables. So those are not "mainstream" and a review of the "major books" on the parables will say the same thing. Wikipedia would be breaking somewhat new ground by considering them on the "same footing" as the other parables. However, pages exist within Wikipedia on the most obscure items ever, so Andrew can of course build pages for them, but on this page WP:DUE will become due. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure you're right. However, there's no reason not to turn the names in this article into links, although I think including them in the template would be going too far. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See, once in a while I get something right. And including them in the template is way, way overdue weight. History2007 (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A random walk in two dimensions eventually gets to its destination. :) And agreed on the last point. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that is not the real issue. The issue in the real world is "how many investors get fried" while that random walk takes place. History2007 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised problem list for child articles 

message: *Cameron, Ron. Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon Of James. (2004) Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School, 8-30.
*Hedrick, Charles W.  (1983) "Kingdom Sayings and Parables of Jesus in the Apocryphon of James: Tradition and Redaction" New Testament Studies (1983), 29 : 1-24 Cambridge University Press 
*Stroker, William D. "Extracanonical parables and the historical Jesus". The Historical Jesus: Lives of Jesus and Jesus outside the Bible (2004) Evans, Craig A. ed. Taylor & Francis, 186-209
*Brakke, David. "Parables and Plain Speech in the Fourth Gospel and the Apocryphon of James"  Journal of Early Christian Studies - Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 1999, pp. 187-218
*Funk, Robert W., Bernard Brandon Scott, and James R. Butts. Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition (1988) Polebridge Press
*Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels. (1992) Continuum
Possibly this book. Stoker makes use of Sevrin, Hedrick, Cameron, Koester, Malinine, some I have cited above and some not (and most appear to be non-English sources. German, French, etc). I'd be glad to list those as well. My point is, this isn't something that we (wikipedia) invented. Though it does appear to be a very specialized area of study, no doubt, and clearly is not nearly as notable as the gospel parables (or the Thomas parables for that matter). I think it would meet GNG, as multiple, independent, published sources have discussed the topic in a non-trivial manner. I already put in an ILLiad request for the Hedrick paper, which at least I will personally benefit from reading, if not help me write some articles. Assuming I'm not convinced otherwise ;)-Andrew c [talk] 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly won't try to stop you writing the articles, although I wonder what evidence there is that the parables in the Apocryphon are (1) parables of Jesus and (2) independent of the synoptic parables.  And please don't call it "James", as that invites confusion with the Gospel of James. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean "of Jesus". Can you elaborate? -Andrew c [talk] 04:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean authentic (in the view of at least a notable minority of scholars). There are, after all, doubts about the Apocryphon, which purports to be a Coptic translation of a Hebrew document, but seems more likely to be a Coptic translation of a Greek one. If you do write the articles, though, Craig A. Evans: The Historical Jesus: Lives of Jesus and Jesus outside the Bible is also relevant. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you say that all of the articles we currently have in the parable series are "authentic" or "of Jesus"? Thanks for the reference suggestion. I have that citation in my list (Evans is just the editor, the section dealing with parables in Ap. Jas. is by Stroker, and I believe was previously published in the 1988 in a work edited by Hedrick)-Andrew c [talk] 05:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't what's authentic, the issue is what a notable number of people believe is authentic. Traditional scholarship takes the whole NT as authentic. A notable number of scholars, like the Jesus Seminar, add Thomas to the mix (as well as questioning parts of the NT). Far fewer people take the Apocryphon seriously. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (and have no proof) that if one stopped 3,000 people on the streets of NY, LA and London and asked them about parables of Jesus, among the 9,000 very few would consider the obscure parables as parables. So those are not "mainstream" and a review of the "major books" on the parables will say the same thing. Wikipedia would be breaking somewhat new ground by considering them on the "same footing" as the other parables. However, pages exist within Wikipedia on the most obscure items ever, so Andrew can of course build pages for them, but on this page WP:DUE will become due. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure you're right. However, there's no reason not to turn the names in this article into links, although I think including them in the template would be going too far. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See, once in a while I get something right. And including them in the template is way, way overdue weight. History2007 (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A random walk in two dimensions eventually gets to its destination. :) And agreed on the last point. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that is not the real issue. The issue in the real world is "how many investors get fried" while that random walk takes place. History2007 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations for James' Jesus parables

message: This article and its children are now a book at Book:Parables of Jesus. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 

message: I added the Parable of the Guest, unique to Luke, at . There is no wikipedia article yet, but I think there should be. 75.14.220.117 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I will build a page. Thanks. But I did a search and "Guest" may not be WP:Commonname, Luke 14:7 is given many titles, it seems. History2007 (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, not sure what "most common" name is. The parable is obscure, but it is in there. UBS calls it "A Lesson to Guests and a Host". Luke calls it a parable. 75.14.220.117 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just found there is a Parable of the Wedding Feast (ESV's name) but that article currently redirects to Parable of the great banquet which is . 75.14.220.117 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two of them, back to back in Luke 14:7 onwards. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and changed Parable of the Wedding Feast. 75.14.209.88 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I touched it up and added refs per WP:Primary. If you use Wikisource as Bible link like I did there, it is better because that is the future direction of Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Parable of the Guest: Luke 14:7-14

message: The Parables of Jesus#Parable of the Pearl has an incorrect verses reference: it should be Matthew 13:45-46 instead of Matthew 13:44-46. Was there a reason for the inclusion of verse 44? Bjones410 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Error?

message: I noticed that all of the links to an outside site in the large table containing the full number of parables seem to be broken. I'm not currently sure how to fix this; maybe I'll learn if I have some time. Anyway, I'm bringing it up so that so it can get fixed one way or another. I think Wikipedia has a standard for external links regarding text from the Bible, like Biblegateway or Biblehub or something else, and using that would fix the problem. 73.90.207.93 (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Links 

message: Where the parable of the New & Old Wineskins is mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, in each case the parable of applying an unshrunk patch of cloth to clothing preceeds it.
Is this the same parable as the Wineskins or different? In any case, it is not in the list. 86.19.5.247 (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parable of the New/Old Wineskins