atpollard
Member
- Nov 30, 2016
- 1,920
- 528
- Thread starter
- #21
Since you insist on "correcting" me over and over on this, I feel obliged to respond to your erroneous correction.Following your mangled logic concerning the METAPHOR (NOT parable) of John 15, since Jesus was addressing a Jewish audience, then when He said "God so loved the world" He must have only been speaking of the JEWISH world and the "whoever believes" would only apply to Jews.
But, as I said, your logic is seriously mangled.
A "metaphor" is 'a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.' So the vine and the branches are indeed a metaphor.
A "parable" is 'a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters. A parable is a type of analogy.' ("Didactic" means 'intended to teach, particularly in having moral instruction as an ulterior motive.')
God is the vine dresser who prunes and cuts and burns the branches in the story told by Jesus. God is not an animal, plant, inanimate object or force of nature, so it is not a fable. God is more like a 'human character' making it a parable.
Is it "sussinct"? Yes
Is it "didactic"? Yes, it definitely is intended to teach a moral lesson as its primary motive.
Is it a story in prose which illustrates one or more instructive lesson? Yes.
The metaphor of the vine is part of a parable told by Jesus about God pruning, cutting and burning branches. Therefore, IT IS A PARABLE. I would appreciate it if you would not continue to correct me when I am not wrong.
There is nothing 'mangled' in the fact that the Jewish Messiah was addressing a Jewish audience with the familiar Old Testament metaphor of the Vine of Israel (as multiple prophets before him had) and attempting to take the previous prophecies about the vine (which would have been familiar to the original listeners) into consideration when interpreting the metaphor and the parable containing it is both prudent and appropriate.
The 'mangled logic' of comment 2 was an attempt to point out the flaw in the over literal application of a single word in the verse quoted. Applying the same level of hyper-literalism to the rest of the parable would indicate that only men can loose their salvation. It was a rejection of the flawed logic being presented as 'proof' that the verse applied to absolutely, literally anyone (since that same criteria requires that absolutely, literally only men can be cut off).