Talk:Great Commission

Bizarre discussion

how did the great commision influence exploration, colonization, and the spread of free democracy?

It gave the Europeans an excuse to go around murdering the leaders of foreign lands and taking all their gold, and buy or kidnap their people to work on cotton plantations.

Unsigned comment is outside the scope of both the main article and this talk page. DFH 15:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

George Hamilton wrote an account of the voyage of HMS Pandora in which he hoped that Fletcher Christian, if not captured, might be a civilizing influence on the South Sea Islanders: "so that, at some future period, a British Ilion may blaze forth in the south with all the characteristic virtues of the English nation, and complete the great prophecy, by propagating the Christian knowledge amongst the infidels." 203.17.70.161 04:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sept 05

I made some edits which attempt to remove what looked like a POV bias to me. Hope it looks OK. Happy to discuss the edits. KHM03 12:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

KJV

I think that using the King James' Version is a mistake here. Its hard to read and not the version most coommonly used by Christians. NIV instead perhaps? 129.234.4.10 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Coomonly?" I don't understand! You must be using an English dialect I have difficulty with! 207.238.52.162 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Coomonly vs coommonly --> talk about irony! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.236.147 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Christian Dominionism ?

This section seems to be very POV. It should be either removed or reworded. DFH 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that an article for Dominionism already exists, so it seems pointless to re-iterate a discussion about the Dominionist view of the Great Commission in this article. I therefore propose that this whole section should be removed. DFH 15:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Refer to the main article's history to see what was removed. DFH 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

External links removed

I have removed all four external links, because none of them satisfied Wikpedia criteria for inclusion. DFH 15:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking words from within a quoted Scripture text?

I see disadvantages in wikilinking words and phrases from within a quoted Scripture passage. It gives undue emphasis, and creates a false impression that the Bible is a hypertext document. Words within Scripture quotations that require further explanation should be amplified in the main encyclopedic description paragraghs, and then linked only if necessary. DFH 15:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I removed Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics, as it seems to be not of the essence of the main article. No doubt many items in Christian theology are interfaith topics of one sort or another, but it hardly seems a sufficient reason for thus categorizing this article. DFH 15:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

scholars of the historical Jesus

It's true that the JS doesn't represent "most scholars," but the text doesn't claim that. It's referring to scholars of the historical Jesus, most of whom don't include the resurrection in their historical reconstruction of Jesus. A few do, but the text says "generally." Jonathan Tweet 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew 24:14

This seems to be another relevant Scriptural reference. 203.17.70.161 04:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

high-start

This is a high-importance, start-class article, and I'm willing to do some work to get it moving. Jonathan Tweet 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I described the great commissions that appear in the five books cited. It's a start. Jonathan Tweet 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference link?

I'm trying to add reference 1, but it won't link to anything. I copy-pasted the reference from somewhere else on Wiki that uses the same source (different page #s), but it won't work over here. Perhaps someone can fix it? ThanksEsdraelon 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is not Trinitarianism

It is simply false that "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is a "Trinitarian formula." Nearly every non-Trinitarian theology that has ever existed in Christianity has included these same three figures, in the same order. Trinitarianism is not simply a list of three persons, it is the assertion that these three persons are all co-equal and co-eternal God persons inside a triune Godhead, a formula that is not at all found in the text in question. Jnelsonleith (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. But if the experts call it the Trinitarian formula then we sort of have to. The question is, what do the experts call it? Leadwind (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

can't find in my bible

Under the heading "New Testament accounts", I read the statement "In John, Jesus says the disciples will have the Holy Spirit and the authority to forgive sins and to withhold forgiveness." What chapter and verse is this in? I can't find anywhere in the book of John (or anywhere else in the Bible) where man is given the authority to forgive or withhold forgiveness. If this cannot be verified, could that sentence be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.121.184 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

John 20:23 - "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.107.182 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Matthew 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Rambling?

Who the heck altered the

template/category thingy? It's messing up the top of the article, and I don't know how to fix it. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The great commission is the regathering of the lost tribes of Israel

Jesus said do not go into the ways of the gentiles, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That is about the split of Israel into the house of Judah and the house of Israel. The commission is to bring them back for the rule of Christ from Jerusalem. The topic is way off as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.81.109 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good example of why this article should at least mention the lesser commission and disambiguate between the lesser and Great Commission, and not confuse them as is being done above. 75.0.6.211 (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

confusion under Etymology heading

"Why anyone would want to not fulfill the great commission is a matter of great bewilderment to Jesus, who seemed to emphasize it so clearly, repeating it as his final words five times, as if to make it amazingly clear what the final emphasis of the entirety of his teaching actually should be." This sentence seems entirely out of context. It is also a matter of great bewilderment to me, i.e., it's grammatically confused and I'm unaware of where Jesus repeats the great commission fie times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.39.94 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

One-side, biased, anti-Christian article

Virtually all of the content in this is written from the point of view that the Great Commission was an invention of later generations, or that it does not apply to anyone but the original apostles. The research of a few fringe theories and fringe minority seminars is being held up at the expense of the long=-held, majority view that has been widely accepted by most churches and parishoners for untold centuries, so this article needs to be overhauled in favor of a more balanced viewpoint; one which relegates the fringe theories to the fringes. 68.173.59.5 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Great commission → Great Commission –

• Reversing a recent undiscussed move that according to one opinion should have been discussed. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Application of MOS guidelines on capitalization in articles on Christianity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• I Agree. The move was not discussed or even proposed before. José Luiz ^disc 23:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia editors seem to be confused about the use of capitals in English. This article is about The Great Commission, not a number of great commissions, in other words, this is very much a proper noun and thus both words are capitalized. 75.14.220.131 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"presumably"?

Regarding, "which presumably happened," near the beginning of the article, the word "presumably" should be referenced. GaryGo (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Folklore Reported as Fact.

The article states implausibly that "The Great Commission of Christianity is the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples that they ...."

This is as inappropriate as if this encyclopedia were to report that Santa Claus delivers pieces of coal to bad children overnight on December 25th.

Folklore should be reported as folklore, and not allowed to intrude on the factual narrative being striven for.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Sanhedrin's "Great Commission" upon Jesus' death

Paul may likely have been a False Christ, to die for the Jewish Nation. commissioned by the Sanhedrin/Jewish Council.

LOOK AT ALL THE MIRACLES the 12 Apostles (Matthias - ACTS 1, and the 11) are performing !!

Soon, everyone will believe in Jesus, and the Roman authorities will take action and tear down our Temple, and our Nation.

WHAT FOOLS YOU ARE !! DON'T YOU REALIZE? that it is better for one(1) man to die for the sake of the Jewish Nation, than for the whole Jewish Nation to be destroyed?

So the Jewish Council cast lots, and the lot fell on Saul, and Saul was commissioned by the Council to preach Jesus to the Gentile nations, to divert the attention of the Roman government towards the Gentile nations, and away from the Jewish Nation.

Thus, Saul became a type of Savior to the Jewish Nation. (a False Christ)

And Saul/Paul went about this work preaching Jesus to the Gentile nations with as much zeal as he previously had dragging the followers of Jesus from their homes, and throwing them into prison for their faith in Jesus.

Jesus warned of False Christs coming. And Jesus gave the warning: BEWARE THE YEAST OF THE PHARISEES To understand Jesus's miracle feeding the 4000 and 5000, we must do some math addition:

5 loaves of bread + 5[000] fed + 12 baskets collected

7 loaves of bread + 4[000] fed = 7 baskets collected

12 + 9 + 19 = 40

Now we go to ACTS 1:3 to see the fulfillment of Jesus' 40 Day Prophecy. Jesus (God in the Flesh) appeared to man for 40 days ONLY after his death. He ate and drank with them, and was touched by them. ("Put your finger here") touch the scars in my hands and side. In ACTS 1:11, the angel of God testifies that Jesus will return "one day" i.e. the Last Day, just as he had now left i.e. rising into the clouds as a flesh and blood man.

Thus, it can be surmised from all this that Saul/Paul did not see Jesus as a bright light on the road to Damascus. When Jesus appears again, ALL will see him, not 1 (Saul/Paul), not a few. ALL. 71.123.255.226 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Little Commission

Is this short paragraph relevant? It's already covered in Matthew 10, and has nothing to do with the rest of the article. WP:LEAD. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 09:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the section in the lede that discusses the "lesser commission"? If so, I would agree with you that it isn't relevant as the page is about The Great Commission. Ckruschke (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Ckruschke: Yes, exactly. (On the Matthew 10 article it's called the "Little Commission"; must be how that name got into my head.) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

At a minimum, it needs to be disabiguated from the Great Commission. Also, presumably the lesser commission makes the Great Commission, great. 75.0.6.211 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and disambiguate. I don't think further mention should go beyond that as any discussion on other commissions would pull away from the purpose of this page. Whether you agree or not, "The Great Commission" is a clear Biblical term which everyone agrees on - the rest are not. Mention should also not be in the lede since it has nothing to do with summarizing the page. Ckruschke (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

Who coined the term Great Commission?

The History section cites one Robbie F. Castleman, who writes – after confessing that he had never seen this question addressed in all his studies and that even the scholar Craig Keener did not have the answer – that it was time "to risk the Web". And what did his quest find him? I quote: "It turns out that this passage [Matthew 28:16–20] may have got its summary label from a Dutch missionary Justinian von Welz (1621-88), but it was Hudson Taylor, nearly 200 years later, who popularized the use of ‘The Great Commission‘. So, it seems like Welz or some other Post-Reformation missionary probably coined the term ‘The Great Commission' and since that time, the passage has been the theme for countless mission talks and conferences. (It may be of some comfort to Web-sceptics to know that I ended up finding this bit of history in a hard-bound book on the history of world missions belonging to a colleague here at John Brown University.)"
    The text provides no further information on the title or author of the "hard-bound book". In any case, even assuming full reliability of this unidentified source, what we read here is hardly sufficient to merit the assertion in our article that the term Great commission was "likely first used as a summary for the passage" by von Welz. It might suffice for the statement that it seems probable that it was first used by von Welz or someone else. However, being obviously true, this unsurprising statement would not actually need a citation.
    Von Welz wrote in German. If he coined a label for the passage from Matthew, it could hardly have been Great Commission. I've done a google search on Große Kommission, but this did not yield anything. There are hits for "von Welz" + "Missionsauftrag", which could be translated as missionary commission, but I saw nothing suggesting his coining a label – nor the name of the publication, one of many by his hand from 1664, in which he advocated interpreting the Matthew passage as a task assigned by Jesus, to be executed by the faithful.  --Lambiam 10:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A search for "Große(r) Auftrag" does get hits in the sense of "Great Commission", but none mentioning von Welz.  --Lambiam 00:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)