Jump to content

Talk:Antichrist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Butterfly (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 4 December 2007 (→‎Complete rewrite). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChristianity B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please post comments at the Bottom of the page.

Barak Obama

Not sure if my computer is possessed, but typing Barak Obama, misspelled as such, redirects to this article for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.67.186 (talk) January 11 2007

A vandal inserted his name recently. It was quickly reverted but the search function is not updated continuously. Apparently it was updated during the vandalism and not again before your search. PrimeHunter 11:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see a vandal also modified Barak Obama to redirect here. It was also reverted quickly. PrimeHunter 11:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who/What is the Antichrist

Just to get it up front, i'm not a christian, so i'm not one to know the bible very well. Recently though i was watching a History Channel show that talked about the Antichrist, the coming of his age, and the branding of his mark upon those left behind from the rapture. I was wondering whether the Antichrist is the same person as the Devil, or if he's just one of the Devil's opostles. If anyone knows, i would appreciate your sending me such info.--Deathbacon 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you read the article you will see that an antichrist is anyone who is against or takes the place of Christ. However, the term is applied to a character in the book Revelation. This is because of similariaties in characteristice. However, there is nothing explicit. Also, in the article there is much speculation on who are what could be the identified as the or an Antichrist. The reformers identified the papacy as the antichrist for a number of reasons. I haven't yet seen any better interpretation. Allenroyboy 05:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest an Interprtation of the term "AntiChrist". Simply put it means the opposit of "christ". Altho the Jews disbelieve in Jesus and for good reason, I'd like to use Jesus as a familiar example of what "christ" is all about. First I would like to site the countless times in the New Testament where even Jesus says "many will come in my name, but believe them not". Very clearly defining the difference as "many" meaning more than one. Rather than explain what Jesus was, I will simply detail what it means to be an "antichrist" and see if you can recognize the "scenario" throughout history, even within the Christian Faith, as there are and have been MANY world leaders who claim to be "christian". Anything in quotes in the following text is the word of Jesus


OK here goes..

ANTICHRIST a man of THIS world who seeks power over THIS world through fame, fortune, and power. "My Kingdom is not of this world" A Leader among men that uses deceit and trickery as a base of power. "you are of your father the devil" Any Man who claims to be the Christ, or has Others claiming him to be the Christ or Messiah. "No man shall know his name", "many will say lo here is christ or there is christ but believe them not" They perform miracles in the name of Jesus "In the end days there shall be no miracles"

The following is a list of antichrists down throughout the ages, add to the list as you see fit, and count how many of them have either claimed to be the messiah or stand on the foundation of Christianity. Also thier end fates. "when I come again it shall be in glory".

Napolean, Hitler, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Kim Il Sung, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin.. ..dare I add to that list, Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, Members of Scientology, the Masons and many a Pope down throughout History?!? The list is truely endless..

What is the ONE thing ALL the above people have in common? They ALL seek power over YOU, the individual. Control the hearts and minds of the people, and you control the world. Is that not true? -666

Some claim such men were persecuted, and martyred. Funny concept considering there is no such thing in the old testament. God does not want a blood sacrifice, Jesus wasn't either. Jesus was victorious over this world until the bitter end. If but one man stood beside him to defend him, they could not have crucified him. Every good Lawyer knows you can't defend yourself, Jesus knowing the Law didn't even attempt to. Hitler was defeated by brave men who stood up for the rights of others, not by those attempting to defend themselves.

"Those who seek to gain thier life shall lose it, and those who seek to lose thier life shall gain it."

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Anti-Christ

Yesterday User:Brady Heston moved the article from "Antichrist" to "Anti-Christ" with no prior discussion. The edit summary [1] was:

"moved Antichrist to Anti-Christ: This sperate the word and this is the most common way of it's spelling"

Google has 4 times more hits on "Antichrist" than "Anti-Christ" and says "Did you mean: AntiChrist" on the latter. Controversial moves should be discussed on the article's talk page (e.g. said at WP:RM). I think it should be moved back. PrimeHunter 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would do it if I knew how. I could find out, but someone else will already know. rossnixon 00:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Moving_a_page explains it. The new title is not unacceptable, so I think people should have a few days to respond. PrimeHunter 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Hitler and Saddam Was One? >.<  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.218.181 (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article badly messed up

This article is pretty badly messed up. The lead section is really bad. We used to have a better one. Here's an older version that, overall, is more encyclopedic [2]. The current "New Testamet" section plays out one Christian reading of the NT as "what the Bible says" instead of as one viewpoint. It would be easier to revert to an earlier version of the article than to try to get this one back into shape. Comments? Jonathan Tweet 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I came across this article a couple months ago there was no "new testament" part so I added what is essentially the "new testament' part now. I'd go along with the older version. I'd just like to add that I believe that there really is a true, neutral, 'what the Bible says' viewpoint. However, it is unlikely that everyone will agree on what that viewpoint is. Allenroyboy 15:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Develop and review tag

Unless someone objects, I'm going to revert to an earlier version, similar to the link above. I'll wait at least a couple of days. Does anyone know when the earlier version was altered? Jonathan Tweet 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people don't want the truth to be known.

"you can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink" 

                 -unknown

"My kingdom is not of this world" 

                 -Jesus the Christ

The POWERS that be of this world proves the above every single day!

12.5.63.8 (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christ vs. Antichrist

Will someone PLEASE make up their mind on whether the usage is hyphenated or not. The main page is Anti-Christ (hyphen), but almost ALL references throughout the article are non-hyphenated. (Even the talk page redirects you to the non-hyphenated article.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.194.173.58 (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article name was moved back from "Anti-Christ" to "Antichrist" 3 days ago, following the above discussion. Anti-Christ now redirects to Antichrist. Maybe you have to clear your cache. The first hyphen is currently at "In Christian eschatology the Antichrist or Anti-christ ...". This seems OK, but maybe it should be the only hyphen, except if a direct citation used hyphen. PrimeHunter 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Antichrists

I just saw Fictional Antichrists have their own article with no wikilink from here. Most of it is identical to entries in Antichrist#List_of_Fictional_Antichrists. I think that either Fictional Antichrists should redirect here, or most/all of Antichrist#List_of_Fictional_Antichrists should be "merged" into Fictional Antichrists. PrimeHunter 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the phrase "fictional Antichrists" implies the Antichrist is a fact, doesn't it? Isn't that a (religious) POV? Mouse 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Fictional portrayals of the Antichrist" be more neutral? --Gray Porpoise 00:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

666 is the mark of the beast, not the Antichrist

Can someone please tell me where in the entire 13th chapter of Revelation does it mention the word "Antichrist"? Verses 11-18 describe the land beast which the dragon (Satan, according to the text itself) has called forth to help him persecute the church. So the number sixhundred sixty six (yes, it's a single number and not just any three combinations of 6) is the mark of the land beast being described, not the Antichrist referenced in I John 1:18. True, anyone who is opposed to Christ in by deffinition AN antichrist, as both this article and the Bible explain. But there is a difference between AN antichrist and THE antichrist. For centuries people have misinterpreted this passage to think the number of the beast is the number of the Antichrist, and this has especially been fueled in recent years due to popular books and movies. But I believe the article should reflect that this is what people have come to believe from the text rather than what Rev. 13 is actually talking about, as that will only serve to spread the misinterpretation. David Mitchell 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remember in math if A = B and B = C and C = D then A = D. Start with Antichrist = Man of Sin. Then Man of Sin = ?? [use search engines or concordances] See where you end up... Allenroyboy 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly does that mean? Take your reasoning all the way through so we can see where you end up. Isn't it odd that "antichrist" never appears in conjuction with the end of time and that in each case he is mentioned he said to already be present? Maybe there needs to be a deep rethinking of this entire section. JodyB 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't say the word "Antichrist" anywhere in the bible, you're right. But the antichrist and the beast ARE the same thing - the Antichrist is just another name for the beast which is the one most commonly used in modern days. The writer of Revelations gives him the name "The Beast", but we call it the "Antichrist" to avoid confusion. Ironically, we still call the number "The Number of the Beast", despite the fact we call the beast "The Antichrist". It is quite confusing why that is, so I can see why you thought you were right. In any case the number is 616, but that's besides the point. Hope this clears it up.ChaosSorcerer91 12:22, 6 June 2007 (GMT)


A few points, and if somebody wishes to challenge any of it by all means do so..


The book of Revelations was written by a Jew whom the Catholic Church refers to as "John the Divine", he also wrote 1 John. The BOR refers to the mark of the beast as "six hundred three score and six" in plain numbers that would be 666. The concept of the "antichrist" comes from Judaism, to which they refer to countless "false prophets" throughout thier own history, to which they subscribe Jesus as just another one among many.

Comment: IMHPOV the 22nd Chapter of the BOR was not written by John, rather it was added by Christianity later. Such words as are written in the 22nd Chapter a Jew would never even utter. The Chapter appears out of context with the rest of the BOR as if schizophrenic.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rotten under "fictional anti-christs"

Hey hey, I was just wondering about this as the article mentions Johnny Rotten's line "I am an antichrist" under ficitonal anti-christs. where should that be moved to, or should it be removed? DanCrowter 17:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for merger

There needs to be a major discussion for the merger of Anti-Christ and Antichrist. The two articles hace widely different content, layouts, etc. If a merger is to happen, it needs to be discussed completely over the course of a week or two to give everyone enough time to comment. I have seen that several attempts have been made in the past with little success because of lack of discussion. I also think that the current version of Antichrist needs major cleanup. All of the bolding needs to go or be exressed in a more encyclopedic way. --Mattarata 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing that two pages on the same topic exist in this way, and there really needs to be a merger. There should also be a move of text to Fictional Antichrists from Antichrist#List_of_Fictional_Antichrists. This is a mess, but we need to do it.--Cberlet 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before February 27 2007 Anti-Christ redirected to Antichrist as it should. Then User:Jonathan Tweet (who is unhappy with the current Antichrist) apparently copied an old version of Antichrist (maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AntiChrist&oldid=86198995 from November 7 2006) to Anti-Christ in this edit. I'm not participating in the content discussion but just wanted to explain how we temporarily got two articles. I definitely think there should only be one. PrimeHunter 13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have confirmed that User:Jonathan Tweet copied http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AntiChrist&oldid=86198995 to Anti-Christ in this edit (I wonder whether he intended to revert insted of create a separate article). There are few changes from that to the current Anti-Christ. This discussion is effectively about whether to "merge" the current Antichrist with an old revision of the same article. I don't think such a discussion should create the old revision as a separate article (see e.g. Wikipedia:Content forking), and the discussion here is inactive, so I will redirect Anti-Christ (without merging content) here in a few days unless there are protests. People who want to work on Antichrist are of course welcome to look in the article history for things to possibly reintroduce. PrimeHunter 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the redirect from Anti-Christ to Antichrist. PrimeHunter 12:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One issue I noticed before dropping the merge tags is that Talk:Anti-Christ was moved/re-directed to this talk page. I could not figure out how to get it back or revert it, so any discussion that occurred there is gone?--Mattarata 08:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonathan Tweet (see my above edit) did not create Talk:Anti-Christ which continued to redirect here as it should. I don't think any discussion has been there and then lost. PrimeHunter 13:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magog and George H. W. Bush

Before my edit, the discussion on Magog ended with a reference to the word as a Skull and Bones nickname attributed to current President George W. Bush. With the earlier comment in the paragraph of a false war, the Bush reference smacked more of political commentary than unbiashed encyclopedic scholarship. Still, what's true is true, and the discussion was about Magog.

After doing a bit of digging, the only reference I could find to Bush's Skull and Bones nickname was a 2000 Atlantic Monthly article titled "George W., Knight of Eulogia," by Alexandra Robbins. Robbins writes the following: "William Howard Taft and Robert Taft were Magogs. So, interestingly, was George Bush [Sr.]."

She goes on in the next paragraph: "George W. was not assigned a name but invited to choose one. According to one report, nothing came to mind, so he was given the name Temporary, which, it is said, he never bothered to replace; Temporary is how Bush's fellow Bonesmen know him today. (In recent interviews I asked a number of Bush's Bonesmen classmates about the name and elicited no denials.)"

Ericscot 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people like Bush and that is not a trait of the antichrist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.203.9.24 (talk) 04:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Jose de Jesus

Some guy is going around (has his own article here and everything) saying he's Jesus. Also there's going to be an "outsiders" episode about him tonight. He calls himself the antichirst as well and wears the number of the beast as well as having it tattooed on his arm.Mavrickindigo 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti in Greek

ANTI can have several senses: (1) instead of (2) for, as (3) on behalf of (4) for the purpose of

Therefore it is entirely proper for an anti-christ to be someone "as Christ" or "for Christ" in the sense of 'in the place of christ' Allenroyboy 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So?

The so is that being antichrist does not only mean being against Christ as an overt enemy, but being antichrist can be much more subtle--as someone sneaking in "as Christ" or "in the place of Christ." To be sure the end result is the same, but the way it is done may take people unawares if they are looking only for influences from "outside" Christianity to be anti-christ-like.

The idea that the antichrist can come within is supported by the phrase "from among your own" [sic] in the verses quoted in the article. Allenroyboy 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the "on behalf of" definition, couldn't the Pope be considered an antichrist? He is the Vicarius Christi, Vicar of Jesus Christ. The current Wikipedia article states that a vicar is anyone acting "in the person of" or an agent for a superior.Timjohn911 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



God has his hand in ALL things, it ALL balances out in the end. The concept of "evil" does not exist in the mind of God, there is simply light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance to everything. Like two sides of a coin so to speak.


12.5.63.8 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Any man who speaks to you of "evil" is either speaking out of ignorance, or purposely lying to you in order to enslave you to hatred, predjudice and fear.

Don't be fooled or confused by this manmade term.

12.5.63.8 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed something

"There is a growing school of thought that this man is Michael Eisner, CEO of The Walt Disney Company from 1984-2005. Michael Eisner turned the Happiest Place on Earth into Mouschwitz, the term coined by Disney employees to characterize what Eisner had done."

This paragraph was posted twice in the article. Since it lacks any sources (and is horribly biased), I took the liberty of removing it. Hopefully, it contributes to the cleanup. 24.78.106.19

Ronald Reagan

Added (with source) a reference to the once-popular joke/theory that Reagan was the Antichrist. TortureIsWrong 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BigDT moved this section to the "Contemporary Identifications" section, which is fine with me. I reject his comment that it shouldn't be here at all, though, given the plethora of similar information in the article. TortureIsWrong 00:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in place of and on behalf of. Revelation is the coming of 'christ' or who ever you want to call him...basically it is mans last chance for peace...obviously they'd rather hate me, so in the end you are destroyed. Agnostic, not anihilst.

Thank-you.

List of people and groups believed to be the Antichrist

The page with the above name will be deleted today. It's last version was as below. 81.68.5.224 04:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus

Many of Nostradamus's prophecies are about the anti-christ. Should this be included?

Fictional Antichrist

1945 Roosevelt Avenue - What is this supposed to mean?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richytps (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In the new testament

I see a lot of "references" that point to bible quotes, not one that points to someone verifiably making such inferences about the antichrist from the quotes. WP:NOR. "Scripture gives plain instruction on what to do with antichrists, also referred to as false teachers, false apostles, or false prophets." - that and others need cites. Obscurans 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

findings in Islam

Many Christians avengilicals and jews claim that muhammed is the anti-Christ and Islam fits the description.Anyone up for adding that?-Vmrgrsergr 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The AntiChrist is clearly a MAN, not a religion, or organization. Of course the number 666 could represent either. It's a symbol of power over the souls of men. That is why there are 3 six's and not just one or two. The number 3 represents spirit, and the number 6 is the power number for men which was taken away from him in Genesis where instead he received the number 2 which is the number for "animal" material intelligence, Instinctual and Savage..

12.5.63.8 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the author accuses me of soap boxing but his article is pure parody

and edits anything out that which he he disagrees with. For example Rebbe Schneerson as an anti christ figure. Yet we have frivolous assertions regarding Ronald Reagan that reduces his piece to pure parody. He asserts the Lutheran view the Pope as the antichirst yet no modern Lutheran does do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I endorse removing the Reagan paragraph as being more of trivia than of building a quality article. ✤ JonHarder talk 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hackneyed anti catholic piece , crude and vulgar

This article needs to be removed its on the level with a jack chic comic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article discusses much more that just the Pope of the Catholic church. But, like it or not, Protestants since the 16th century have identified the Pope as the Antichrist. This is a fact of history. Whether this is a valid application of Bible texts is another matter which is not appropriate in this article. There is a difference between giving facts of history and giving opinion. Allenroyboy 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament section problems

I concur with a recent editor who labeled the New Testament section as original research. The only references are Bible verses and the text is apparently someone's personal interpretation. Since the section needs a complete rewrite in my opinion, I suggest that it be removed from the article until reliable sources are found for its recreation. Other thoughts? ✤ JonHarder talk 01:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. There are many christian viewpoints on the antichrist, and many christian interpretations on the mentions of the AC in the new testament. Needs to be removed now, researched and readded. The references listed all point to the NT, which in itself does not draw the conclusions that the text states. mceder (u t c) 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I tried to introduce an alternative without deleting or changing the original with a nonsectarian point of view, and found it quickly deleted (how rude). Whomever is running the show here probably wrote the very piece you are refering to. Somebody wrote me and labeled my nonsectarian piece as "biased opinion", I asked them what do they call what is up there NOW! No reply to that one, and the original beginning remains as was.

12.5.63.8 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Some people might call what is going on here as a "fundamentalist point of view" I saw the same thing on Wikipedia several times before. Wikipedia claims to be FREE, in my mind that means without bondage, chains or slavery. Forget what it means monetarily, cause the company is still getting paid, albeit by those with an agenda who are willing to pay (donations)! It's no different than lobbying the government for special consideration.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-comment- is a link. I clicked on it. Why the time stamp didn't appear automaticly when I posted this note, is a sign that people at thier discreation are watching you and me too! Computers don't make errors they do what people tell them to do! This page is biased, and the "comment" link is just an excuse.

Cheers

Watch out for the RED flag (tag) on any posts. It means you are under review! Wikipedia is totally BIASED. They just wanna make money is the plain and simple truth. They pander to who pays them, even if it's people like of Sun Myung Moon.

12.5.63.8 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


12.5.63.8 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is quoting the original source a POV? Those are the ONLY verses in the Bible that talk about the antichrist/s. To be sure the original source has a POV, but that is the point of the article--what does the Bible say/mean about antichrist? The following two paragraphs are simply a neutral summary of the verses. The last paragraphs are questionable however. Allenroyboy 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with the verses is that they are presented as relating to each other through the "bold" phrases. This ties several unrelated verses together, some of which don't directly mention an antichrist. So the question becomes, who has determined that these verses all relate to the article's topic and is there a consensus about this among biblical scholars? ✤ JonHarder talk 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last four verses (5 if you include the duplicated one from the KJV) form the Biblical defintion of an antichrist.
  1. ^ 1 John 4:1-3
  2. ^ 1 John 2:18-19
  3. ^ 2 John 1:7
  4. ^ 1 John 2:22, 26
In simple summary, these texts [and no one else] define an antichrist as a falsely professing believer who is a deceiver and false prophet. He leads people astray by denying Jesus as messiah, the Son of the Father, God in the flesh.
This is not original research, it is simply letting the Bible interpret itself--one part of the Bible defining and making clear another part. The Bible doesn't need scholars [or priests or preachers] to explain it. Most Christians pay little head to unbelieving scholars anyway.
By simply applying the Biblical definition, the following 3 verses are obviously related:
In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter warns that there will be false teachers who secretly introduce heresies denying the Sovereign Lord. According to the Biblical definition this is an antichrist.
Paul warns the believers (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4) "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, .... and the man of lawlessness is revealed , the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." This too, by the Biblical definition, is an antichrist.
Paul also warns believers of savage wolves and false believers who will distort the truth (Acts 20:29-30) Again, these persons fit the description of an antichrist.
Let the Bible interpret the Bible, no one else need apply. Allenroyboy 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the article history I discovered that the original material in this section and another section was deleted without reason or discussion.[5] The old material does a better job of explaining why some people believe these verses are related. This is what I propose: replace the entire "New Testament Section" with the "Antichrist" and "The Man of Sin" sections from the deleted material and also replace the "original research" tag with one that simply notes no sources are provided.

Editors should also study the other deleted material to see if it should be restored. ✤ JonHarder talk 13:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. When I came along, the New Testament part was missing so I added pretty much what now exists. I read the other and it is good enough. Allenroyboy 03:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and make the substitution. ✤ JonHarder talk 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

I am new to Wikipedia and woinder if soneone can explain these discussion pages? I wonder if someone could explain the diophantes method of numerology where anyone's name can = 666? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tigger1972 (talk • contribs) 06:26 4 August 2007 (UTC).

See the talk page guidelines for the purpose of talk pages. ✤ JonHarder talk 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Even when it applies to the page in question? It could be that his question was provoked by the discussion at hand. There are certainly enuff comments about the numerological equation to 666, it even provoked my own response in order to clear up any misconceptions concerning it. Which for some reason you consider a threat I suppose. Hence the RED flagging of my address. Clearly biased, and not interested in the truth. Only your own narrow minded perspective. You are not simply angry with me (all red). You are out to prove a point, your own point. Well good luck finding anybody to side with you on your narrow minded point of view. From the looks of what has been written so far, yer the main one nobody can agree with here.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 18:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the equations, this site gives an explanation. The site doesn't seem to be sufficiently reliable to use as a reference in the article. ✤ JonHarder talk 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The da Vinci code

Dan Brown’s book and the theory therein are fiction, no matter how many people think otherwise, and should not be treated as fact by this article.

Recent edits.

It seems that this article was (and continues to be) rife with unverified claims and a poor quality of writing. Thusly I've removed some content which does not belong here or is unverified; I've also tried to make some sections more readable.

  • I edited the beginning of the article to read "in the place of" as well as the against christ in the "anti" meaning. Because the literal greek interpretation of the scripture could mean both. He is opposed or against Christ and he will also be the one who people think is "the Christ" or in the place of Christ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.68.224.6 (talk) 21:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC)


Image

Does the image depicting the Pope as the Anti-christ serve a legitimate purpose? I see this as derisive, while it is true that Lutherans and Catholics portrayed each other as agents of the devil/antichrists et all I don’t see the encyclopedic use. Rjbonacolta 15:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why not just use a blank nondescript silouet (ghost shadow), it's what all the other media "players" do! Personally I think it will achieve and appease everyone to do so in this particular instance. A very popular referance has a question mark over top of the shadow image.

Just a suggestion..

If hard pressed for copyright, I could make one in about 30 minutes using MS Paint, and so could you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.63.8 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was unsigned on purpose. But I guess you are too tight to know what a freebie is. Yer one os those people that believe highly in "possesions" and a "control freak" too no doubt. No wonder you signed your letter to me as "master of puppets", no wonder you don't like what I suggest the ANTICHRIST is all about, yer just another wanna-be like they all are. All yer doin is supplying disinformation to the public. Which is precisely why I consider Wikipedia worthless as a true and reliable source of information.

..ANONYMOUS

12.5.63.8 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

I removed the content identifying the Lebanese prime minister as the antichrist. this suggestion is obviously made by his detractors for their own political gain, Wikipedia, last I checked, has an NPOV policy. Rjbonacolta 21:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Islam has to say about Antichrist

The holy books of the Muslims are quite rich in writings about the Antichrist (called "Dajjal" by the Muslims). the muslims also believe that the AntiChrist is going to come, and they even believe that in his second coming, Jesus will make war against the forces of the Antichrist and finally kill him. Some predictions that are contained in the books of "The Hadith" [muslim holy books] are:

-> The Antichrist is already in the world [ie. he has already been born] -> the antichrist will first reveal himself in Persia (Iran). -> he will be blind in one eye, having a hump on his back. -> he will be extremely ugly, horrible in appearance. -> he will have an exceptionally brute strength. -> he will call himself God. -> it will not be possible for any man except Jesus to kill him, no matter how much they may try. -> whoever would come in front of him, whatever his level of faith, the Antichrist will totally convince him by way of his powers of argument and magic and he will lose all his faith and join his followers. -> the antichrist will have such powers that he will kill men by cutting them into pieces and then join him and make him alive again so as to convince them that he is God. -> the antichrist will visit the whole earth, every city and every settlement will he go to, even to Mecca and Medina, but he will not be able to enter in these two cities, only stopping outside with his army, so the people who take refuge in these two cities will be saved from him. however he will cause great earthquakes to shake the two cities, following which all the hypocrites among the muslims will go out and join him. -> the Antichrist will deceive the whole Jewish race that he is the promised "Messiah" and they will all become his followers. However the antichrist will draw his followers from all over the world, including from the Muslims. this is the reason Jesus will send the Jews to their doom. Because they will be guilty of not only denying Jesus, but also the real Messiah [ie, Prophet Muhammad] and in spite of all that God had done for them, having sent more Prophets to the House of Israel than to any other people, etc, they will still dishonour The Lord God by accepting the Antichrist as their promised messiah as well as their god. -> Jesus will kill the Antichrist and his followers.

...and many, many predictions about the Antichrist are given in the Hadith for the purpose of making it clear to the believers the identity of the Antichrist. The hadith also contain many predictions that Prophet Muhammad made about the state of the world at the time of the arrival of the antichrist, including some 'Ten Signs' that would be fulfilled before the Antichrist comes.

I am unable to give references here because all I have written here is from memory. however anyone who concults the books of the 'Sahih Hadith', written by Muslim theologians one or two centuries after the advent of Islam, will find these and a lot many things about the Antichrist. ✤jwang

Protection.

Ok the last few days have been interesting on this artice. We've had Christian fanatics, crazy people and kids who hate their teachers spew all over the artice. Prehaps protection is in order. Rjbonacolta 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This maybe totally off the wall thinking but i dont believe the antichrist is what you think it is! The antichrist is not Satan and does not mean that the antichrist is at all evil! However, lets take what Jesus did for mankind! He suffered for man, for all their mistakes to save the world. What if antichrist is only the antichrist because he is the opposite of Jesus in which if people sin they face their own judgement and suffer themselves as a consequence!

Eg. A man is greedy and will not give to help a hungry child, the innocent child looks at the greedy man and walks off, the child knows this man will now face his own judgement now and his own suffering starts, maybe Cancer of the Colon as a result of rich diet!

A man commits adultery and his wife saw him, she looks at him knowing he will now face his own judgement and his own suffering starts, maybe he will have a heart attack.

A man tries to distroy another boy through jealousy, the boy is hurt but looks at the man and walks off! 10 years later the boy see`s the same man whose has distroyed himself by alcohol and having a liver transplant.

What if the antichrist is bringing mankinds own faults to their doorstep and letting them face there own judgement. Yes people would not always like what they see but we cant blame it on the antichrist.

What if all the submissive people started to rise as all the bullies had to then face there own judgement, there would be a new order and if this was the antichrist work would you consider antichrist at all evil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthoffreedom (talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

   See? Rjbonacolta 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I again suggest protection? Rjbonacolta (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added another external link for balance. Yahshammah 17:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psi

User:66.82.9.88 has twice inserted the following:

Others believe that a messenger of the heavens as found at Psi (Cyrillic) will carry with him the symbol of Ѱ in his right hand. It is thought that this person is the anti-christ as he carries with him strange and unusual powers over the elements of nature while he has visions and dreams of future events.

if a source can be found for this (haven't found one yet), put it in. otherwise, nah. --Black Butterfly 15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christ or Antichrist

I think that the title 'Anti-Christ' should refer to the work by Nietzche and 'Antichrist' should be the title for this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert cone (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore

User 125.254.116.98 has repeatedly attempted to insert a section specifically on Al Gore into this article. I feel this is inappropriate for the following reasons:

* There is already a section on "Contemporary identification"; a separate section specifically for Gore is to give this one theory undue prominence.
* Were we to give a similar section to every person who has been or continues to be considered by groups of whatever size to be the Antichrist this article would likely end up longer than the Bible itself
* The section is filled with weasel words ("accused by some", "is a recurring theme", "some reasons")
* No major figure or group has made this identification

--Black Butterfly 11:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Day Adventists

I have edited the Seventh Day Adventist section in the article to try and avoid the revert conflict that's been going on for a while. I can't find any references for it, however. --Black Butterfly 09:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the verses in the KJV

I included all 4 verses from the KJV that use the term antichrist and they were instantly removed. The verses that stand in the article are from a 2001 first edition ESV which is a revision of the RSV. A previous addition to this subject before that was also removed. I am new here so maybe I misunderstand who has rights to do what. Anyone can remove anything they want?

Perhaps there's something wrong with using the KJV? The verses in the KJV explain themselves pretty clearly. Following are all antichrist verses from the KJV:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Note the contexts: "...ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."

"...that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come..."

Antichrist is a spirit in those that deny that Jesus is the Christ, that deny that Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh, or deny the Father and the Son.

They weren't removed because they are from the KJV, they were removed because they duplicated content already present in the article. The other edit was removed because, as noted in the edit summary, it was original research.
As for wikipedia policy, you can remove content provided a suitable reason is given; if you wish to challenge that removal this is the place to do it. (welcome, by the way!) --Black Butterfly 16:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the welcome butterfly, I guess I should have signed my post RJEdit and logged in today's date.

Is there a preserved copy of the removed posts? Original research would seem pretty subjective when it comes to scripture. Would the above highlight after the antichrist verses be considered "original research"? Does this mean that one is better off posting cryptically? For example:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

The above sketch allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. And just like the antichrist verses, the truth seems self-evident if we have the eyes to see it. Would this be removed as "original research" too?

If you want to sign your posts you can put ~ ~---- (remove the space) and the wiki software will automatically sign it for you. You can view previous versions of the page by going to its "History" link (next to article, talk, etc. - you must do this from the main article tho, doing it here will show the history of the talk page0)
As for the examples you give: simply giving two texts which are sometimes taken as references to Antichrist but do not use the term, and then claiming them as references, would be considered original research as it is an interpretation of scripture rather than plain text. That being said this identification is not particularly uncommon, so I would imagine there would be a number of sources for this (the Catholic Encyclopedia for one).
The standard for inclusion on wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". loosely, this means that it is not enough for something merely to be known to be true by the person contributing it, but that it must be demonstrated to be true by references to notable sources.
In this example, "Paul wrote the following verses about the Antichrist in his epistles" would IMO be original research; "Paul's comments in these epistles are taken by many, such as X, to be referring to the Antichrist", with X being a suitably notable source, would warrant inclusion.
that's my take on it anyway, I'm sure someone else will disagree ;-). --Black Butterfly 17:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for complete reorganisation/cleanup

Comments beginning with bold font suggestions by RJEdit 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, I can't find a quote function)[reply]

Hi,

I would like to propose that the article be restructured in the following order:

- Description:

  • Biblical references - explicit
How do first edition 2001 bibles take precedence over the KJV for example? Whoever posts first?
  • Biblical references - other (i.e. only those taken by notable scholars as being in some way identifiable with the Antichrist figure, looking at Daniel, Revelation, other epistles, etc.)
  • Non/extra-biblical references (apocrypha, Tiburtine sibyl)
  • Folk tradition

- Views:

  • Early Church
  • Later views (e.g. in the works of certain theologians)
  • Official stances (churches who have a set view on the matter)
  • Other views (to be kept VERY tight - only those people and groups who are considered notable)

- Identification: as with "Other views" above, should be kept very tight; I'm a little hesitant on having this section at all due to the potential for abuse. However, the identification of people and groups as being the antichrist has a significant history, particularly in the context of Protestant-Catholic relations, and should be mentioned.

- Other religions

Romans 11 explains Jewish blindness as regards the Christian concept of antichrist. The term "antichrist" doesn't occur in the Old Testament. [6] Isn't Armilus already covered in another Wikipedia section?
This is a separate subject from antichrist so shouldn't it be covered in it's own section? In regard to the subject "antichrist" as regards Islam, the most important tenant in Islam is "shirk" that being that God has no Son.
"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (Surah 9.30)
This is specifically the spirit of antichrist - from their book. They label those who believe in the Son of God polytheists.
  • Others (if appropriate)

- External links: again, this should be kept tight. at the moment the article links to [[66619.org] [Behold the Beast.com] in-article, among others; similarly, the last four links in the External Links section at present do not seem to be notable and as such count as giving undue weight IMO.

The Submission sect that holds that the Quran is the 666 was started by Rashad Khalifa. Quoting from this Turkish based ISLAMIC site (66619.org): "The truth is that This Quran is the 666 , The Book from The Lord of the Universe." You can yahoo - islam 666 - or - sura 1 to sura 36 is 666 - etc.
Wouldn't ignoring this sect be like, for example, "we don't like what Baptists say so let's eliminate them in Wikipedia"?

Is there anything else people feel should be added to the above structure? partly this is simply a matter of reorganising existing material to make it flow better, as well as removing fluff and adding, where appropriate, new material. --Black Butterfly 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to above comments:
* The KJV removal, as explained above, was due to it duplicating material already in the article. Which bible we use isn't really my concern - I wouldn't be surprised if there's a wiki policy on it but I don't have time to find it right now.
* I should clarify - by "Other religions" I didn't mean the Christian concept of Antichrist as found in other religions, but similar concepts in those religions. Dajjal and Armilus, by some interpretations, fulfil roles analogous to the Antichrist in Islam and Judaism respectively. "Related concepts in other traditions" would probably be a better, albeit more long-winded, title.
* As well as verifiability, information in wikipedia must be notable (wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). no context was given for this group and there is no indication that they are notable; including them in this article may be seen as giving them undue weight. (if I have a friend who thinks Barney the Dinosaur is the Antichrist should that be in too? would removing him be saying "I don't like what he says about Barney so let's eliminate him from wikipedia"?) There's a million and one different takes on the Antichrist and it is both impractical and undesireable to attempt to cover them all.
--Black Butterfly 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this last is written in regard to 66619.org, the founder of the Submission sect and originator of their gemantra is already covered in Wikipedia.[7]RJEdit 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this and have looked it up. However, it does not appear that they are notable in that their theory has not significantly affected understanding and the image of the Antichrist. --Black Butterfly 12:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some believe their so-called "The" "Antichrist" (the "beast" of Rev 13 [8] ) is marked with the number 666 which would make it germaine to this article for some.RJEdit 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm aware of their use of the term, it's one that has been claimed by and accused of thousands upon thousands of people throughout history. As it does not appear to have made a significant impact on the understanding of the concept of the Antichrist I'm not sure why it deserves more weight than the thousands of others. --Black Butterfly 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverals

What is YOUR problem dude. I followed the guidelines of wikipedia explicitly. AND STILL you deleted MY contribution based upon YOUR POV! Everything I wrote was nearly 100% in check with the other contributors. Want me to call attention to RGEDIT again! Quit acting stupid would you? Put my post back, quit being RUDE!!!

12.5.63.8 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 12.5.63.8|12.5.63.8, but I am new here. How can you even tell who removes your contribution? Is it the originator of the article, or anyone who feels like deleting your post? How do you know who to address specifically? Is there a record of what you tried to put in?
I think you suggested that antichrist is "clearly a man" but that seems a pretty difficult leap from all of the verses that use the term. RJEdit 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to check who reverted a page go to the history of the article, find the edit you made, and see who edited it next. --Black Butterfly 12:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, it will no doubt prove invaluable if I ever expect to get past the countless editors.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


And NO it is NOT a difficult leap apparently if everyone else in discussion is suggesting it as well. It's called a consensus which makes it an NPOV, as opposed to the admistrators POV that is being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.63.8 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was signed you idiot "Master of Puppets" why don't you get a clue, before they can you. Yer outa yer league dude.

Anybody can quote the scriptures, you don't have to use chapter and verse just to do it like so many fundamentalists do. Did you know the Jews didn't even have chapter and verse until the christians complained to them that THEY DO!

12.5.63.8 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..and YES I know how to use script language too!

12.5.63.8 03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


And NO I'm not a Jew, they will gladly share with you as long as you are not opposed to thier view.

12.5.63.8 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bet yer wondering how I did that? Well maybe I'll tell you as we get to know each other a little better. Apparently you know too, since you fixed it already. Glad to see somebody has some common sense at the front desk.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I know yer there, and at this point I'm simply awaiting your reply. Take yer time, yer probably reviewing what I have said already. I'll check back in later..

12.5.63.8 03:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking to me. If you are, try using my talk page, as I get notifications when people edit there. Also, if you'd like to discuss this matter with me only that would be the appropriate place, as this page is for group consensus on additions to the article. Thank you, Master of Puppets Care to share? 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You can assume what you want, and you have yet to be right.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My apologies to everyone during the course of the investigation, I got a little miffed when I found objectivity and the general consensus being overridden by personal POV's.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 14:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite

This needs quite an extensive overhaul, I think. As an outsider with no knowledge on the subject I manage to grasp the first paragraph. I think the chief problem is that the article is not very well organized. I would attempt to do so, but once again I know nothing on this aside from what's in the article. I'd attempt it if someone gave me some base materials to go on... Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly agreed. How do you feel about the draft structure I laid out above? --Black Butterfly 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antichrist&oldid=175746556"