Talk:Antichrist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Latter Day Saints (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Bible (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Please post comments at the Bottom of the page.

Tsar Peter the Great[edit]

It says that he was considered as a contendor, for his mistreatment of the Orthodox Church, including the separation of Church and State; actually it was for his uniting of Church and State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.217.136 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Antichrist#Old_Believers mentions him.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; the source cited says, "Peter subordinated the church to the state by replacing the patriarchate with a holy synod, headed by a lay procurator appointed by the czar." I revised it to remove the "separation of Church and State" statement. 74.212.144.196 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)jtb

Antichrist and the USA[edit]

I'm finding it increasingly rare for there to be a truly objective discussion on the Antichrist - tell me - let's take a look at these two paragraphs:

Some Futurists hold that sometime prior to the expected return of Jesus, there will be a period of "great tribulation"[72] during which the Antichrist, indwelt and controlled by Satan, will attempt to win supporters with false peace, supernatural signs. He will silence all that defy him by refusing to "receive his mark" on their right hands or forehead. This "mark" will be required to legally partake in the end-time economic system.[73] Some Futurists believe that the Antichrist will be assassinated half way through the Tribulation, being revived and indwelt by Satan. The Antichrist will continue on for three and a half years following this "deadly wound".[74]

and this paragraph:

Some Premillenial Futurism (Christian eschatology)-interpreters increasingly view the leadership of the West (viz., the USA and its President) as the seat of Antichrist who will morph into the Beast at the Abomination of Desolation. (See: Whore of Babylon) whose religious, commercial and political enterprise are seen under judgment in Revelation 17-19 and whose leader, the Antichrist-Beast (See: the Beast (Bible)), heads up this latter-day commercial and military empire in the End Times.

I appreciate your academic credentials - we have some as well - but objectivity, by removing this paragraph from the debate, has lessened the content considerably--when such content is as significant as this--perhaps the individual who has removed this can explain?

The statement made by the individual who removed the second paragraph was this: rv unsourced

Mr. Bunderson - how can this second paragraph be considered "unsourced" - perhaps I'm not understanding the interpretation of "unsourced" as in do you want me to list in quanity the number of such people in "some?" Then why not produce scores of "SomeFuturists" in the first paragraph.

Hello, my name is Carl Rocco Bunderson. I am pursuing an MA in evangelization and catechesis at the Augustine Institute in Denver, CO. I have my BA in economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church on 7 April 2007. You may contact me at my user talk page. Doug Krieger (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwmDoug Krieger (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be a registered Clairvoyant would you? Aryeonos (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Section 1.1[edit]

...needs help badly. It is poorly written, very angled, and contains enormous factual errors besides. The original Bible was written in 1604? Okay. 65.188.253.166 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! --173.52.9.215 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving comments from "Talk:Antichrist/Comments"[edit]

I saw the following and decided to move them here, because the other page is not intended for this sort of discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Spam."

If the above is the case, then you aughta delete about 50% of the crap on wikipedia. As I have yet to see ANYTHING on wikipedia without an agenda fixed to it. IMHO Wikipedia is worthless as an accurate and informative source of information. It's full of preconceived and poorly conceived notions.

Cheers..

12.5.63.8 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree 100%. I have tried to edit the word antichrist here to help them break away from all the UNBIBLICAL MYTHS, but they deleted my info. They even started this new topic section here which deleted my old posts where I showed that the word antichrist only means denial of Christ...period.

The word antichrist only appears in the bible 5 times in just 4 verses, 3 verse define the word, it only appears in 2 books by 1 author...John. The word antichrist is an adjective, in lowercase, used to describe men who were anti, against and in denial of Christ; they were anti Christ.

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar (or 'the antichrist') but he (the liar and denier) that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This (denier) is the antichrist, even HE that DENIES the Father and the Son.

Who is 'the antichrist' other than he that DENIES that Jesus is the Christ? This denier is the antichrist for DENYING the Father and the Son. The word antichrist just mens denial of Christ...period.

(Young's Literal Translation)

1 John 2:18 Little youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come, even now antichrists have become many -- whence we know that it is the last hour;

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar, except he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ? this one is the antichrist who is denying the Father and the Son;

1 John 4:3 and every spirit that doth not confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of God it is not; and this (denier) is that of the antichrist, which ye heard that it doth come, and now in the world it is already.

2 John 1:7 because many leading astray did enter into the world, who are not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh; this one (the denier) is he who is leading astray, and the antichrist.


--Tygew (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Add Link[edit]

Please, add a link in See Also to "List of fictional Antichrist". That article is an orphan!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samaelion (talkcontribs) 07:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Some[who?] identify him as being in league with (weasel word)[edit]

I think, there is no other way of writing this piece of information Vishvax (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight[edit]

The article is seriously unbalanced in devoting more than half its length to the fringe historic protestant charge that the Pope is the antichrist. This is done by listing the accusation repetitively and in detail from many different protestant sources. This is WP:Undue Weight and promotes a small minority viewpoint to the exclusion of the general theological views held down the years. The article needs major rebalancing. Xandar 23:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The temple to be built?[edit]

One of the inaccuracies of main stream thought has been that a 3rd temple would be built in Jerusalem. This is wrong.

1Corinthians 6:19 and 2Corinthians 6:16 say your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and of God.

1Corinthians 3:16-17 says that we are the temple.

What's being built? --No938 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually mainstream thinking does get stuff like this wrong but there are apparently plans already drawn up for the 3rd temple and priests are being trained to perform the daily sacrifices. The Word says that the Anti-Christ will enter into this temple to declare he is God - this needs to happen so the world can worship him. Therefore this temple is a physical thing not your body as pointed out in Corinrhians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.155.117 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There 'are' groups of people and funds available to build a new temple. Millions of dollars have been made writing books on the subject. A substantial number of people believe that the antichrist is an inevitable figure in the history of mankind. Therefore it is important to have an entry in Wikipedia about this person, just like there is an entry for George Washington. But there is no evidence whatsoever of an actual human. There is a good reason that this article is in dispute.(Desertmun (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Do you have a suggestion for article improvement? Talk pages are for article improvement only.Farsight001 (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The way to improve the article is to change the title of the article. I suggest The myth of the antichrist or Antichrist; the history and mythology. Therefore a quote from Martin Luther on the Pope would be historical, and could be documented and would fit within the paradigm of the title. Desertmun (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing the neutral point of view guidelines. "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is. Whether or not the Antichrists doesn't, did, does, kinda doesn't, or will exist is open for interpretation. It is verifiable, though, that people have interpretted the Bible in the ways the article depicts. This article isn't titled "the myth of the Antichrist" for the same reason we don't title articles "the myth of Krishna," "the myth of democratic capitalism," or "the myth of socialism." Just because a number of people do believe or do not believe in something is not a reason to say it is or isn't true or false. Furthermore, the Antichrist isn't a myth proper, but a figure featured in some myths (Washington is featured in myths, like crossing the Potomac); and the idea of "myth" meaning "false story" is at best a colloqualism (Washington actually did cross the river, and the story is for some Americans a sacred story describing how the world came to be the way it is in its current or ultimate state). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I am tempted to delete the last submission to the Antipas Ministries page, based on credibility, redundant information and lack of authority. Any objections? Any other links not really relevant? noncompliant_one (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


According to the bible the word antichrist means denial of Christ[edit]

It is a common belief that the Antichrist, according to Christianity, is one who fulfills Biblical prophecies concerning an adversary of Christ. But according to the bible the word antichrist means DENIAL OF CHRIST

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar, except he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ? this one is the antichrist who is denying the Father and the Son;

The word antichrist appears in the bible only five times in just four verses[1]; three of these verses define the word as DENIAL of Christ[2]. The word antichrist appears in only two books [1st and 2nd John] by 1 author [John].

In the bible the word antichrist appears in lowercase as an adjective [3] used to describe men who were in the church, but then they left the church: [4] 1 John 2:17-24, most specifically verse 19

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us."

These people who denied Christ were anti, against and in denial of Christ; they were anti Christ, antichrist.

ad·jec·tive --

A part of speech that describes a noun or pronoun. Adjectives are usually placed just before the words they qualify: shy child, blue notebook, rotten apple, four horses, another table, (and in our case - anti Christ).

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar (or 'the antichrist') but he (the liar and denier) that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This (denier) is the antichrist, even HE that DENIES the Father and the Son.

Who is 'the anti Christ' other than he that DENIES that Jesus is the Christ? This denier is the anti Christ for DENYING the Father and the Son.

According to Christian dictionary's the word antichrist means denial of Christ: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

This is every appearance of the word antichrist in the bible. Unlike commonly believed, it doesn't appear in the books of Daniel or Revelation or in any other scriptures in the entire bible, it ONLY appears in 1 and 2 John:[10]

This is every occurrence of the word antichrist in the bible:

(Young's Literal Translation)

1 John 2:18 Little youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come, even now antichrists have become many -- whence we know that it is the last hour;

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar, except he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ? this one is the antichrist who is denying the Father and the Son;

1 John 4:3 and every spirit that doth not confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of God it is not; and this (denier) is that of the antichrist, which ye heard that it doth come, and now in the world it is already.

2 John 1:7 because many leading astray did enter into the world, who are not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh; this one (the denier) is he who is leading astray, and the antichrist.

According to the bible the word antichrist means denial of Christ. Everything else that we've heard about the 'Antichrist' character, outside of these four scriptures above, is simply derived from theory's and speculations concocted from other scriptures and the imaginations of men.

--Tygew (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tygew here and incidentally my extensive research based on reading this page, the bible verses in question, and an article from Cracked.com (sarcasm) but what the sources listed in this article say aside it does appear as if "The Antichrist" is a complete creation of scholars and preachers used to market their systems and books so I doubt we will ever be able to get secondary sources that are unbiased on this topic. Just not much market for that. Its much easier to sell the sexy image of a supervillain bizarro Jesus thats going to come in disguise than just interpret those passages for what they are. The bible just basically says its anyone who doesn't believe in God. Oh well. AaronY (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Aaron. So are you one of the administrators here? I noticed you said: "The bible just basically says its anyone who doesn't believe in God" I just wanted to clarify that the Hebrews of that time believed in God, yet they DENIED that the Messiah had come; they DENIED that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah in Hebrew); they DENIED that God had a son and that Jesus was the Christ; they DENIED the father (God) and the son (Jesus); they were anti, against and in DENIAL of CHRIST. My point is that they didn't deny God, as an atheist would, they just denied Jesus being the Christ. They were anti-Christ, not anti-God. But thank you though for supporting this obvious view :-)--Tygew (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Antichrist also means "in-the-place-of Christ" this is a denial that Jesus was Christ in that someone else is considered the Christ. Johnjonesjr (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tygew (talk) and AaronY (talk). The word "antichrist" only appears in 1 John and 2 John and it simply means against Christ. Beyond that the rest of the page is conjecture and opinion. Taram (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

in islam[edit]

The part that talks about the antichrist in islam needs editing. Its writing style is nonstandard and it contains editorialization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.188.134 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it even in this Christian article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.50.205 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Because this is one world Muslims and Christain dont live on Venus and Mars.

Dajjal is the same person which is mentioned as antichrist.

And in my opinion Dajjal and AntiChrist has appeared in this world and his name is Mulla Umar of Taliban.

ChJameel (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Javier Solana[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Solana is redirected to the antichrist page. I understand that many people feel he is an embodiment of the 'anti-christ;' however, I feel that this is probably some sort of prank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecaem (talkcontribs) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


It is sure a prank by some Zionists.

ChJameel (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How can there be an antiCHRIST in Islam?[edit]

Well?

Since Christ is not part of Islam, why would there be an antiChrist in Islam? There are no references for the section titled In Islam, apart from a Wikilink to Masih ad-Dajjal. That article says that Islam has a comparable figure, but obviously not an antiCHRIST.

I see no point in that section existing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

They do believe in Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah (Gk Christ) but not as a person of God. If you look into it, the Dajjal is their understanding of the Antichrist, given their Christology. The section should be maintained. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Islam, but I'll bet they don't use the name Christ for Jesus. So how can there be an antiCHRIST? This a totally Christian-centric view of Islam. That makes it pure POV. It's a way in which Christians justify their own beliefs, by saying "Look over there, they believe in him too.". For this section to exist it would need some very strong sourcing in this article. At present, there is none. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
They do believe he is the Jewish Messiah, and I'm sure you're not so ignorant that you don't know that Christ is the Greek word for Messiah. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Please allow me to a little bit ignorant, and try to use Wikipedia to improve my knowledge, surely our primary goal here. Even if Muslims acknowledge, with considerable translation, that Jesus is Christ, is the character referred to in this article as the antiCHRIST in Islam the same as the one in Christianity. Is it really an antiCHRIST, or an antiSOMEBODY_ELSE? Maybe I'm a little confused too by the sentence in that section that says "Jesus will return at the time of the Dajjal and he will be the one to eventually defeat him." Exactly who is he and who is him? And again, the absence of references makes it difficult for you or anyone else to defend this section's existence. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
We're clearly at an impasse, and input from other editors would be helpful. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what you are after... but from my understanding: 1. Islam teaches that Jesus will defeat the Dajjal. 2. My personal interpretation is that the Mahdi much more closely resembles the description of the Antichrist that the Dajjal does - as also noted by other Christian commentators. rossnixon 03:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Er, so do you think the section should be deleted, or maintained? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The relevance seems tangential. I would delete it. Deipnosophista (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It's basicaly like this. The Messiah prophecies were created and fulfilled in order to undo false laws written into Judaism by Pharisees. The anti Christ Prophecies were written into Christianity to protect people from futuristic laws promoting bad laws that Jesus came to undo. Approximately 666 years after the prophet Jesus, another prophet was created to undo the new laws of the golden rules adopted by Christianity, essentualy re instating the Covenant Law and a new Blasphemy law included so their laws could not be challenged or changed.Frederick Rhodes (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent revisions[edit]

I think the scope of the article has been limited by the recent removal of most of the historical content.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I came back here and it seems like there is some sort of edit war going on between Catholic(s) and historicist(s). We need to stay within a neutral POV. The removal of the longstanding Biblical references, Early Church, Post-Nicene Christianity, Pre-Reformation Western Christianity, Protestant reformers, Old Believers, and Counter-Reformation sections and their replacement with material that fits Roman Catholic POV was not justified. See Wikipedia:Content forking. But now we have a pro-historicist POV that is very forward and strident. That is also against Wikipedia policy.
I'm going to remove the pro-historicist POV material, but instead of replacing it only with pro-Roman Catholic material, I will include concepts from a variety of different page-versions, edited, of course, to preserve a neutral POV.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The results are not at all happy: there is still a whole series of quotations from original sources wrenched out of their context. If they are to appear here then they need to be set into commentary, otherwise the result (as here now) is not at all historical, as well as giving an overall message which is not neutral in its POV but heavily evangelical. Deipnosophista (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I see the overall message (after my fix) as being neutral. Although each of the historical people had their own opinions, and as a whole this article is still incomplete, that hardly violates nPOV. Some of the quotes are definitely incomplete representations of the person's entire theology of the end-times and the Antichrist, but that is grounds for improving rather than removing them. If they seem as a whole too "conservative," it might make sense to consider that over the centuries, the people who wrote about an Antichrist tended to be the ones who believed there was or would be an Antichrist. The appropriate fix for any unbalanced weight would be to both expand those already mentioned as well as to find more historical people with more diverse opinions.
The historical commentators I have read all have their own opinions as well--the secularized Rationalist POV, the Preterist POV, the Catholic POV, and both evangelical and mainline Protestant POVs are all well represented in the literature available. They can be included in the article according to their position. The more we are able to include in this article, the more likely this article will remain a neutral POV. Unfortunately, this article is frequently vandalized. I believe this article falls under Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles whose subject is a POV. The "opposing" articles in this case are the Muslim Masih ad-Dajjal and the Jewish Armilus articles. The scope of this article would then be all Christian traditions throughout the history of Christianity.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
In the wiki-back-and-forth we see in the history there seems to be a "less-is-more" idea when it comes to documented aspects of history. I fail to see how eliminating the views that came about during the Protestant Reformation would have given the objective unbiased reader a better more complete understanding of the topic. I support the re-addition of documented historic facts. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Source warning[edit]

In section Protestant reformers I see some sources that don't look entirely reliable to me. First of all: AFAIK I remember Luther "analyzing" the Roman Catholic Church as being the Beast 666, not antichrist. It should IMO be either-or, not both or I'd suspect the "analyze" was demented. The source provided refers to other tertiary sources, so I think it's best checking with the protestantists own texts (secondary as regards to bible, and primary regarding themselves). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther said: "We are convinced that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist" - D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Briefwechsel (Weimar, 1930-1948), Vol.2, p.167, cited in What Luther Says, ed. Ewald M. Plass, Vol.1, p.34.BobRyan777 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Martin Luther said: "You should know that the pope is the real, true, final Antichrist, of whom the entire Scripture speaks, whom the Lord is beginning to consume with the spirit of His mouth and will very soon destroy and slay with the brightness of His coming, for which we are waiting." - D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883-), Vol. 8, p.554., cited in Plass, op. cit, Vol.1, pp.36, 37BobRyan777 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Ummhum. Pardon me for the wording "demented". I was less net-mature then. But still: the question was about Luther equating the Beast 666 with Antichrist. He said what he said, truly, but where is it indicated that Luther equated them? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding Catholic sources speaking about the Pope and Antichrist[edit]

I have added a Catholic source - Catholic Historian: Thomas Bokenkotter, showing historic context prior to Luther declaring the Papacy to be antichrist. As we all know Luther was Catholic not "Lutheran". In this historic case the very same college of cardinals that initially elected Pope Urban VI in April of 1378, turned right around in Sept 20 of 1378 and elect a new Pope (Pope Clement VII) and when they did so - they proclaimed Pope Urban to be antichrist. Certainly this public declaration would have been known to Luther before he made his own statements about the Papacy. It may have suggested the idea of a possible connection between the term Antichrist and Papacy that had not occurred to him before that time, or it may simply have left that door open so that his later studies were open to considering the option. Since this is a pro-Catholic historian remarking on a simple fact of history - I am hoping that the reader will find the point instructive.BobRyan777 (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bokenkotter is not a Catholic historian. He's barely Catholic in his beliefs and his presentation of history is mostly looked down upon by other historians. I'm not sure he would qualify as an RS, though considering how much we have to scrounge for sources on a subject like this, it might be passable. Furthermore, your presentation of the information was not exactly complete enough. Saying what you said with no mention that this next elected pope was an anti-pope and that it was only a few cardinals that elected him is, frankly, deceptive. The last sentence was mere opinion and editorializing. Hence it really doesn't belong.Farsight001 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Arguing that a Catholic historian is not "really Catholic" if they expose some detail in history that one finds inconvenient is less than objective and simply argues against "informing the reader" of historic fact. As noted in the comments, Pope Urban VI was the only existing Pope at the time that the SAME group of Cardinals that elected Pope Urban then elected Clement VII. If the argument is that both Urban and Clement are not valid popes (since they are elected by the same college of Cardinals) - and they were the ONLY popes at the time - then you need to build a historic case for "no popes" in the year 1378 after the death of Gregory XI! (Seems like a far fetched idea appealing to undocumented history). If my short documented addition is in anyway defective it is in that it fails to point out that both the lines of Clement VII and Urban VI also had successors and that eventually a 3rd line of popes was created. However it was not my intention to get into the full discussion of what Catholic Historians refer to as the "Great Schism". In any case the sourced reference "informs the reader" of the documented fact of history that would have been known to Luther - serving as immediate, documented, historic context to Luther's decision to even consider the possibility of associating the term "antichrist" with the office of the papacy. Not informing the reader of this historic fact might help build a case for the idea that Luther invented this association between the term "antichrist" and the "papacy", but hiding this fact from the reader serves no other purpose.BobRyan777 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstand. There are hundreds of people out there who claim to be devout and obedient Catholics who are not and never were. Bokenkotter is one of these people. I am not arguing it because they "expose some detail in history that one finds inconvenient". I am saying that the guy has some odd ideas that no other historian really considers has merit and that the way you presented the information in the article was further deceptive. (no mention of the fact that it was not the entire college of cardinals, but rather a breakaway sect, etc.) Look up Clement VII here on wikipedia and note the dates of his reign - centuries after Urban VI. There is a reason for this - because the Clement VII you are talking about was never a valid pope. In other words, Bokenkotter is not an RS. He cannot be validly used as a source like this. Yes, his education is in history, but he is a bit of a nut. It takes more than an education in a subject to make one a valid source around here.
In short, the reference does not inform the reader of nearly anything, but rather misleads the reader further. We all know the idea didn't originate with Luther. But we need a valid source for such information, and Bokenkotter, especially the way you present him, just doesn't cut it.Farsight001 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
When a published historian speaks to a specific point of history - and that specific historic point is not challenged by anything said here or in print some place else - then the point "stands". The fact that someone may "feel" that the Catholic historian is not "catholic enough" for this Catholic or that Catholic is not applicable to the historic event. The issue is about informing the reader about a documented point of history that provides some background and context for Luther's later statements. The "Bokenkotter does not cut it" statement is not even close to an objective position on the point of history that he so eloquently speaks to. The fact that he is a Catholic seems to bother some people - but the real issue is whether his historic reference is true. And as it turns out - he is not the only historian to "notice" the point of history in 1378.
The practice of simply attacking the reputation of the historian speaking about the published fact of history is not as objective a solution as you might have at first imagined. The fact that there is "Another Clement VII" centuries later - does not sufficiently "cover up" the details of published history already admitted by historians for 1378! And it is a side trail - since the point of the source reference was what was said about Urban VI by the SAME college of Cardinals that elected him. Unless you have a credible historic fact showing that the College of Cardinals identified did not in fact use those very terms for Pope Urban VI (as quoted by Bokenkotter) prior to Luther doing so for the Pope of his day - there is no substantive opposition to informing the reader of the fact. Claiming that Bokenkotter is not "Catholic enough" for this person or that person, or claiming that the "papal line" of Clement VII is obfuscated by the fact that some later Pope also took up that same name - has no bearing on what was said about Urban VI by Urban's own college of Cardinals. ( Which as you may recall - is the point of "historic context" being brought up for Martin Luther.)BobRyan777 (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, you should review WP:BRD. It is the process by which we edit here. You make Bold edit, I Revert, and then we Discuss. After the discussion is concluded, THEN we make the edits agreed upon. You do not get to just keep re-adding what you want over and over ignoring what I have to say. That is called disruptive editing. While you are at it, I highly recommend you review several other policies as well. I can tell that you are not entirely familiar with them. Familiarity with policies will help you get along here.
Second, that he is a published historian in no way qualifies him as a WP:RS, which he needs to be to be used around here. I happen to own a book by a historian (who is obviously published), in which he talks about the Celts sacking Rome and declares that Jesus was Irish. He's not a reputable source either, for obvious reasons. In this particular context, it matters to what degree he is respected by other historians - and that is almost none, which does not qualify him at all. I am not "simply attacking the reputation" of him. He doesn't have a reputation to attack. That you take him seriously is only a testament to how little you understand the subject, not to my opinion of him.
As for the other Clement VII I mentioned - I suggest you go back and read what I typed again. I was not trying to cover up anything. Rather, I was pointing out that YOU were covering up important and pertinent facts - namely that these cardinals who elected this Clement were a breakaway sect and this Clement was an anti-pope - never considered a valid pope by the Church. I mentioned the later Clement VII to point out this fact, as no two popes can actually take the exact same name.
So again, I reiterate - you cannot use the source you are using and you certainly cannot present the "facts" as you call them in such a deceptive and misleading manner. If you have another idea for a source and/or another way to phrase this information, procedure says you should post it here first, where users discuss and come to an agreement on it. Then AFTER an agreement is met, the changes are made.Farsight001 (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Number of the Beast[edit]

Hi, the number of the antichrist is already known. It is 161049. Divided by 888 (Christ's number) results in 181.36149 which is 3x61.3614X9, that is 66616661666. This is critical information and I believe it should be made available to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncertainregard (talkcontribs) 11:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't take original interpretations (you need to cite a reliable source) and we only present interpretations as interpretations, not as "facts" (because verifiability is the standard here, not "truth"). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In Rev 13:18 the number of the beast is stated to be 666 (not 666166616661). That is the historic, documented origin for the term itself. The purpose of wikipedia on a topic such as "number of the beast" should be to show the documented, significantly-historic ways that this has been calculated, rather than "each person's own wild idea".BobRyan777 (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


Firstly, it is not my idea. Secondly, there are three beasts described by christian writers as forming the trinity of evil. The first one is Satan, the Red Dragon, the second one is the Anti-Christ, the seven headed dragon and last one is the False Prophet, which in actual fact is a Prophetess, false or otherwise, an ET female who probably is the Earth program manager. Satan and the other dragon are probably her pets. I am well aware that what I said is quite shocking and can only be taken as a suggestion due to lack of direct experience by the majority of those interested in the subject, not to mention the inevitable bias engendered by centuries of (christian) propaganda and acculturation via the socializing process. As for the "significantly-historic ways that this has been calculated" they are in my view, and without exception, puerile and futile attempts at breaking of what essentially is a code... the purpose of which was to attest to the various support and resistance networks that were/are in place, the true arrival of the Beast (the seven headed dragon) via insertion/implementation from above into a chosen individual. The result is a human-extraterrestrial hybrid of great intelligence that has rulership over the entire Earth power structure courtesy of Satan. As you might ask yourself the entirely reasonable question of how a hybrid as the one described might be possible and/or work in practice, enough will be said by stating that it will be both inter and multi dimensional, that is two in one... with the task of following what essentially is a program. As for the characteristics of the program that the Anti-Christ will pursue, that is a matter of speculation at this stage, although it is a safe bet to say that it will follow the lines of atheism, secularism and scientific advancement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncertainregard (talkcontribs) 17:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cite sources, we don't take exegesis. We're not a blog, if you don't want to cite sources describing notable interpretations, then you're welcome to put your effort somewhere else. Wikipedia doesn't care in the slightest if you think you're "right," Wikipedia does not care about "the truth," only verifiability and notability. Your personal interpretation is not notable, will be removed, and disruptive attempts to reinsert it will not be tolerated.Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure all true and partial Christians would agree that Jesus allowed His life to be sacrificed in fulfilment of the Covenant Law. Therefor anyone, not a singular being, that promotes the covenant law be performed on the least of our brothers, after it is no longer necessary because of the fulfilment of scriptural prophecy, is an antiChrist. All this other mumbled jumble is very confusing, trying to lable a particular person or group as anti Christ for all these side reasons that don't have anything to do with being saved from the false laws created by ancient Pharisees to justify their conceptions of being the chozen race.Frederick Rhodes (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New layout[edit]

Giving new layout to this article to keep consistent with other Christian doctrine articles like, Fall of man and Original sin. In the process, I am removing wp:original research and anything that is not wp:reliable. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 17:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad[edit]

According to the article Medieval Christian views on Muhammad Muhammad was considered Antichrist by medieval Christians (possibly also by some contemporary). I think this should be included in the article. --84.210.127.117 (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Antichrist[edit]

The usage of The Antichrist is under discussion, see Talk:The Antichrist (book) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bernard McGinn?[edit]

I removed "on the exegesis of Second Temple (500 BCE–50 CE) Jewish texts that refer to anti-messiahs." from the lead sentence. It seems this is based on one interview source with Bernard McGinn (theologian) who is well represented in the article, but the fact is there is no hard evidence for any such tradition or texts. I also inserted New Testament before Early Church and changed order to Judaism - Christianity (+ Mormonism) then Islam as is normal in these Abrahamic religion topics. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Qadyanis / Ahmaddis as a separate section[edit]

Qadyanos/ Ahmdaeez were wrongly put into Islamic section. This is wrong. Qadyanis are not considered Muslims. This is a fact not well known in much of the western world. Here are a few references in this regard:

Qadianis as non-Muslim minority: Pakistani Law & constitution & declaration of 1974: http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-130536-Qadianis-as-non-Muslim-minority

Fatawas (Muslim Scholarly religious declarations) of Ulema (Muslim Scholars) declaring Qadyaneez as non Muslims: http://irshad.org/exposed/fatwas/edesai.php http://jamiamasjid.com/fatqadiyani.php

Basic Know how of what a Qadyaneez is: http://irshad.org/qadianism/differ.php For the future it must be considered as a separate section and must not come under Islam. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahmaidyyas are classified as an Islamic sect. Even if this might conflict with your personal beliefs, please do not push your own POV on this project. Undoing your edits. kashmiri TALK 17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

im kamiyar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.242.204.21 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The upside down cross[edit]

Can the person who typed that this is a Christian symbol give a source for it? I see no evidence for it on the "Christian Symbols" page. It makes no sense. Aaron Saltzer (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The inverted cross has traditionally been identified as the Cross of St. Peter since 200 AD at latest. It is only with 20th century horror movies that the inversion was definitely meant to be anything but pious, potentially due to earlier influence by Eliphas Levi (who claimed that an inverted pentegram was the opposite of the previously benevolent pentagram that represented the five wounds of Christ on the Cross). Even though Christianity is one of the younger world religions, it's still pretty old, with a deep history. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)