Jump to content

Talk:Antichrist/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

I just updated a reference link that was old. Beakdan (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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 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)

Dajjal is Muslim word for the antichrist. Is the Obama the Dajjal or antichrist ? note : Obama fits predictions of AC/Antichrist or Dajjal - dark, fast moving , adultation or wide spread fawning, endless lying etc

The Iranian president's description of the Mahdi sounds more like The Antichrist to me. The bottom line is that whoever the world eventually accepts as The Messiah, will actually turn out to be the pseudo-christ. rossnixon 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia... 98.192.40.155 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I know that it's aesy to think that the antichrist maybe a single man, because of the xpreson as a name; but there's a colecton of personalities taking place in the goberment of that figure; if we can say that he's just a man. It's a power, but it'll be a movement, too. A tipe of thnking, a tipe of sistem and a group of people with the same intention.

Barac Obama..? I wont say it. But he has a lot the caracteristic of that leader in the Book of Apocalipsys; because he has the good manner to talk, even if he's trying to be honest showiing some intentions as taking control of the money of everyone, they keep say he's be a good presindent. So they don't see any bad in his person, they don't want to see any mistake he commited or is going to commit in the future; i heard a lot of insinuations about him, that i would like to hear more about, but nobody asked him in debates, nor any place where he's been present. So when somebody has an spirit of confusion and manipulation, nobody realizes nor want to. Let's see what is going to be next, with economy and the war.. those are the main topics of the antichrist job, task or skills.. whatever he's going to do, is about money and peace. So It's not that he is but he is putting the ideas on the table. So people start to be able to receive those theories as valid and well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auyama (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified User's comments

I'd like to suggest an Interpretation of the term "AntiChrist". Simply put, it means the opposite of "Christ". Although 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 cite 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 their life shall lose it, and those who seek to lose their life shall gain it."

Cheers.12.5.63.8 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I corrected some of your spelling, took out the "small" tag so that I could at least read your comments, etc. First, I think that you tried in the past to put this text into the article page, which is POV and inappropriate; secondly, you have a lot to learn about Bible Prophecy (or 'Eschatology' as I prefer this term).
You can check some of the book references that I have contributed to this page and also look on my userpage for a more complete listing.
You might also go onto www.TheBereanCall.org and www.RaptureReady.com for more discussions.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

Apparently Hitler and Saddam Was One? >.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.218.181 (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Another unknown user's comments

I think that no matter what the "truth" is there should always be the other persons option.

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

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

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 definition 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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • The antichrist is mentioned 5 times in four different verses in the bible. Three times in 1 John and once in 2 John.[3] The beast is not a man, it is a kingdom of Satan who is also referred to as the beast and the dragon.[4] (kingdom)[5] (and king) [6] and [7] and (horns are kings) [8]

Revelation 19:19 is the most misunderstood verse in the book of Rev. [9] "And I saw the beast,(Satan's kingdom) and the kings of the earth, (demons) and their armies,(fallen men) gathered together to make war against him (God/Jesus) that sat on the horse, and against his (Holy spiritual) army."

The beast, the ten horns, Satan verses God for the throne of earth, the battle etc,[10] are all meant as spiritual; a battle for the souls of men. Ephesians 6:12 [11] For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

People don't understand Rev so in confusion they conjure stuff up. God speaks in parables so it is difficult to understand but yet his message is and always has been simple; very simple. "Live your life for God till the end because you will die and be judged." Hebrews 9:27[12] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

The rapture is not in the bible,[13] it is a misunderstanding of death. The antichrist is just any and every man who denies Christ. The beast is Satan's spiritual kingdom that deceives the whole earth.

Revelations is the revealing of who Jesus is[14] (God in the flesh)[15] and about a spiritual battle for our souls. Antichrist, which is really atheism as in anti Christ, is not mentioned in Rev or anywhere else in the bible other than 1 and 2 John. [16]

--Tygew (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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.


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


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)

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)
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)
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)
I have made the redirect from Anti-Christ to Antichrist. PrimeHunter 12:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

His name is José Luis de Jesús Miranda The Cleveland Browns are awesome! (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's his article: José Luis de Jesús Miranda. Wdfarmer (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)

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)

--Tygew (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Actually the bible only mentions the adjective antichrist in lower case. It is not capitalized so it's NOT a name. The word antichrist is mentioned five times in the bible in only four verses. All four verses are ONLY found in 1st and 2nd John; not Revelations or anywhere else in the bible....period. They all say the same thing; that any and every man who denies Christ being from God is against, in denial of or anti Christ....period. There is no mention of ANY KIND of man or Satan possessing a man who is in place-of Christ. The word antichrist means against Christ. For clarity, read my post below here called "The antichrist Myth"


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)


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)

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)

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)

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.

Nostradamus

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

Leave Nostradamus on his own page; his quatrains can be interpreted in any fashion and are not as reliable as the Bible.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

findings in Islam

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

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)

The Antichrist is not yet here in power. He will be a future individual, judging by various biblical scripture references so, searching for any reference to him in the past is pointless!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

Again, to repeat my discussion above, the Antichrist is not here yet. To look for any individual such a Reagan, or Gorbachev, as one book I have discussed, etc. is useless. This individual has to control the economic system or systems, forcing everyone to take the '666' mark on their right hand or forehead! Reagan didn't do that; Gorbachev certainly didn't and couldn't do that! We have to look for a future individual coming to power.

What do we see from scripture?

  • He is energized by Satan
  • He is given great authority
  • People are astonished by this individual because he overcame the deadly wound
  • People worship Satan as a result, and the Beast, thinking that he is unbeatable
  • He has authority for 42 months (3 and one half years of the 7-year Great Tribulation period)
  • He utters blasphemies against the true God and those who live in heave (this alludes to the Rapture which is now past)
  • He is worshipped by the whole World and has authority over the whole world!
  • Only those who have not had their names written in the Lamb's book of life will worship him
  • He is followed by another individual, the false prophet; this individual completes the trinity of hell.
  • The Beast institutes the 666 economic system.


Revelation 13:1-18 (New International Version)

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?" The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

He who has an ear, let him hear. If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed[c] with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666. --MurderWatcher1 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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).

This article discusses much more that just the Pope of the Catholic church. But, like it or not, Protestants since the 16th century have accused 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)

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)

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)

- 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)



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)

-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)


12.5.63.8 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

In looking at the article history I discovered that the original material in this section and another section was deleted without reason or discussion.[17] 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)

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)
I'll go ahead and make the substitution. ✤ JonHarder talk 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)


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) 

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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. [18] 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)

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)
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.[19]RJEdit 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Some believe their so-called "The" "Antichrist" (the "beast" of Rev 13 [20] ) is marked with the number 666 which would make it germaine to this article for some.RJEdit 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
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)

Because "shirk", or that God has no Son[21] is the most important element in Islam and those poor folks have followed Mohammed for 1300 years, with another 1.5 billion of them in the world today. As a consequence, there are 1.5 billion antichrists in Islam alone. This doesn't count the atheist down your block.

"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 "that spirit of antichrist". The church can't see it because it is looking for an individual future so-called "The" "Antichrist"[22], or one in the past (Nero).--RJEdit (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


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)

Thoroughly agreed. How do you feel about the draft structure I laid out above? --Black Butterfly 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)\
Well, I looked through it and have a few questions (not many though). I bolded my comments/questions.

- Description:

  • Biblical references - explicit - I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Antichrist is mentioned all the time in the Bible. Also, if he is the embodiment of evil, wouldn't every evil happening or being be the Antichrist? I'm in no way experienced on this, so I'm aware this may sound stupid, but I'm just curious.
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 - What do you mean by folk tradition? Things like throwing salt over your shoulder if you spill it, except related to the Antichrist?

- Views:

  • Early Church
  • Later views (e.g. in the works of certain theologians)
  • Official stances (churches who have a set view on the matter) By official stances, do you mean modern stances? As I think each era had a different opinion.
  • Other views (to be kept VERY tight - only those people and groups who are considered notable) Would this include Jewish and Muslim views on the Christian antichrist, or just the idea in general? I'm asking because you talk about other religions later on in a different section.

- 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. Do you think we should merge this into the article summary at the top of the page? As the summary should ideally be the article in a nutshell. Or maybe instead of Identification, make this 'People or groups believed to be the Antichrist' or something.

- Other religions

Romans 11 explains Jewish blindness as regards the Christian concept of antichrist. The term "antichrist" doesn't occur in the Old Testament. [23] 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.
What do you think? Master of Puppets Care to share? 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Response:
  • Antichrist is only mentioned by name in the verses given in the article - biblegateway.com has a search engine for the entire text to verify this. There are, however, a number of other figures (certain figures from Revelation, the "Man of Sin" in Paul's epistles, etc.) which are folded into the "Antichrist" role with varying degrees of acceptance. This is why I divided it up into two sections, explicit references and references thought by some (i.e. those with a verifiable source, tradition, etc.) to refer to the same person/people.
  • Folk tradition: basically, popular beliefs about the Antichrist which are not found in the Bible but which are often accepted. One example would be that he is the literal son of the devil (e.g. The Omen); the apocalypse as a whole has been a very common source of theology over the millennia and some extra-biblical stuff has become common belief.
  • By official stances I meant basically stances taken by the major churches on the nature of the Antichrist. a number of groups, for example, take it as a matter of faith that it (and/or other end times figures) is a reference to Catholicism. I do take your point tho that trying to pin down official stances might be difficult; it might be better to call it "church views" or somesuch.
  • I'm not particularly sure about what Other Views would entail aside from, well, being views other than those promoted by specific churches. I was thinking primarily Christian people and groups, but also views from people outside of Christianity but in refernece to the Christian Antichrist.
  • A part of the identification section could go in the introduction, if only to describe how the term has been used in political and religious conflicts over the centuries. To be honest I'd rather avoid turning it into a list of people and groups who have been identified as the Antichrist due to the likelihood of vandalism and the inherent problems in defining what identifications are worthy of mention.
--Black Butterfly (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Is there anything I could do to help which doesn't involve extensive knowledge on this subject? Like, adding reference tags and such, as I know that gets to be a pain. If you want, add the HTMLs of sources in <!--- ---> tags and I'll come by and make them into citations. Thoughts? Master of Puppets Care to share? 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be really appreciated. Also, to be honest I think one of the main tasks in improving this article is keeping it focused, as - predictably - it's become something of a magnet for people to promote their own views and tiny grouplets. that kind of maintenance work is massively important IMO.
--Black Butterfly (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_headline.png

Level 2 headline


The antichrist Myth

--Tygew (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice here in the bible all the spellings of antichrist are in lower case.[24]

If the actual definition for antichrist was meant to be a noun as a name, it would have been capitalized as Antichrist. But notice it's spelled antichrist in lower case as an adjective.

Adjective: [25] 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, anti Christ.

In the bible, antichrist is NOT used to mean in place of Christ. The word antichrist is actually referring to a belief system of denial of Christ; as in anti, against or in denial of Christ.[26] The author John is using the term antichrist to reveal that there is a Satanic belief system that denies Christ called anti Christ; in other words atheism against Christ. But John could not use the word atheist to describe men who denied Christ yet believed in God. So instead of using the word 'atheist', he made up the word 'antichrist' to describe these men who believed in a God yet denied Christ as being the Son of God.

Atheist:[27] An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

An atheist denies a God but doesn't specifically declare that there is no Christ. The Jews of the time believed in God, yet they denied that Jesus was his son. They denied the Christ and that God was his Father so they were anti Christ. The author John clarified that here:

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. (In other words "Anyone who denies the Father and the Son are in denial of or against Christ, they are anti Christ")

John, the author, used the made up term antichrist, an adjective in lower case, to describe one who denies Christ instead of the word atheist which just denies a God.

Atheist is almost the same meaning as antichrist. Only atheist means denial of God, where as antichrist means denial of Christ. So I switched this up a little by replacing the word antichrist with the words atheist & atheism; to help you understand the authors real intention of the term anti Christ meaning denial of Christ.

(King James Version)

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

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

3. 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(belief) of atheism, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4. 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 atheist.


Below is a break down of the scriptures with a short commentary injected.

1. 1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard (a rumor) that antichrist shall come, even now (NOW was said 2000 years ago) are there many antichrists; (many antichrists plural) whereby we know that it is the last time.

2. 1 John 2:22 Who is a liar("a liar" plural) but he (anyone) that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He (anyone) is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (In other words "Anyone who denies the Father and the Son are against Christ, they are anti Christ")

3. 1 John 4:3 And every spirit (plural) that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit (plural) of antichrist, whereof ye have heard (a rumor) that it should come; and even now (NOW was said 2000 years ago) already is it in the world. (The spirit of anti, against or denial of Christ has been around since Christ was here)

4. 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers(or many liars as in 1 John 2:22 above) are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. ("Many","a" and "an" all refer to more than one deceiver or antichrist. Meaning the antichrist is simply anyone who is anti, against or in denial of Christ as in anti Christ.)

"Difficult as it may be to believe, that’'s every verse in the bible mentioning antichrist. Only four verses in the entire Bible mention antichrist. That does’n't agree with all we have heard about "THE Antichrist", does it?

Maybe not, but those are still all the references to it in the Bible. Everything else we have heard is what people have conjectured from other scriptures. Read those verses again in 1st John.[28]

Do they say that a special personage, “THE antichrist,” is going to appear in the future? Who do these verses tell us the antichrist is going to be? They declare that antichrist is anyone who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, or that Jesus is the Christ.

“"You have heard...you have heard.”.." The Holy Spirit, through the Apostle John, is not stating that a specific antichrist is coming. He only said that you “have heard” that one is coming. To put that in today’s language, you “have heard” that warts come from touching toads or you heard that the moon is made of yellow cheese. But your having “heard” it doesn't make it so, nor does your saying that you have heard it mean that you necessarily believe it. You are not declaring a fact that warts come from toads, or that the moon is made of yellow cheese, your only reminding of the rumor...“"You have heard...you have heard.”..". In the same way the Lord isn't saying that some antichrist guy is coming in the future. He'’s only saying that “you have heard” one was coming. Then He tells you what antichrist really is; it's any one who denies Christ.[29]

The Holy Spirit is using a figure of speech to straighten out a false 1st Century church belief: “"Church, you are sitting there with an imaginary doctrine. The truth is this: “He that denies that Jesus is the Christ, or that denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the antichrist, (or atheist) and the belief system (atheism) is already in the world.”"[30]

One has to ask why John wrote his Gospel and three epistles so late in life? What was his special mission? Well, by 100AD, John has seen what has happened to sound doctrine[31] [32] during his own lifetime. Just as Paul warned, wolves have come in among the sheep and are dividing the flock.[33] John has seen the heresies of Marcionism, Gnostic's, Nicolaitans and others with his own eyes. The purpose of John’s Gospel and three epistles is the debunking of these false doctrines.

A future antichrist is one of those false doctrines. John says very plainly that anyone who denies the basic truths about the Lord Jesus is anti Christ, and the Christian Era has been full of people against or in denial of Christ...as in the belief anti, against or in denial of Christ...anti...Christ"

"The antichrist Myth" [34]

The antichrist is not the beast, the beast is a kingdom [35] Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Beast also mentioned in Daniel 7:17[36] and 7:23[37]. in Revelation 13[38]-17[39]

For anyone else reading this updated page and discussion, understand that many of the discussions above suggesting a "spiritual", or allegorical interpretation of scripture fail to see the literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy, which can be seen in the birth of Christ and other historic events. I won't elaborate on this topic, but Israelites and early Christians read the scriptures literally, except for those passages that were worded in an obvious sense of being taken as an example (i.e., the parables of Christ). See further discussion of the Pentecost on the article page.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tygew is correct, the antichrist and the beast are separate symbols from the bible and do not represent a common person or organization. anti christ is against the annointed one of God and beast is animalistic human government, which is anti christian.

Definitions for understanding Revelations are found here in the Word Of God

--Tygew (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

biblegateway.com [40]

Biblical definitions are NOT left up to speculation or guess, as most teach.


1. Waters/sea/rivers are people:

Revelation 17:15[41] And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. Isaiah 17:12-13[42] Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters! The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters!


2. Horns are kings:

Daniel 7:24[43] And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. Rev 17:12[44] And the ten horns thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. Rev 17:16-17[45] And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.


3. Beast is a kingdom:

Dan 7:17[46] The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. Dan 7:23[47] Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.


4. Dragon is the Devil and Satan:

Rev 12:9[48] And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Rev 12:3[49] And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. (Satan is not the beast as in antichrist or man form; but as the spiritual ruler of this massive spiritual kingdom.)


5. Heads are rulers/ princes/captains/wise men/known or renowned:

Rev 17:9-10[50] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: Exodus 18:25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands. Num 1:16 These were the renowned of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel. Deut 1:15 So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands,


6. antichrist is any man who denies Christ.

1 John 2:22[51] Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.


7. Mountains are heads and kings:

Rev 17:9-10[52] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: Ezekiel 35:12 And thou shalt know that I am the LORD, and that I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou hast spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, They are laid desolate, they are given us to consume. Isaiah 2:12-14 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low: And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are lifted up high and, and upon all the oaks of Bashan, And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up, (Mountains lifted up represent kings pride)


8. The ram is the kings of Persia & Media:

Dan 8:20[53] The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media (Algeria) and Persia. (Iraq/Iran)


9. Stars are angels:

Revelation 1:20[54] The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.


10. Candlesticks are churches:

Revelation 1:20[55] The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.


11. The woman is the whore Babylon, aka Jerusalem

Revelation 17:18[56] And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. Revelation 17:4-6[57] And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.


12. Crowns aren't really explained. It seems they are slang for knowledge/accomplishment/salvation.

1Thessalonians 2:19 hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun,(God)and the moon(Jesus) under her feet (her walk), and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: (This is the church as the bride with the twelve disciples as her 12 stars,angels/spirits of God.) Rev 4:10-11 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."


13. Trumpet call = voice of God

Exodus 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet. Isaiah 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet. Hebrews 12:19 and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words. Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet. Revelation 4:1 After these things I saw, and behold, a door opened in heaven, and the first voice that I heard, a voice as of a trumpet speaking with me. Revelation 8:13 voices of the trumpet Maybe now we can start to understand what these scriptures mean: Matthew 24:31 And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


14. Clouds are judgment and billions of angels

Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness [judgment] are round about him: Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. Joel 2:1-2 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain; let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of Jehovah cometh, for it is nigh at hand; a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness [judgment] Zephaniah 1:15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, [a day of judgment] Matthew 24:31 And he shall send forth his angels [of judgment] with a great sound of a trumpet [Gods voice] Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. [judgment] Matthew 24:30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


15. New Jerusalem is us, the church, the bride, the chosen, the elect.

Revelation 3:12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name. Revelation 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven of God, made ready as a bride [us, the church] adorned for her husband [Jesus/God]. Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof.


George Bush

Please note that "extremist" sources must be widely regarded as extremist to be excluded by Wikipedia policy, and it is exceedingly difficult to find any source about the Antichrist (including those now in the article) that is not "extremist" in some opinion, for obvious reasons. I'm finding over 30,000 hits for "George Bush" "Antichrist" "666", which makes it difficult to find the best sources but hints that the site I referenced is not an isolated opinion. I don't doubt it's primary research, but there's some indication from discussion online that it has been widely noticed and responded to. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above comment, which is valid, going solely by scripture, the Antichrist, or Beast will NOT be coming FROM either North or South America. You have to put ALL the scriptures together to form a cohesive doctrine of the Beast and his activities on the world scene, when he arrives. He isn't Bush, he wasn't Johnson, or Napoleon Bonaparte, etc.; these theories were simply made by people who were not disciplined in Biblical Prophecy.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
But he is the ruler of Babylon, isn't he? 70.15.116.59 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
He is supposed to be the ruler of the "10-toed" last days kingdom that Daniel and Revelation discuss. A number of writers have identified this as the European Common Market. Understand, however, that Revelation says that all the world worships the Beast, whose names are not written in the Book of Life.
Read Daniel at this web-reference and focus on the "Rome" portion: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=2&version=49
Also read: Daniel 7:7,8 at this website: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=7&version=49
Daniel 8: 9-12 about the "Little Horn", another of many titles for Antichrist. See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=8&version=49
Daniel 11:36 - notice how the text seems to change - "Then the king will do as he pleases . . ." Afterwards, is verse 40, mentioning the end-time, which is pivotal to the biblical timeline. See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=11&version=49
Finally, go to the book of Revelation, Chapter 7:11 which mentions the Beast; Revelation 13 provides much more details; Revelation 11 then discusses another beast, the false prophet. Revelation 16:13-16 details his ending at Armageddon.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

this article is in need of repair

as for the identity of the antichrist this article has confused it with the beast and the number 666 but that is from the hollywood film "the Omen" not from the bible which is of course our only source of information on the antichrist. This article is,also like hollywood, portraying the antichrist as an individual, the bible plainly portrays it as a belief, attitude, philosophy or spirit much like anti-semitism or anti-anything else I suggest a complete rewrite using the bible as a basis. Wonderpet (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because certain scriptures use the term "Antichrist" to discuss a spiritual characteristic that existed, and still exists, in the church age, doesn't mean that the term "Antichrist" hasn't evolved among christian thinkers over the centuries to include an individual who will appear on the world scene in the final days, as Daniel and Revelation clearly show. The Beast is Antichrist, and he both appears and pretends in the last days to be Christ, or whatever messianic character that other religions teach will soon appear, and he also is denying with a false christian gospel everything that Christ and the Apostles taught. Granted, this article is in need of repair, but the 'Omen' movie had nothing to do with the thinking about Antichrist and the Beast. Christian writers have been discussing this identification for a very long time. I'll be putting that information in soon.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
MurderWatcher1, since the term antichrist originated in those certain scriptures it is on the writer of those scriptures to assign meaning to the term. the scriptures unarguably point to a group, not an individual, as the antichrist. all the christian "Thinkers" in the world cannot evolve the meaning of what was written into another. Wonderpet (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I just reinserted text from Pentecost's book "Things to Come". This was deleted via vandalism by user 67.149.9.24 some days ago, and I think that this text will answer some of your questions. Writers such as Pentecost, Walvoord, Pink, Dave Hunt and other would disagree with you, and just because certain scriptures discuss "groups" as you say, doesn't mean that an end-time individual isn't coming, which both Daniel and Revelation discuss in detail. See my other discussions on this page as well.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther

I have deleted the following from the section New Testament References:

Martin Luther believed and wrote of the Papacy as anti-Christ. Many Protestant reformers and founders following in Luthers wake believed and taught this teaching as well. The Catholic Church, however, has defended itself by claiming that since its founder and first Pope was St. Peter, such claims by Luther would inherently mean that Peter himself would have to be the first anti-Christ. (This defense fails to acknowledge the likelihood that Jesus did not establish Peter as head of the Church, as Pope.) The Roman Catholic Church also cites (Matt. 16:18)where Jesus explicitly tells Peter "upon this rock [Peter] I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]." (This citation is in error, for Jesus is using two different Greek words, "petros/Peter" ["a piece of a rock"] and "petra" ["a rock"] in contrast, making the point that it it is "upon this rock [petra]" [meaning Peter's confession of Jesus "the Christ, the Son of the living God"] that Jesus would build His Church, not upon Peter [petros].)

There is a user trying to justify a position here that is inappropriate for this section. If you feel that this information contributes to the quality of this article, consider writing a new section that describes clearly the positions of Martin Luther, followed by the response of the Roman Catholic Church. Make sure the writing is encyclopedic in nature and that is written with a neutral point of view. Further attempts to insert this into the New Testament References section will be considered vandalism. —BradV 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this paragraph has intractable POV issues. This is severe throughout the article. Reading it, it seems like there are three main thoughts running rampant, unorganized, through the article: 1. Biblical exegesis on "Antichrist", "man of sin", etc. 2. Reformed & Lutheran dogmatic expression of pope/papacy as Antichrist, and 3. Modern "folk" identification. The current layout is inadequate because all three main streams of thought sandwich each other. It gets confusing. In my opinion:
1. The Islam stuff should go. It belongs in a separate article, which already exists. 2. Expected Role stuff should be divided up between Biblical exegesis and modern folk material. 3. Lutheran & Reformed dogmatic stuff needs to leave the historical section 4. The history section should leave off at just after the Reformation, or at least no later than 1900. 5. Much of the modern folk material can go. Don't worry, it will return as posters add their favorite rumor from time to time. 6. We need more pictures. 7. This article, eventually, should be merged with the "Man of Sin" article.
Please, I solicit your opinions on what to do on this... However, from time to time you may see me making edits in accordance with my 7 step plan. If you don't want this to happen, post your thoughts here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jackal

Isn't it said that the antichrist would be born to a jackal? The word "jackal" doesn't appear in the text. -- AvatarMN (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Serge Nilus & his Velikoe v malom

What about him & his 1903 & 1905 book on the coming of the Antichrist? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

I've restored a deleted POV tag. As far as biblical interpretation goes, this article represents one school of thuoght. The "antichrist" in John is equated with the "man of sin" in Paul. This is something with which many Christians disagree. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Than edit the article instead of tagging it. Beam 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's spelled antichrist, in lower case, not Antichrist

--Tygew (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


The whole introduction of this page is not only false but biased towards all of the ignorant people who still believe in some man possessed by the devil called the Antichrist.

antichrist c.1300, from L.L. antichristus, from Gk. antikhristos [I John ii.18], from anti- "against" + khristos.(anti, against or in denial of Christ; antichrist)

The word antichrist is an adjective in lower case, describing men who believed in God, yet denied Christ as being the son of God. The word antichrist is in lower case so it is NOT a name either. The heading should be in lower case too as 'antichrist', just to make the point clear to everyone that antichrist is NOT a name but rather an adjective, describing men who deny Christ.

Adjectives are usually placed just before the words they qualify: shy child, blue notebook, rotten apple, four horses, another table, and ....anti Christ.


The word antichrist is NOT used in the bible to describe a man possessed by the devil. Nor is it used, as this page says: "in place of Christ".


The word antichrist is in the bible just 5 times in only 4 verses, and ALL 4 verses say that ANYBold text...and EVERYBold text man who denies Christ is antichrist; meaning against Christ- period. It is ONLY used to mean denial of Christ; as in anti, against or in denial of Christ. It is NOT meant to be used as in place of Christ.

Read it for yourself! Then PLEASE change the heading and description accordingly. Thank you.


Atheist is almost the same meaning as antichrist. Only atheist means denial of God, where as antichrist means denial of Christ. So I switched this up a little by replacing the word antichrist with the word atheist to get my point across that antichrist just means denial of Christ as in anti Christ.


(King James Version)

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

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

3. 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 atheism, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4. 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 atheist.


I don't like the KJV since it is opinionated from the point of translation. So here it is without my revision, in the American Standard Version, which is the most accurate translation; It was translated from the "Most Ancient Copies" which are a much deeper, more accurate and closer rendering of the "Original manuscripts".

(American Standard Version)

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

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

3. 1 John 4:3 and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

4. 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Do you see a man possessed by the devil who takes over the world here? I don't either....

See "The antichrist Myth" on this page.

--Tygew (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly you're saying that, based on the fact that you prefer one version over another, we should change the introduction of the page to reflect your personal beliefs? The bible from its conception has been altered, either deliberately (the first Council of Niceae, for example) or accidentally in a time where books were hand copied and typo's were inevitable, or alternately when it would be being translated from one language to another and would accumulate mistranslations. Older versions of the bible do not mean more accurate versions of the bible; two versions produced at the same time 300 miles apart in 200AD could have countless errors. Ironholds 11:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Pope antichrist

What's with all the images of the pope? Is this about the pope or the antichrist?--Angel David (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Antichrist is The Son of Man, what this means is the creation of man, we create it. What could this mean, is everything we create the Antichrist, or could it be just one thing possibly, AI. The opposite of Christ would mean something that wouldn't die, so maybe nanites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmartinez8799 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • What I mean is that the article "Antichrist" as images of the pope depicted as the Antichrist (as in the beast). I mean such images on a page like that?--Angel David (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I understand you're asking "why are there pictures/woodcuts of the pope on the Antichrist page?". One definition of the antichrist is someone who attempts to subvert Jesus's role as gods representative; because the pope claims to be gods representative on earth, some christian denominations have taken this as evidence that the position of pope is what is meant by the "antichrist", hence the woodcuts. Ironholds 21:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The woodcuts of the pope occur during discussion of the historical time period they were created in. They were propaganda pieces commissioned by Martin Luther to promote the idea the pope was the Antichrist. I feel these historically significant images contribute to the article, in addition, they are the only images in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
        • "In addition, they are the only images in the article." All the more reason why they shouldn't be there, considering that three-quarters of the article is already devoted to the Pope-as-Antichrist theory. It reads less like an article discussing the origins and evolution of the concept of Antichrist than one focused on proving the Pope-Antichrist connection. 76.243.114.99 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Earlier I wrote a 7-step plan for this article, and one of the steps was "6. We need more pictures." I wish there were more photos in this article too (as long as they aren't pictures of Obama, etc.). I looked around for some millenialist pictures of the Antichrist, but I couldn't find any uncopyrighted ones. If you can find some that fit well with any of the various sections, you are welcome to insert them. The reason some of the article appeared to you to promote the idea that the papacy is the Antichrist is because it discusses the historical contributions of various theologians and denominations over time. Some of these thinkers thought the papacy was the Antichrist, and now the history regarding their views is an important historical consideration. I don't advocate the removal of the historical discussion of the papacy as Antichrist. If you would like to research the development of the alternative futurist and preterist views of the Antichrist, I welcome you to add anything with citations to the article. I don't feel I know enough about the various views to do an adequate job myself. Ideally, the entire Contemporary Identification section should be replaced with something more scholarly. Unfortunately, if you do that, folks are going to insert, "Bush/Obama/etc. is the Antichrist" into random parts of the article and we can't have that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nero as the anti-christ

Why isn't it mentioned that early chrisitians thought Nero was the anti-Christ? This theory was very common and some scholars even consider it the original interpretation.YVNP (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • There is a paragraph on the preterist view. Typically the preterists today identify the anti-Christ as Nero or other Roman Emperors. Some pretereists suggest that the primitive church agreed with them on this subject, but I haven't seen proof of that. If you can find a good scholarly source, you are welcome to add whatever you can find. Certain of the earliest Church Fathers, like Papias and Ireneus were millenialists that I do not think identified the Roman Emperor as the Antichrist. Perhaps some of the later ones suggested Nero.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

Manson often refers himself to be the "Antichrist Superstar", does this have any place in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.60.93 (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hal Lindsey misquoted; did NOT say Obama was antichrist!

The assertion in this article on the Antichrist that

Hal Lindsey wrote in an essay on WorldNetDaily that Barack Obama was the antichrist,

is false. That assertion does not reference Lindsey's actual article, but rather a Time magazine quote that cut out the part where Lindsey explicitly says Obama is NOT the Antichrist, but rather just someone paving the way. Note the ellipsis in the supporting quotation taken from Time:

"Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him — a messiah-like figure, charismatic and glib ... The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance."[55]

The Time article makes the incorrect claim by using this deliberately edited quote, that is repeated at wikipedia.

However here is the full quote from Lindsey's actual article: http://wnd.com/index.php?pageId=71144

Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him – a messiah-like figure, charismatic and glib and seemingly holding all the answers to all the world's questions.

And the Bible says that such a leader will soon make his appearance on the scene. It won't be Barack Obama, but Obama's world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive.

He will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Obama got in Berlin.

The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance.

And compare with the wikipedia entry for Hal_Lindsey, which correctly interprets the quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Lindsey

He wrote in an essay on WorldNetDaily that Barack Obama was paving the way for, and demonstrating the world's readiness for, the antichrist, "Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him — a messiah-like figure, charismatic and glib ... The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance."[7]

I can't make changes; thanks.

I removed it based on your research. Thank you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam as the Antichrist? 666 as 'Bismillah'

I think that the current talk in the media and on youtube of the Antichrist and his beast system as Islam and their awaited Mahdi should be added to the contemporary identification section. A large group of Evangelical prophecy ministries have been looking into the possibility for some time, and people like Perry Stone, Walid Shoebat (Why I Left Jihad), Joel Richardson (Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah[1]), Samuel Shahid Ph.D. (The Last Trumpet[2]) have all written books and spoken publicly about these connections.

Biblically their points can't really be refuted from a literalist stand-point, and I would add the information to the section myself, but I'm afraid that I wouldn't give very reliable representation of the evidences, since I'm fairly new to contributing to wikipedia. So if anyone is familiar with the topic, and is capable of adding the info to the contemporary identification section, it would be much appreciated, and I think it is an interpretation that needs to be told.

If you can find reliable sources and the info is coming from notable people, feel free to add it. I'd note, however, that youtube isn't exactly a bastion of reliable information, and of the three people you mentioned one is an evangelist and one is a "former terrorist" who's story is inconsistent at best. Ironholds (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to warn you that various Islamic editors monitor this page from time to time because they have a character in their faith tradition that can also be called the Antichrist. If you want to add anything about Islam being the Antichrist, I suggest you find very good references.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Antichrist/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article "Anti-Christ" is in bad shape. It presents one Christian viewpoint as what the Bible says about the Anti-Christ. A previous, more scholarly version was deleted or overwritten. Two of us are going to put some work into it. Jonathan Tweet 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=_lyXZu3d3OcC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=christian+scholars+on+islamic+eschatology&source=web&ots=HMBuRTHP1J&sig=XJ1XJUUmVhh4v11mIdNzN_PmAsU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPP1,M1
  2. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=KZHbG5kmziAC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=christian+scholars+on+islamic+eschatology&source=bl&ots=TH0bQNNs5R&sig=nwkKSzeg9OsaUtBlfZUK2HTIG6Y&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antichrist/Archive_2&oldid=1149265789"