Talk:Man of sin

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Bible Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Man of Lawlessness is a very key feature of the bible whose revealing heralds the coming of Jesus Christ himself. It should be one of the most important things that millions upon millions of Christians are looking for. Every other topic on Wikipedia ranks well below this one in importance. Why this topic still remains a stub then, is really bewildering. 2nd November 2006.

Thanks to those who have made this article more than a stub. It is at least Start class. As for importance, yes, Jesus and his return are major themes of the Bible. Many other signs of his return are covered in the Bible, though. Having said that, many people who do not know much about the Bible are intrigued by secular presentations of "the Anti-Christ". This is an important article for engaging with general interest and culture. It may well be that as this article develops, other reviewers may rate the importance higher than mid importance. Noah's Ark is rated of no importance on the current scale, so please don't feel badly about this. Ultimately everything in the Bible is important, isn't it. ;) Alastair Haines 11:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The heading "Antichrist" and the verses from Thessalonians are a doctrinal leap. The author should be able to see that the heading of the first section, and the following verse, is the same as the second section, except with the wrong title. Indeed it should be apparent that the terms are mutually exclusive.

The entirety of the page ignores that: Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJEdit (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased toward John Nelson Darby's futurist doctrine.[1] RJEdit 14:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "man of sin" is not someone that is coming, but rather someone in the past. A personage who is responsible for creating the world as it is. The end time cannot come until that man is known. The comming of the Messiah (second comming)is to undo what that man did in a past time. Once his name is revealed as to who he was and what he did it can be understood how to repair the damage that he caused. "Revealed" in the passage is the same as the gaining of knowledge (seeing), or a comming to know the source/personage of the worlds conflicts and problems. In order to fix the situation one must first understand what happened and who was the cause,and what that person did, and from that all things can then be reversed. Jesus Christ is "Adam the second' meaning- he is the same personage/type as Adam. Christ then, must replace the man of sin-not as a singular king or entity but as the way of life at the time of Adam.

In addition, the word "day" is (that day shall not come) is not a 24 hr. physical day. The word is attached to light, and light is ment as "enlightenment". The coming of christ is not going to be a physical event but rather the coming of an enlightenment. As Christ is refered to as "the light" the coming then is an enlightenment. But the enlightenment will be brought by a few unknowns unattached to normal academic processes and also unattached to any present

religion. The only way one can know "the man of sin" is to first know the spiritual makeup of Christ, which of course is the same makeup as Adam. From the knowledge/light of God then one can understand 'the man of sin" and also know his makeup and when he was, and who he was, and what he did to cause the world to be as it is. The knowledge of God is the same as knowledge of christ as both are one and the same image. What that means is - For one to know and understand the past man of sin one must know Christ, which also means that those knowing would have to reveal both. When one can see that "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is allagorical for understanding the process of what that man did then one needs to search for answers from a different viewpoint. The question becomes, "what" did that man do to make society different from what it was before he changed it? What the bibical passage referes to is a past time, and at a future time it will be found who he was- hence "revealed". And, that must be included in the knowledge coming at the end time. Anti-Christ started with that man at that time in the past and remains to today. The passage says "what" the man did, not what he's going to do. Who, was that man? Alpha Guardian.

It is most likely that the man of sin is liberal humanism in the church - discarding the law and making humans the measure of things.FurryAminal (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is not one of translation but of the Greek text. Some manuscripts read ὁ ἄνθροπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας (the man of sin) and others read ὁ ἄνθροπος τῆς ἀνομίας (the man of lawlessness). To the best of my knowledge, there is no scholarly consensus about the correct reading, which remains a matter of some controversy. Bro. Neal (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does this article run on at length about competing points of view with no clear explanation of who is taking which position?

Paul's man of sin/lawlessness may or may not be the same as I and II John's Antichrist, the great beast or false prophet of the Revelation, or one or another figure from Old Testament prophecy, but it is unclear to me who accepts which of these equations, if any, or why.

The sentence "This 'man' may therefore be either an individual or an esoteric group," whether correct or not, appears to be a questionable inference drawn from the Strong's concordance entry immediately preceding, rather than a position actually held by an identified person or group or explicit in the Strong's entry.

Much of this material, in my opinion, would be more appropriate to an article on Christian eschatology, or to a Bible commentary. (For example, whether the temple of God referred to is the original temple of Solomon, the temple destroyed in A.D. 70 by Titus, or is figurative of the Church, or Christians, or heaven, etc.) Bro. Neal (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my own experience/knowledge of christianity, this concept does not play a large part in any of the main (numerically speaking) christian groups (i.e. Catholics, anglicans and methodists - I know there are others but I can't claim such a knowledge of eastern-orthodox, or other protestants). Indeed this article appears to be a mini Bible commentary on the passage from a very specific type of christianity

Surely the only bits that are encylopedic are 1- the lack of clarity over 'man of sin' vs 'man of lawlessness' in the original version 2- information about any controversy in the past (i.e. was there a council that debated who he was.. was a church split over this issue?) 3- who (which groups) would claim to believe which interpretation.

there maybe more, but I feel that most of the material is currently not appropriate to put in wikipedia. It seems odd to give this one reference in the bible its own article unless we were to do that for every verse in the bible. The only justification is if it had been a large part of a notable organisation. I don't know of any churches founded on this verse, or that split over this verse.

Finally the phrase "This is explained in a reliable source called the bible, which has a distribution of over 1 billion and without which this entire article would be redundant. Here is the scripture which explains how entry into the temple of THE God can now be obtained" Is clearly highly biased I intend to remove it (along with a few other remarks that seem equally condecending) after a few days if no one can provide justification... --TM-77 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging and redirecting this article to Son of perdition for the following reasons:

1. It is a blatant breach of the policy
   WP:Content forking
   , as it deals with exactly the same subject as that article.
2. This article is the one that should go, as it is also a breach of the policy
   primary source
   (the Bible) alone, without any citations for the interpretations placed on that source.

I might agree with every word, but it's still not a fitting article for an encyclopedia. We need a page that sets out the main historical interpretations, with citations from WP:Reliable sources, not a Bible study. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breakhga (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Identity: "John of Giscala[6]". Never ever heard of him! Could that be attested by other sources, or is it the amateur historicians try to use WP for marketing his own idiosyncratic theory? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on a self-published source and has therefore been removed. Obviously

John of Giscala is a real person, but he should only be in this article if a reliable source identifies him with the Man of Sin. StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Shouldn't be capitalized in the article title, because it isn't in the sources or body. Just a generic Anybody. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – I moved the article from

Man of Sin to Man of sin (over a redirect) and moved this talk page likewise. – Fayenatic London 12:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]