Talk:Antichrist/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Early comments

Somebody look at the list of people that might've been antichrists. 50 cent... Bob Saget..

I've removed this section because it's factually incorrect:

The age of Israel in relation to the references in both Eziekiel and Daniel would place the appearance of the anti-christ to be sometime in the next 10 years because a generation in Jewish tradition was a period of forty years. Israel starting in 1967 would therefore place the arrival of the anti-christ before 2007.

The modern state of Israel was founded in 1948, although it did win a major war in 1967. Bdrasin

That is a view held by some. When 40 years came after the founding of Israel, some who believed the antichrist would come to within 40 years after the founding of Israel decided that the beginning of the 40 years should start with the 1967 war. If 2007 passes with no appearance of the antichrist, it's quite possible that some other starting date will be chosen.--RLent 15:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
A variation on the view "this generation shall not pass away until" is that people that were alive in 1948 (or 1967) would still be alive when Christ returns. This could be anywhere from 70 to 120 years from that date. rossnixon 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard of '686' being used as a rare variant for '666' in Rev.? I'd only heard of '616'. Jacquerie27 16:03 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

As for the identity of the antichrist, the bible itself says that it is human beings (plural). 2 John 1:7 says "Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!" (New Revised Standard Version), or "For many imposters (seducers, deceivers, and false leaders) have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge (confess, admit) the coming of Jesus Christ (the Messiah) in bodily form. Such a one is the imposter (the seducer, the deceiver, the false leader, the antagonist of Christ) and the antichrist." (Amplified Version). I'm just putting this on the Talk page since you don't seem to be finished -- Marj Tiefert, Friday, June 21, 2002

If you're talking to me, I'm done.  :-) I just noticed a most wanted that had been hanging around for a while, and filled it. I'm neither a Christian nor a student of Christian theology, so the amount of factual information I can contribute is limited. (Thanks to Ortolan88 et alii for working on it!) Your text above would certainly be relevant to the article. Pgdudda
There are two main lines of Christian theological thought concerning the Antichrist. The original, which seems to be in fashion today, identifies "anti-Christs" (plural, note) as, broadly speaking, teachers of false religion: those who deny or oppose Christ. The other idea -- Antichrist as an individual, a diabolical deceiver and tyrant who pretends to be Christ -- is a medieval invention. Much of it comes from two books: Pseudo-Methodius, an apocryphal 7th-century text concerning the end of the world, and Abbot Adso of Montier-en-Ter's Libellus de Antichristo, a 10th-century "life of Antichrist". These portraits, in turn, draw on a large body of biblical material; some of the sources (the book of Daniel, for example) are considered canonical, but the greater part are completely apocryphal. (I am neither a theologian nor a religious historian, but this is my understanding of the Antichrist story). -Mirv
There are, undoubtedly, many medieval inventions concerning this subject. However, the idea of the Antichrist is not one of those inventions. My favorite, very early reference, is from Gregory the Great, who in numerous letters to bishops and to politicians warns them of the coming Antichrist. He hints that whoever he may be, he will be much like his chief opponent in the Church, the Bishop of Constantinople! Being a man of famous candor, with a reputation as no flatterer, he said nothing to others about his opponent that he didn't also say to his opponent. Mkmcconn 00:04, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What I said was not entirely correct: the idea of a single Antichrist does have pre-medieval, even Biblical, origins, but, since Paul didn't bother with the fine details in his picture of the "son of Perdition", nearly all the finer points of the legend came later, from interpretation of Daniel, Revelation, and various apocrypha -- especially Pseudo-Methodius and the book of Enoch. --Mirv 03:34, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I would agree with that statement, as far as it goes. Mkmcconn 06:00, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This subject is really about two vastly different things: one in theology, and another in the tabloids. If editors don't want to see the theological meaning removed, they will have to do their homework and cite sources. The pop-culture topic is so much better known, that the student's version will sound false, and will be deleted. Mkmcconn 20:42 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should mention the relationship between the Antichrist and Al-Dajjal.

Nero as the "beast"

This is a far more mundane answer to the question and probably of far less dramatic value, but for anyone who takes a serious, critical look at the book of revelation itself, they will find it to be nothing more than a coded message for the early church. I suggest everyone read F. Engels critical analysis of the text (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/religion/book-revelations.htm). You will find an interesting study of the Hebrew translation of the name Nero, which comes out to 666 (Hebrew has been adapted to have a number correspond to each letter as in Latin). Simply speaking, the writer known to us as "John" feared that after Nero's death he would return to further attack the early Christian church. Needless to say this did not happen. I reproduce here Engels work with the Hebrew of Nero:

"About 300 years before our era the Jews began to use their letters as symbols for numbers. The speculative Rabbis saw in this a new method for mystic interpretation or cabbala. Secret words were expressed by the figure produced by the addition of the numerical values of the letters contained in them. This new science they called gematriah, geometry. Now this science is applied here by our “John.” We have to prove (1) that the number contains the name of a man, and that man is Nero; and (2) that the solution given holds good for the reading 666 as well as for the equally old reading 616. We take Hebrew letters and their values —

ב (nun) n= 50 ק (keph) k = 100 ר (resh) r = 200 פ (samech) s= 60 ן (van) for o = 6 ר (resh) r = 200 נ (nun) n= 50


"Neron Kesar, the Emperor Neron, Greek Nêron Kaisar. Now, if instead of the Greek spelling, we transfer the Latin Nero Caesar into Hebrew characters, the nun at the end of Neron disappears, and with it the value of fifty. That brings us to the other old reading of 616, and thus the proof is as perfect as can be desired. [The above spelling of the name, both with and without the second nun, is the one which occurs in the Talmud, and is therefore authentic.]"

Much less interesting than Arnold Shwarzawhatever, Bill Gates, Adolf Hitler, or George Bush, but I'm afraid it's far more realistic.

Samech is actually ס, but Wikipedia has problems with Hebrew. Feel free to make this change; I feel that the whole "identifications of the antichrist" needs drastic reassessment. This is trite on Wikipedia, but when I have more time, I'm going to give it a good scouring. Be bold!--Mgreenbe 21:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
A lot of this is already covered in Number of the Beast and Book of Revelation. Pfalstad 21:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Numerology of Kotan or Kot(h)an Muhammad's birth name

I'd be interested in a Hebrew numerological evaluation, of the name "Kotan" or "Kothan" which some historical scholars say was the name Muhammad's birth mother gave him before orphaning him and farming him out to his relatives. Later, his grandparents, who raised him changed his name to "Muhammad" it is claimed.(varaiations I've noted of Muhammad include Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Ahmed, Mohamad, Muhamed, etc.)

I would not be surprised if a 666 was found or even a 616 (I've even heard 636 claimed for the moniker of the anti-Christ.

The scholarship I've read says anti-Christ means instead of Christ which, at least to a Christian makes perfect sense.

Edits by 12.219.195.12

All edits done in this revision seem extremely suspect. The major additions in the edit include:

The antichrist will divide the world and create war without end.
He will lie to God, or declare obvious or God given truths to be lies.
Also this is interpreted to mean he will declare that things which are evil to be good.
He will refer to war as peace, death as a solution for justice,
and serving the wealthy as a means of helping the poor.

Most of this seems to be written to directly implicate George W. Bush. War without end = Iraq, Death as a solution for justice = death penalty, serving the wealthy as a means of helping the poor = Supply side economics. Other edits include:

This is understood to mean that the antichrist will be a leader who deceives many people. The thing about the anti-christ that will set him apart from other leaders is that many nations will recognize that he is evil, but his own people will be inclined to believe his deceptions. This is believed to be because the people who follow him will lose the ability to discern between the truth and the lie.
Revelation states that "He will appear as an angel of light", which is interepreted to mean that he will profess to be a man of God, or a person who is himself a Christian.
Israel starting in 1967 would therefore place the arrival of the anti-christ before 2007.

Please note, that I myself have liberal political views. But this edit, to me, seems like blatant POVing by a fellow liberal to implicate George W Bush as being the antichrist. AstroBlue 23:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Categories

I moved this article back to [[Category:Christianity]] instead of [[Category:Christian mythology]]. As the article in chief on Christian mythology makes clear, that topic is for legendary tales that supplement or illustrate Christian teaching and history; the history contained in the Bible is not "Christian mythology," howevermuch it may seem so to non-Christians. The existence or future existence of an Antichrist or Beast, by contrast, is affirmed in the Bible itself. As such, it belongs with Christianity rather than Christian mythology. Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments

This really seems more like a tabloid artice than a wikipedia article, especially at the end.

How about a list of people accused of being the anti-christ

  • Adolf Hitler
There is already such a list on this page. This page is not tabloid at all, it reflects a wide range of scholarly views. I know that some of these claims seem strange, but millions of people around the world believe them. That's what NPOV is all about.--Cberlet 01:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
these people you have in mind are tyrants - evildoers. How can an evildoer be an anti-Christ if all of these evildoers do not believe in God or the existence of God? Scripture clearly identifies the fact that the anti-Christ/Satan (formerly archangel Lucifer) acknowledges the existence of God and has since the beginning of man put forth great effort to undermine God's creation.... furthermore, demons (servants of the anti-Christ) have been mentioned in the Holy Bible fearing Jesus, Son of God. Look it up for yourself.,,,,

John Paul II due for demonic resurrection?

The 'Rising' or 'coming out' of the Antichrist allows the identifying by all persons of who the Antichrist is by his Bibilcally predicted death and resurrection the same as Christ after three days of being clearly dead. This Antichrist who rises from the dead (as Christ)is not the same person who died but a demonized person full of apparently miraculous power as Christ. Candidates for such "rising" would be Pope John Paul II dying 2:37 EST April 2 and rising 2:37 EST april 5. (Again understanding that the "thing" arising is the Antichrist and not saintly John Paul II, but his demonized body.)

I'd like to see some kind of authority or source for the claim that the Pope has been resurrected by demons. You'd expect something like that to be in all the papers. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where does the Bible even say that the Antichrist must be resurrected. Adventist Dude 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

haha I thought this was great ays 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Adventist, some have interperated revelation 12 to say so. 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)~

Cumbey and Solana

I just heard Cumbey on the radio talking about cumbey and it is far from clear that she is not saying he is the antichrist, --SqueakBox 04:27, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Someone on the radio claims to be the antichrist? -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Chatolocism

I removed a qualifying phrase that an anon editor had added to the intro about how the Antichrist was the embodiment of evil in "the eyes of Chatolocism." Not sure exactly what Chatolocism is. Assuming that Roman Catholicism was the intended meaning, such a qualification is much too narrow. Since the Antichrist is mentioned in the New Testament as the embodiment of evil, this belief is pretty much universal to Christianity. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Article deficiencies

There are two points of view that I don't find adequately represented in this article. Just adding my thoughts here; I may come back and make the edits, or someone may be able to adapt what I write here on the talk page and insert it.

I just added a link to bible.ca that expresses the view that there is no such person as "the Antichrist." Instead, arguing from passages such as the one that mentions that there are already "antichrists" in the world (in the first century CE) and from passages that say the one who denies Christ is the antichrist, they assert that antichrist means anyone opposed to Christ. This is more or less expressed in the article in the "Antichrist in the New Testament" section, but I feel like the leader is left with the impression that nobody believes that today. It might be helpful to explicitly say that there are those who do not believe that Antichrist is linked with other phrases in the Bible, such as the "man of sin and son of perdition" or with prophecies in Daniel, etc..

The other point of view is very significant historically. However, it is also quite inflammatory. This is the view that the Pope, in general, is the Antichrist. The article does mention that specific popes have had this accusation levelled at them, but this view refers to the office itself and all of its occupants throughout history rather than any specific Pope. I've heard it asserted that since the Bible says the man of sin and son of perdition will be destroyed with the brightness of Christ's coming and since it also says that Antichrists were getting started in the first century that this refers to the development of the church hierarchy culminating in the papacy. Believers of this view believe that hierarchy is completely foreign to the church autonomy they perceive in the New Testament. They would say that in John's day (the last apostle, at the close of the first century) that churches were beginning to go into the "great apostasy" and that one development was the beginnings of this hierarchy. They believe John identifies those participating as the "many antichrists," but still believe he referred to a singular antichrist coming, the Pope. Jdavidb 14:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Picking up on this point - Stephen Baring-Gould, in his "Curious Myths of the Middle Ages" pub Longman, Green and Co 1894, provides pretty good coverage of the Antichrist and then goes on to deal with the links with the legend of Pope Joan who, according to some versions, gave birth to the Antichrist. The Devil is quoted as chanting, while hovering around the birth, the following verse: "Papa pater patrum, Papissae pandito partum / Et tibi tunc eadem de corpore quando recedam!". Baring-Gould comments that, since these lines are perhaps the only ones known to be of diabolical composition, they are deserving of preservation.

==

Identity

When most Christians read of the "man of sin", the antichrist, most automatically think of a flesh man.

But angels have been called men (Gen. 18:2, three men, Elohim and two angels called men, but called angels 19:1, 15. Compare John 20:12 with Luke 24:4)

God is a "man" (Heb. ish) of war (Exo. 15:3).

Lucifer is called a "man" (Heb. ish) in Isa. 14:16.

"Gabriel" means "man of God", and the archangel is called a man in Dan. 9:21.

Satan was sentenced to death in Ezek. 28; he was sentenced to perdition. That makes him the son of perdition.

(Rev 12:9) 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.

We have Average Joe Christian. One day he looks up, and sees the most beautiful cherub God ever created descending with two-hundred million angels (Rev. 9:16; 12:7-10).

What will he think?

Will he say to himself, "Ah! The adversary is here!"

Or will he sing out load, "Halleluiah, Christ has returned!"

This is why the Harlot declares, "I sit a queen, and am no widow" (Rev. 18:7), and why those that "kill" the elect will believe they are doing God service (John 16:2), not Satan.

The devil has his own supernatural body that he is quite proud of (Ezek. 28). And he would never allow anybody else to do what he aspires to do, be God (Isa. 14). And NOWHERE is it written that he shall enter into a flesh body as antichrist.

Since you are drawing your educated assumption from different symbols of the antichrist, please tell me how Satan has seven heads, ten horns, and bear's feet. Adventist Dude 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


"Adventist Dude" wrote: Since you are drawing your educated assumption from different symbols of the antichrist, please tell me how Satan has seven heads, ten horns, and bear's feet.

Okay, I'll give this a shot. (But note that I do not claim to be a Bible scholar or exegete. Just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill lay Bible expert.) The passage in Revelation does not indicate that Satan himself has those "seven heads, ten horns, and bear's feet", but that a human organization/government which effectively embodies/models his spirit and will does, though the animal characteristics used in the description are not intended literally. There are several possible "symbolic systems" which could be reasonably applied to them, and I personally prefer the following such "system": the "seven heads" represent (apparently) seven "kings"/leaders, representing their respective nations, which, in my opinion, claim a particular blasphemous relationship to Christ (specifically, it is my opinion [which could be wrong] that this "blasphemy" would be that they would claim to be physical descendants of Jesus through Mary Magdalene [the "Merovingian Heresy", currently widely popularized via Dan Brown's book, "The Da Vinci Code", and the movie by the same name]); the "ten horns" represent (apparently) those seven "kings"/leaders and their nations together with three other leaders and their respective nations, acting as a "unit" (the "ten horns" of the 4th beast mentioned in Daniel 7), though these latter three leaders would apparently not claim the "Merovingian Heresy" regarding themselves; the "bear's feet" would apparently refer to some aspect of the "seven head"/"ten horn" unitary entity (the Beast) having a relationship to the Medo-Persian Empire (the second beast of Daniel 7, described as a bear, or like a bear) - the symbolism of "feet" might refer to mobility (fast, like a bear, but somewhat ungainly and awkward), or to ferociousness and power in attack (the swipe of a bear's paw can crush the skull of a bull, from what I've read on the Internet [Wikipedia?]), or perhaps both (perhaps it even implies that this Beast derives its mobility and/or power from modern nations having a relationship to ancient Medo-Persia [Iran, etc.]).

Anyway, there it is. Not necessarily the correct interpretation, but possibly, thus showing that the symbolism can be reasonably and coherently applied.

  (Douglas J. Bender [Elkhart, IN]) douglasjbender@hotmail.com

Antichrist and Benedict XIV

See the quote I put on the talk page of Benedict XIV (for interest value). --jackiespeel 17 September 2005

References please

This article is occassionally perilously close to being original research, particularly the numerology section. Bill Gates has just been suggested as someone, and there's a few claims I'd like to see verified- Mandela, Lennon, etc. Any thoughts?--Scimitar parley 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Some cites or links would be better. Also, is there a cite to justify this text cut from the article?
  • "This is "Vicarius-Filii-Dei" which in Latin means "Vicar of the Son of God" and the letters add up as 5+1+100+0+0+1+5+0 + 0+1+50+1+1 + 500+0+1 = 666. Similarly, the Greek expression Latenios, (Latin manor church) also has a numerical equivalent of 666, as does ..."
However, claiming the identity of the Antichrist is a popular pastime. Perhaps the issue is that we need not list everyone here?--Cberlet 14:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The exact sequence of events is unknown, but some Christians believe that the Antichrist will be assassinated half way through the Tribulation, being revived and indwelt by Satan. This marks the start of the Great Tribulation.

Citation? --Mgreenbe 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot to cite this. http://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/antichrist08.htm. I'll edit this back in.
--68.69.111.110 01:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think "some Christians", given the material, is a little too broad. It's better to say "one speculative Christian eschatology claims...". Evidence of this interpretation's wider acceptance should accompany a broader statement. --Mgreenbe 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.valleybible.net/resources/AdultEducationClasses/Revelation/rev17.shtml is another. There are numerous other websites that support this interpretation. http://missedtherapture.com/rapture/39antichrist/ as an example. --68.69.111.110 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find the reference at all on the missedtherapture.com link, something horrible was happening to my scrollbar and seemed to be messing up search. The other link doesn't use the term "assassinate" and gives a much more conservative interpretation of Rev 17:8. I meant something more along the lines of, "Is there a major church that preaches this?" Or, "Are there famous sermons that reference this idea?" If not, I think this remains a "speculative Christian eschatology", and a fringe one at that. --Mgreenbe 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed examples such as 50 Cent, Bob Saget and Regis Philbin. I think level-headed people will agree with this. MrBlondNYC 01:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Revisions?

(moved from top of page by Cberlet 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC))


The confusion that reigns in this article is immense.

I would like to make a major revision of the portion "The expected role of the Antichrist" wherein I will distinguish the individual, Biblically named as "The Man of Sin" (ASV), from the plural antichrists which prefigure his eventual embodiment.

To identify or surmise that contemporary individuals contemporary or past as THE AntiChrist seems to be foolishness, in the Biblical sense, for if there actually IS such an individual who is identifiable, he would lop your head off if you do not proclaim him to be God Almighty, never allow even this WikiPedia to name him as the man of sin!

As for some of the edits, including the one immediately below, I think they lack subtlety, courtesy, or both.

The person who cites 1967, for instance, is likely to be basing his judgment not on the declaration of the state of Israel, but on its possession and control of Jerusalem, which occurred in 1967. I am not saying they are correct in their assessment of the word "generation," but it is a valid viewpoint, and should have been left, albeit perhaps with more inclusive comments.

I don't want to waste my time here, and want to put forth a real effort on this topic, so please declare your intentions.

I am new to Wiki. Malone

Welcome. This is one of those pages were editors tend to want to see some scholarly cite for any major revisions. For example, you may have a concept about the Antichrist lopping off heads, but it is a well-established fact that certain Christians have been claiming to know the identity of the Antichrist for many centuries. So your text in this case would be "original research" and is not going to be seen as appropriate as an editorial addition. Hal Lindsey dated the start of the apocalyptic clock to the founding of Israel, not 1967. These details matter.--Cberlet 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Antichrist

Arnold Schwarzenegger is, of course, the Antichrist. It's pretty obvious after you really take the time to study his life. Most people think of him as a big, dumb, joker who's fairly innocent and just out to have a good time. Please. Have you ever heard him speak in German? He doesn't sound so funny then. In fact, he sounds downright scary. The guy was born within one year of Israel becoming a nation again (one of the most important fulfilled prophecies of the Bible indicating the world is entering the End Times). He was born on the hottest day of the hottest month of the hottest year every recorded in Austria. He was born in the same country that spawned Hitler. He has rapidly risen to great heights of power. He's succeeded in everything he has attempted, as if his life is somehow charmed. The name Arnold Schwarzenegger can be broken down into a base form of ARNOLD SCHWARZ-NEGER. Which literally means; 'Strong Black Black'. It also consists of 18 characters (or 6-6-6). T4 stands for Tiergarten Strasse Number 4, the address of the organization the developed and implemented gas chambers in German concentration camps. ‘T4’ was widely known about in NAZI Germany, and it is incomprehensible that Arnold would not only associate himself with the acronyms T2 and T3… but also use them to make money. So we've had T1, T2, and T3... what is NEXT? I could go on, and on and on and on. Things like Arnold saying, "I've never wanted to be famous for hundreds of years but for thousands of years... like Jesus." You get the picture. Now just remember one thing. Arnold in his present state may not be the Antichrist yet. The Antichrist (Satan inside of and controlling a resurrected leader that was apparently assassinated) will not reveal himself until his human host has been wounded in the head and dies, or seems to die. So Arnold may just be a self centered Nazi creep with dreams of world domination at this point. He may need to be killed before transforming into the true Antichrist. Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "I'll be back." doesn't it? P.S. Did you realize that Arnold has been crucified at least twice in his movies ('Conan the Barbarian' and 'End of Days')? Yeah. What are the odds.

Ha ha ha.--Urbane legend 14:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. What this guy said sounds pretty interesting. Not sure I would laugh.

Sounds like a book could be written on the subject. I would only add that in Terminator, Ahh-nuld's character was an unstoppable killing machine, much like the Anti-christ is thought to be. -Oatmeal batman 16:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you remove Hans Atrott's exposition from the list of external links?

I agree that most contributions on this site are more tabloid articles. Most Christians wage war on their fellow Christians by accusing the other one to be the anti-Christ. It is ridiculous to call Bush or Schwarzenegger the "anti-Christ". I agree that Bush is a dangerous brute but calling him the "anti-Christ" is nothing but slandering him. Presumably, hereby some Christians want to talk themselves into believing that Christians do not commit crimes and abomination. Bush and others try to being Christians like any other Christian. Hence, I do not understand why you remove Hans Atrott's Jesus mon(k)ey-Christ versus anti-Christ on http://wwww.bare-jesus.net/e007.htm from the list of external links. German philosopher Atrott (born in 1944) wrote the best treatise on the anti-Christ since his German colleague Nietzsche (1844-1900). Though it seems to be a harsh treatise, it matches the demands of scientific arguing. Atrott is very close to German philosopher Nietzsche and develops his arguing. The language of the latter on Christianity and Christians is not less harsh than one of Nietzsche. The anti-Christ is no jolly good fellow to Christians! Therefore, if you remove German philosopher Atrott from this list you also can expel German philosopher Nietzsche from here. Last not least the anti-Christ is no jolly good fellow but a very tough one with a though language. If you are afraid of the anti-Christ or if you do not want to speak about him, you shall finish this site. Listing Atrott considerably will improve the poor level of this website. Do you fight already the anti-Christ in Wikipedia by removing him?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The bible makes no such referance to the antichrist as being plural. Though it does talk about the beast and the beast power.Larquitte 21:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Danny Barcelona dannybarcelona@aol.com

Reason explaining the deletion of Bush-related material

Wikipedia is purportedly attempting to collect and make available the vast of human knowledge. Echoing the above sentiments, it's dangerous to call Bush or Schwarzenegger or even Hitler the anti-Christ. In doing so, the person or persons making these egregious claims is doing nothing to educate those about this religious figure, but instead is providing a slanderous, opinionated count of what they believe. As such, it's pretty clear that if everyone were to include their opinion in every article they create, Wikipedia would no longer be an encyclopedia, but rather a blog. Now, who wants that?

Come on everyone, you're way better than this. Stick to the facts.

--Kevin Morenski 09:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's part of the vast array of human knowledge that whack-jobs of all stripes apply the label "antichrist" to their imagined enemies or selected opponents, sometimes out of concern that their foe actually is the antichrist, and others just to discomfit their foe. Probably not every instance requires a link! - Nunh-huh 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia will obviously not claim Bush or whoever "is" the Antichrist, but it can very well report on common allegations. We have an entire (long) article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Entire books and websites are dedicated to Bush as Antichrist, so the phenomenon is clearly notable enough for WP to report on it. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
as long as they add that the people who think this are troubled in the head as they so obviously are if they believe that Dappled Sage 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Book of Revelation

As revealed to John:

(Ref: Revelation 13.1-13.18) "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

If any man have an ear, let him hear.

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

And I [John] beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the FIRST beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

And he doeth greth wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sigh of men.

And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark IN their right hand, or IN their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

Comment

Readers may discover that scholars interpret the Bible's usage of "seven heads" "ten horns" "ten crowns" etc...as symbolic. I personally do not agree. Then again, I'm not a Bible scholar. But the above passage is found in the book of Revelation.,,,Ariele 05:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Will You Remove

While trying to find info on the Antichrist I noticed these two comments: "The name George Bush, through Gematria equals 666" and "The English word Antichrist is taken from the Greek αντίχριστος antíkhristos, which literally means "George W. Bush." Will you remove? Will I be famous if I leak this to the media? I take it that anyone could have made those changes, and I must admit that I no longer consider Wikipedia as a valued resource tool if anyone can insert anything. 66.76.222.24 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

where is it is it still there? if so ill move it Dappled Sage 04:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad

Just noticed that Iran borders 7 countries (seven heads). Now if only there's a "10" for ten horns lying somewhere... Ringthane 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We need an article on newspaper exegesis. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Maybe the 10 horns are 10 countries that are in the former eastern Roman empire. That could include Iraq, Iran etc. rossnixon 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this assessment is on the right track. But possibly not exactly ... the ancient Roman empire - yes. I've come across references indicating Greece and Turkey. As I said before, I'm not a Bible scholar.,,,,,Ariele 02:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary identifications--do we need more?

Okay guys, here is a question I have: do we really need everyone's view on who the Antichrist is? The obvious ones are President Bush and various other presidents, but do we need a list of *every* potential candiate? I think the list is continuing to grow, so maybe as the list expands we could create a seperate page, something like "List of potential antichrists," and have an abbreviated list with the more popular views.--68.69.111.110 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


External links

I went through the external links looking for good authorities to back up the article, and found lots of POV pushing and not much reliable data.

Plenty of monographs, Geocities pages and such, but no real meat. If these are sources then they should be listed as such otherwise my understanding of WP:EL indicates that they are not really relevant. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole article is uncited; I think the links can all go. The page needs massive cleanup. --Mgreenbe 12:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

the sex pistols have a song to where they sing" i am an anti-christ i am an anarchist.... en sow on


Pope as Antichrist section

This section is definitely not "neutral" -- it argues that the Papacy must be the antichrist. I'm not currently clever enough to figure out how to rephase it.

Virtually all of the early Protestant Reformers identified the Roman Papacy as Antichrist... Only recently due to such theories as the Secret Rapture, pre-tribulation rapture and other relatively new teachings has the identification been overlooked.

--David.alex.lamb 05:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly correct, either. It's also unsourced. Do you know a source that would talk about this? I assume any decent history of the reformation would. --Mgreenbe 10:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bible clearly states the actions of the Antichrist.

  • Daniel 7:25 says, "He will... try to change the set times and laws" (Which the Pope has done). The papacy changed the Seventh Day Sabbath (Saturday)to the first day (Sunday), creating a false day of rest. The papacy also changed the time a new day starts from the Biblical sunset to a false time (Midnight). The Pope has had influence on all modern calendars and all calendars of the past.
  • Throughout history, Rome has persecuted Protestants for proclaiming the truth. Daniel 7:21 says, "As I watched, this horn {AKA the Antichrist} was waging war on the saints". History has recorded and Pope John Paul II verified that over 100,000,000 martyrdroms have been performed by the Roman Catholic church. A true institution of Christ would not have murdered opposition, but tolerated them, as Christ did.
  • According to the Bible, the number 666 is the mark of the beast. The beast will control a man, and his name shall equal 666. The latin term for the Pope is Vicarius Filii Dei which means "Vicar {replacement}of the Son of God". These letters are also inscribed in the Pope's miter that he wears on his head. The funny thing about the Latin alphabet is that their letters are also their numbers. A grand total of the letters is equivalent to 666
  • "There I saw a woman {representing a church} sitting on a scarlet beast {representing a nation}that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads {representing 7 mountains} and ten horns." -Revelation 17:3. This prophecy tells that a church upon a nation, sitting upon seven hills, will be the Antichrist. The Vatican is the center of the catholic church, and also the world's smallest nation, nestled in the city of Rome (called the City on Seven Hills)Rome rests upon seven hills.
  • Revelation 17:3 says that the beast is covered with blasphemous names. The Pope is referred to as many titles, such as Lord God the Pope, Vicarius Filii Dei (replacement of the Son of God), and His Holiness. Are these not blasphemous names? Blasphemy is claiming to be God or claiming the right to forgive man's sin as God does. The Catholic Church practices confession, meaning that they claim the right to forgive man's sin.

These are just outlines of a few key points proving the papacy to be the Antichrist. For more information, visit the webpage [1] It goes in to greater detail. --William Cullum 15:00, 11 February 2006

Mr. Cullen -- I couldn't read your contribution until I did an "edit page" -- the formatting you chose left everything in a fixed-width font that extended off the right side of the page.

It's not hard to find a Web page that quotes from Protestant founders saying the Pope is the Antichrist, e.g. [2]; that much belongs on this page, ISTM. I'll see if I can find a more definitive reference. I originally wanted to think out a minimalist change but now believe a more major one is needed -- the proof should be by way of an offsite link, e.g. the one Mr. Cullen provides. If we go with the full argument in the article, neutrality would require more detail on all the other Antichrist identities, including the one that says it's Islam. --David.alex.lamb 02:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK -- I was "bold" and made the edit. Hope it's acceptable -- my first change of any significance.--David.alex.lamb 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You had many "external links" with sources showing the continuous Protestant view of the Pope as the Antichrist, but the Athiest Jew and the Anglican removed them as "not meaty" and irrelevant... interesting that these two get to decide that the whole world can not learn the consistent Protestant view of Luther, Calvin, et.al... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.21.169.86 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What an acute analysis! I suggest you write a letter to Jimbo Wales, or, better still, a major news source.
On a more serious note, I'm not denying the idea that Protestants in the past have considered the Pope the Antichrist. I am rather saying that the argument given in the above paragraphs may not be universal. If you'd like, we can cite famous reformers, such as Cotton Mather or John Knox as quoted on the given webpage, but to say "Protestants" is too broad. --Mgreenbe 09:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether you deny the idea or not is immaterial. The view was virtually universal in Protestantism until about 100 years ago, and even a young kid popping zits in college could figure that out if he wasn't too busy finding clever ways to stick hieroglyphics into articles in order to impress himself. The purpose of external links is to allow the one doing research to determine if something is "meaty" or not. It is evident that this article has been hijacked by anti-theists with a narrow agenda; this does not advance the idea of wiki, but rapes it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.21.169.86 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know that you're familiar with the wiki software. Please confine yourself to commenting on the article content only; your ad hominem argument borders on the block-able violation of making personal attacks. (But you're right! It is my — and, needless to say, many others' — secret agenda to hide the sins of the papacy, so that they will cooperate with the building of the Third Temple and precipitate the Second Coming.)
As for your comments, I entirely agree that some protestants considered the Pope the Antichrist. And I am just as willing to believe that this belief was widespread 100 years ago, but I've never read as much in a history book. Can you show a source for that? Lamb gave a nice list of quotes above; why not use them as the basis for a new section? If I had access to a good humanities library, I would look up the history myself. Keep in mind that you, like me, are free to "rape" the page to your heart's content. --Mgreenbe 14:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, in matters of faith, it really doesn't matter what you think or whether you are convinced. It is entirely deceptive to say that "some" Protestants considered the Pope the Antichrist. With very, very few exceptions, the Protestant confessions of faith declare the Papacy as the Antichrist. Take the time to read the Westminster Confession:

25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

and the London Baptist Confession:

26.4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

(Col. 1:18; Matt. 28:18-20; Eph. 4:11, 12;2 Thess. 2:2-9)

Protestants (or any people) shouldn't be caused to go bow the knee to some young college kid to have their position listed in what is clearly labeled EXTERNAL links. The subject is whether or not the Papacy was considered the Antichrist by the bulk of Protestantism, and factually it is true. Now one of the links you dismissed as irrelevent and "not meaty" is The Doctrine of the Papal Antichrist [3] which is part of a 3 part series. That link is full of references to Protestant works and quotes freely from both the accepted Protestant professions of faith, and from historical documents. So the fact is that what we have on this page is a tyranny of anti-theist opinion, and that is neither a personal attack (please don't send out the shock troops) nor does the declaration of it threaten your imaginary kingdom.208.21.169.86 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was User:JzG who claimed they had no "meat" or were the writings of an unknown "Michael Bunker". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Why not use the quotes above to form a cogent section (much more visible than a paltry link)? The personal attack is demeaning me because of my age, which you continue to do. But it doesn't matter, because "this college kid" has more important things to do than bickering. --Mgreenbe 15:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is merely your opinion that the links were indiscriminate, because the title "External Links" is used on many thousands of wiki articles and those don't seem to be "indiscriminately" deleted by people with an agenda. The topic Judaism has some 40 External Links which don't seem to be attacked by you and JzG. The topic Catholicism has an "External Links" section that links directly to the Vatican. The term "indiscrinate" can be applied to the editing by yourself and the other user, and not to the links which were posted on this article. My point is that when any article becomes the private fiefdom of a select few with agendas, then everyone loses.

Is there some reason why my edit, with a link to a page quoting many Reformation founders, was inadequate? I have no anti-theist agenda -- I'm a 51 year old Protestant (who would claim to be "born again" except for the fact that it wasn't part of the church vocabulary I grew up with) -- but I accept the "neutral point of view" agenda of Wikipedia. To be "neutral" there'd have to be a Catholic refutation, not a reference to the Futurist approach written by a Protestant. And probably another one by a Protestant I found on the Internet who analyses the Antichrist as Islam.
Mgreenbe's age and religion have no bearing on whether his arguments are correct; the reference to a "college kid" is a pure ad hominem attack. --David.alex.lamb 05:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has advocated editing out Roman Catholic links, so if Catholics want to put external links to their materials - then they should, but that is really not the point. I have shown that there has been extreme measures taken to make this article unlike the other religious articles on Wiki (note the number of external links that I mentioned that are on the Judaism or Catholicism articles. Somehow, an agreement was made between a very few with agendas that those links were inappropriate here. And yes, your edit with a link to a page quoting from the Reformers was inadequate and let me tell you why... because the Protestant position on the identification of the Antichrist was an extremely important historical fact. It codified the difference and separation between the two belief systems, and brought about the Counter-Reformation. The attempt here by MGreen and others to edit this little tidbit out of history (ex. "Sure, SOME of the Protestants believed that", when in fact it was the uniform position in all the Protestant statements of faith at the time) has been duly noted. Now the "neutral" stance is all we are asking for. The uniform Protestant view at the time should be stated clearly and succinctly, and the Catholics should have every opportunity to place their own position and links on here. The two positions, heretofor have been misrepresented. The Protestant position is: IS TOO. The Catholic position is: IS NOT. So by deleting the "Is Too" information and proofs, we are not reaching "neutrality". That is like saying you can delete all the witnesses for the prosecution and still have a "neutral" trial. Now this information is important because the body count over this issue is in the order of more than ten times the deaths in the holocaust. That little piece of history ought not be swept under the rug. Are argument isn't "use Wikipedia to prove the Papal Antichrist", our argument is "Let's allow external links just like every other religious article on Wikipedia and not select a primary element of historic Protestantism in order to eradicate the traces of it from the minds of truth seekers.208.21.169.86 04:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please tone it down -- you'll convince people more easily if they don't have to wade through a lot of vituperation. It seems to me the remaining questions are:

  1. Does the current article adequately represent the Reformers' positions according to the anonymous angry person?
  2. Is the Bunker citation the best? It doesn't have to be replaced, necessarily, but it would be better to have something that is more easily recognized as authoritative. A book with an ISBN would let people order it, or find it in nearby libraries.
  3. Is there too much stuff, which should be moved to other pages? For example, dispensationalism has its own article; should some other segments, also, be separate?
  4. It would be better if Sallman had a first name; what is it?

--David.alex.lamb 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ascribing anger to a person who calmly exposes the truth is an age old trick... I haven't been angry at all, but merely amused and disappointed at the narrow and ignorant views being portrayed on an important topic.

I meant no tricks, but am willing to believe anger may not have been the right word. A longer phrase about inflammatory prose would have been appropriate. You need to read the guidelines on Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot and, if you're the same person previously hurling insults at Mgreenbe, then Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. --David.alex.lamb 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. I believe that Reformers position is now properly portrayed.
  2. Is the citation "the best"? Isn't that a bit subjective? A while ago we were having to campaign to have the Reformed position even accurately reflected or mentioned at all, now there is a concern about a subjective view of what is best? The book cited DOES have an ISBN which is listed in the Reference section with its ISBN.
Sorry, I was referring to the web link and didn't notice the book. Any in-print book with an ISBN seems fine. --David.alex.lamb 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. The "too much stuff" argument is what started the hatchet job that was originally done on the article. I am confused as to why the fact that Dispensationalism has its own article would mean that it shouldn't be mentioned here, since it is so intrinsically important to the modernist view on the Antichrist. Virtually every article on wiki mentions some link or bit of information that is mentioned elsewhere. Would we consider removing all talk of Watergate from the Richard Nixon article just because there is a separate article on Watergate?
I never meant that dispensationalism shouldn't be mentioned. I just meant, is there other stuff which should have its own articles -- which we'd link to from here. The main article is now 34 Kb, which the size guidelines suggest may be too big. It's not necessary to trim (yet), but it might be good to do so. --David.alex.lamb 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Towards furthering a more complete article, I include here a link to an article describing an opinion regarding King Juan Carlos as a likely candidate for "Antichrist" (I point out that I myself am the author of the article [through the portion which reads, "I, personally, believe that he is"], but that the link was created by someone having no connection to me): http://vaulterjohn.tripod.com/King_Juan_Carlos.htm .

I added a brief reference in the Contemporary Identifications section to document that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which is one of the three major Lutheran synods in the U.S. issued a formal written statement that named the Pope as the Anti-Christ "STATEMENT ON THE ANTICHRIST". "...we reaffirm the statement of the Lutheran Confessions, that “the Pope is the very Antichrist”." I documented this with a link to their statement on the WELS website. Despite this, the addition to the article was removed by "Vary", who commented that "it's clear from the reference that they were not using the sense of the term that is discussed here)". It is clear to me at least that it is exactly the sense that they were using it. As it stands now, there is no documentation in the article that a major contemporary group has formally named the Pope as the Anti-Christ. I intend to re-introduce the reference to the article, but will give "Vary", and others a chance to comment here first. Repentance 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A few minutes of searching found this Q&A on the WELS website. Q: I have been reading several questions regarding the Pope and the Antichrist. Does this mean the new pope "IS" the Antichrist or that the Catholic church and a future pope may be the antichrist? Where would I find this information in the Bible? A: It means that the pope is the Antichrist now, not just in the future."...the pope is the Antichrist now, not just in the future..." This is explained in our statement concerning the Antichrist." This is a significant contemporary group who formally state this. It should be mentioned in the article. Repentance 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
more research...

The Wikipedia article states "Therefore, antichrist means opposed to Christ by being in the place of Christ." The WELS statement includes the justification "...the Pope put himself in the place of Christ..." and "...the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ...". WELS further explains on their website that "It means that the pope is the Antichrist now, not just in the future.". The WELS website claims 400,000 members. This is probably the most significant example of Contemporary Identifications of the Antichrist documented. It should be included in the Wikipedia article. Let us work together to present it in an accurate manner. Repentance 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bible References

The site http://www.biblegateway.com/ lets one generate URLs for bible citations, e.g. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16;&version=31 giving John 3:16. I've been thinking of editing all the Scripture references on this page to use this format; does that seem reasonable? I don't want to make a bunch of edits that someone immediately deletes, especially given the nascent edit war over the Papacy. BTW version=31 is the NIV, but the site makes it easy to switch among translations. --David.alex.lamb 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There having been no comments, I've made all the citations I could. When someone references the wikipedia article on a given book, there's currently no good way to both reference the article and also the biblegatway citation -- but I think I know how to do so. --David.alex.lamb 23:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that all the Bible quotations are in "ye olde Englishe" format. Shouldn't they be updated to a translation that fits today's language in order that people can (somewhat) understand them? Alternatively we could revert back to the original Greek!! --Cyberseth 09:24, 08 June 2006 (GMT)

Hey, I highly doubt its the pope. Firstly, the antichrist is not, as many people take him to be, opposite in a visual sense. Infact how can he be opposite when he's meant to be a deceiver. Wont that be a little too obvious for people to notice? There is biblical reference to that assumption when in genesis(when Jacob was blessing his kids). Hes refered to as the lions whip(possibly a Jew from the tribe of Dan), This is exactly how Jesus was referred to in the book of "Daniel?". This shows that by physical characteristics e.g. approach(he will declare he is God) the antichrist should appear similar to him. Many will argue that this is what makes the pope the antichrist but it is what makes him not. If the position of the pope is revised, he is to be the physical representative of Christ i.e. the image of christ on earth. He is the guide of the church. This fact is proved by Peter himself when he was kept incharge of the early church when christ ascended into heaven. Peter was the first pope, he led decision making and was the unifying factor in the church. In short was to rep. Christ on earth. The protestant churches have denied this and instead called him the pope, but that means that Peter was an Antichrist? However if the pope is to be Christs representative on earth then ofcourse he should resemble the antichrist. However, the difference is that the purpose will be different. However,because the pope is not the antichrist himself then not all Christ qualities are his (physical), so not all antichrist qualities are his and this is proved e.g. Vicarius filii Deiis not the popes title but its Vicarius Christii. If the antichrist is supposed to deceive by that image then it means that those against the pope will be immedeately drawn to the antichrist immedeately he surfaces

Prophetic identification section

Most of this is a long Bible quotation; can it be replaced with a Template:bibleref template? On the one hand, the page is getting rather long and should be shortened where reasonable. On the other, someone made a bunch of internal links that would get lost (some of which, however, seem not very relevant, e.g. sword). Alternatively, I could add a citation without deleting what's there. --David.alex.lamb 00:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added the citation, specifying KJV in the link. But I'd still like to consider deleting the long embedded quote. --David.alex.lamb 03:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Aunty Christ

Isn't the antichrist the virgin Mary's sister? --Miller 14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Image:Signature george.PNG

George Bush

Shouldn't George W Bush be mentioned somewhere on here?

He is. — JEREMY 08:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I just love liberals theyre so naive. Dappled Sage 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WWW as 666

I've moved the following addition to Contemporary Identifications here because I think it needs to be better documented.

According to Latin Alphabet equivalents to Hebrew, the letter "W" is the sixth letter in the Hebrew alphabet, thus making "666" equivalent to "www."

It's not clear what's meant by "Latin Alphabet equivalents to Hebrew", for example. Please elaborate, preferably with wikilinks and/or external citations. — JEREMY 08:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

the Hebrew letter ו is equivalent to 'W', is the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and has a numerical value of 6. however, adding the numbers together (as is standard practice in gematria—it's how one gets 666 from the Hebrew equivalent of 'Nero Caesar') gives you 18, which means nothing special. this information belongs on Number of the Beast if it belongs anywhere, and it definitely needs a source. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson as the anti-Christ

Google reveals only Wikipedia mirrors, so what modern interpretation of Biblical text is referenced in this insinuation as well as many others?

RM Links

I removed a number of blog, personal interpretation and spam links. I did it without a jawbone of an ass too. (Hold your tongue!) Dominick (TALK) 19:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Geocities link is a PoV fork, read WP:NN Dominick (TALK) 22:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't restore the geocities link, unless there is a verifiable reason to include it. One persons raving is not notable unless it becomes a widespread opinion. Dominick (TALK) 16:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics of the Antichrist

Section 3, "Characteristics of the Antichrist" needs cleaning up for NPOV, starting with the line "Daniel chapter 11 also details more ..." and going to the bottom of the section. Info is presented to support the author's interpretation, and the interpretations are just that, interpretations, not fact. I adjusted the tone, but more info is needed to balance out the author's slant. Maybe move part of that section to a section just for interpretations?

Identification

DO we need to name all those people to make the point, and tell the tale? Dominick (TALK) 17:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

this article is terrible

As a non-christian, I find this article difficult to read. However, I don't know if my being a non-christian is the reason why. It might be that the article is difficult to understand anyways - I don't have enough familiarity with the subject matter to know. However, I can state that after reading it I don't have as clear a view of the concept of the Antichrist as I'd like 72.144.136.214 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Jason Espinosa

Paul as Anticrhist is original research

I deleted the following passage because it violates wikipedia's ban on original research. It is interesting but clearly POV and unsourced. MPS 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall we examine Paul in this light.
1. A false prophet's prophesies do not come true.
Paul says:
"For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
1 Thessalonians 4:15-16
Never came about, Paul is dead, Strike one Paul.
2. False Christs and false prophets can show great signs and wonders that can deceive the very elect.
In Acts 27, Paul is claimed to have been saved by an angel from a drowning ship.
In Acts 28, Paul is claimed to have cured many of dysentery.
Further acts of healing are claimed in Acts 19.
3. False prophets bring forth evil fruits.
Jesus says:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be Fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:18-19
Paul says
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law"
Galatians 3:13,
and
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Romans 3:28
So Paul destroys the old testament laws and replaces it with his own.
4.A false prophet would claim that it is enough to say to Jesus Lord to be righteous.
Paul says:
"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) shall be saved."
5.A false prophet would prophesy in Jesus' name.
Paul says:
"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:12
6. A false prophet can cast out devils and do wonderful works.
Paul claims to have done this in Acts 19:11-12l
7. A false prophet would be turned away and cursed by Jesus.
Paul's words
"I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee"

Acts 23:6

Jesus responds:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Matthew 23:15.

Saul (Paul) of Tarsus is not the Antichrist, he is the Antichrist’s false prophet, the second beast who was servant to the first beast and extended its authority everywhere, making the world and all its people worship the first beast (Risen Christ) that had the fatal wound that had been healed.

“Beware of false prophets who come to you disguised as sheep but underneath are ravenous wolves. You will be able to tell them by their fruits. Can people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, a sound tree produces good fruit but a rotten tree bad fruit. A sound tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a rotten tree bear good fruit. Any tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown on the fire. I repeat, you will be able to tell them by their fruits. It is not those that say to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven. When that day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!” Mathew 7:15-23 ````John````http://john3-19.blogspot.com/

Asuka from Evangelion as AntiChrist

I want sources before putting something like this! Arctic-Editor 19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Soryu Asuka Langley as the antichrist? I think not!--Cberlet 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Image not fair use

I have taken out the image "Damien Thorn in The Omen.jpg" as this is under a fair use licence, so can be used in an article discussing on "The Omen", (and possibly the actor playing Damien Thorn) but can't be used in unrelated articles, such as this one. Regards, MartinRe 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lorne Spicer

this is a joke right?....Lorne Spicer, whoever the hell she is, doesn't deserve to be in the main summary for being the anti-christ. 66.41.59.162 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Do any of you believe it is right to be speculating? Should'nt the hand of God just make it clear? Who are we to say? Isn't it blasphemy?

Denominational views?

wouldn't the insertiion of the differing (I assume they differ?) views of different religious denominations be useful? Or does noone really know what different denominations think about it, or does anybody care? - Adam H. July 11, 2006

Fred Phelps

That's what I think. He's definitely evil enough.--Jnelson09 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

wtf is this... the Antichrist FAQ?

The section, "The Antichrist and false prophets, in the words of Jesus and Paul" is written like a FAQ, not like an encyclopedia. And,

“ can I be the first to object to the giant quotes? ”
“ -Quasipalm 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) ”
Thank you for your pointless and unhelpful remarks. Please feel free to visit other sites on the Internet.--Cberlet 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, as far as pointless remarks go, your response is the worse offender. I'll go ahead and make the changes, since you seem much to busy to be bothered with such trivial matters. --Quasipalm 03:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you already changed the section I had a problem with. Thanks for telling me my remarks were pointless, and then agreeing with me. Strange. -Quasipalm 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't you fix the page rather than browsing by and just making rude comments on this page? That is what was pointless. We are writing an encyclopedia, not trying to impress other editors with our glib denunciations of a page that has obvious problems. It would have taken you 30 seconds to fix the page. So I fixed it. And you suggest that I am "much to busy to be bothered with such trivial matters." Do some work here, don't just pontificate.--Cberlet 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Added the correct name of the Beast, Asyuhe, derived with godly wisdom. If you need to contact me, please contact hotreference@hotmail.com .

e.g.

"(e.g. in relation to the Tribulation, Beast, Dragon, Whore of Babylon, False Prophet, etc.)" e.g. means for example so we have for example in relation to which seems awkward to me. I would change it but I'm not sure what the original author was trying to say. --Gbleem 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could it be?

I came here looking for info about the concept because Nostradamus is said to have predicted the third antichrist arriving in the near future. With things heating up in the Middle East, Nostradamus could be right. So I am reading all this stuff here and I need to know if I am the antichrist. The following is true, I promise you.

I am Hebrew. I am a member of the Kohainim, direct descendents of Aaron. I believe I was born at exactly the same time that Israel became a sovereign state. My full given English name is first, middle, last, each 6 letters. My Hebrew name means life and is equivalent to #18 (6+6+6). I have been clinically dead three times (toxic chemical levels in my blood twice and open-heart surgery).

The only problem with all this is that I am an ordinary nice person. You would not know me if I met you and kicked you in the shin.

Perhaps by reading this page and writing my story things will change. Who knows?

w_i_k_i_1_8.at.yahoo.com (it's a one)

It is extremely unlikely to be you. The Antichrist is likely to be from the tribe of Dan. rossnixon 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sir you are officially the "smartest" person ever. I know lost of people with 6 letters per name type. Besides Jesus was jewish and I'm pretty sure most jewish peple descend directly or indirectly from hebrews. Dappled Sage 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Quinn / B

Daniel Quinn described in his book "The Story of B" an interesting idea of who the Antichrist is. Basicly it's based on John's statements. To make it short: according to Daniel Quinn the Antichrist is or are those, who love the world. Like John said that those, who love the world, don't have the love to God in them. Daniel Quinn also says that the Antichrist is more like an anti-saviour. If you wish, I could write something about all these ideas on the mainpage here. I just wasn't sure if I should do it or not. termi 0.39, 25 August 2006 (CEST)

The Anti-Christ: Mac guy or PC Guy?

Googling "imac antichrist" or "i-mac antichrist" brings up the following computer-related statements on the first page:

"Windows is the anti-christ."
"The true anti-christ would have 'aol' somewhere in his address."
"Dell is the anti-christ for not replacing the poor man's laptop sooner."
"Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ."

There is no reference to imac as the Anti-Christ. I'm removing the reference. -Exucmember 18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Maitreya

I found this website where this guy named Harry Walther claims that the antichrist is the Maitreya (or the Future Buddha) because if you spell Maitreya in Hebrew and then add up the letters you get 666. Here is the website: http://www.satansrapture.com/maitreya.htm The Fading Light 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Emperor Nero

It seems that scholars generally agree that the antichrist was the Roman Emperor Nero. It looks like this article doesn't take that well into account, and there isn't balance between the schools of thought that think that the Revelation account was about history versus those who think that Revelation is about the future. I'd put it in myself, but I really just don't know enough details to really contribute anything good. By the way, the name Nero does have some correspondence to the 666. J.J. Bustamante 07:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AntiChrist

Antichrist is an exclusively Christian concept. One might argue for its inclusion into an article relating it to the Jewish faith; as many of the prophetic citations come from the Hebrew scriptures, but the Muslim concept of Dajjal, is exclusive to that faith. No christian would recognise the Dajjal figure as the Antichrist, as it is not part of any Christian canon. In addition, the muslim concept of the Madhi is not the same as the Christian messiah, as muslims do not accept that Jesus is the Messiah, ergo: they are not the same embodiment, as christians believe Jesus is the sole embodiment of the Messiah. The Muslim concept should be included under the Islam heading as it is specific to that religion.

--Aestiva 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates

The name I've heard the most (by far) as the contemporary anti-Christ is Bill Gates (including a 666 numerology for his name). It may not be a serious claim, but others in the article are (hopefully) not serious either. Why was the mention of him deleted? At present there is no reference to him at all in the article (though a whole section is devoted to "Contemporary identifications," and George Bush supposedly merits mention in the introduction. -Exucmember 05:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding image

There seems to be a lot of contention around a recently added image. Can we please discuss the arguments for and against it before deciding whether or not to keep it in or remove it? SparrowsWing 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)