Talk:Man of Sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Contents 1 Quality 2 Importance 3 The Man of Sin or 4 Man of sin or man of lawlessness? 5 Chaotic Ramble? [edit] Quality Start class The article has a meaningful amount of verifiable content. It is already useful to some readers, but it still some way from comprehensive coverage of the topic. Some ideas for expansion are: full quote of relevant passages (there aren't too many) a suggestive graphic (image, diagram or key writer -- people like pictures) links to online text of major opinions (summarized in article) Alastair Haines 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [edit] Importance Mid importance The main reason for giving such a high rating of importance is that many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. The main reason it is not rated higher in importance is that it is not technically vital to knowledge of the Bible. Eschatology in general certainly is, specifics like the Man of Sin are not. Please take encouragement that Noah's Ark is considered of no importance to understanding the overall message of the Bible. Alastair Haines 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article incorporates text from the public domain 1907 edition of The Nuttall Encyclopædia.

[edit] The Man of Sin or

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)

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)

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

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.

[edit] Man of sin or man of lawlessness?

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)

[edit] Chaotic Ramble?

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)