Talk:Man of sin

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 word lawlessness isn't in the kjv it's a word used to manipulate people into turning back to the ten commandments instead of observing the new commandments love God and thy neighbor which is the new covenant Roscoepolliejr (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2024 (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.

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)

Definitely not true if you understand why the ten commandments was given to Isreal( church ) then youd have a better understanding of who is the antichrist as well as man of sin because the law that was given to them because of their transgressions is what caused sin to become alive thats why Jesus was born of a woman under that law to redeem them from that cursed law and established a better covenant and law thats not against the world Roscoepolliejr (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

The word lawlessness is used to manipulate people to turn back unto peridtion of the old covenant that the pharisees and Sadduccess taught their law( Latter ) leads people into condemnation 2 Corrinthians 3:10-15 2600:381:F980:D0B:4925:E737:86F8:8E85 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Should this be in Wikipedia?

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)

Merger proposal

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 WP:Original research; it cites one 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)

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

Possible religiospam warning

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)

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)

Not a proper title

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)

 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)

Assessment comment

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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==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) ==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)

Substituted at 22:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man of sin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705230141/http://www.preteristcentral.com/pgt-man-of-sin.htm to http://www.preteristcentral.com/pgt-man-of-sin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Political figures

Due to the growth of state power, including the capacity for surveillance and the ability of governments to prevent escape, the Man of Sin could easily be a political figure. Governments are the greatest of enterprises even in capitalist societies and as a general rule they have tight controls on people seeking to escape their authority.

The Man of Sin could be a hereditary leader, a generalissimo, an all-powerful Party Boss, or an elected leader who steadily consolidates power while prohibiting any resistance even on grounds of personal conscience. Tyrants from Henry VIII of England to Saddam Hussein have usually made life miserable for anyone who puts the dictates of God above the commands of the all-powerful, worldly leader who has the power of life and death over everyone, and often for trivial reasons.

Sedevacantist Point of View

The infamous Most Holy Family Monastery has produced multiple videos (1, 2, 3 etc.) theorizing that John Paul II fits the definition pretty well. Maybe it'd be worth including in the article. 84.236.96.75 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Man of Sin and Antichrists are all the same

Man of sin or antichrist is anyone who is still teaching or observing the ten commandments that's what separate you from the new covenant Galatians 5 explains that if you follow the perdition or tradition of the so called Jewish people of that time pharisees and Sadduccess you are excluded from grace administration because you have to full all the ten commandments of which is an open shame to Jesus finished works of fulling it on the cross and abolishing it Ephesians 2:15 2600:381:F980:D0B:4925:E737:86F8:8E85 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

The ten commandments is the administration of condemnation it was judgment unto the church( isreal) because of their transgressions against God we now have the administration of grace under the new covenant law of faith love God and thy neighbor if you still observe the ten commandments you are condemned 2600:381:F980:D0B:4925:E737:86F8:8E85 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)