Talk:Son of perdition

Rewrite

I re-arranged the three classes into a list since I think it read better that way. I also added wikilinks to the kingdoms in case anyone wants to take a crack at writing those articles (you may want to change "kingdom" to "Kingdom" first—whichever is correct). I also added links to the scriptures referenced in the last paragraph. If you don't like my solution, feel free to change it.

For each class of SoP, we really should have references to scripture. In particular, I've never been taught that simple murderers are SoPs. From what I know, it is actually pretty difficult for mortals to become SoPs since they will be cast into Outer Darkness (I'm going to add that reference in the article). The other two qualify, AFAIK however. I left the second one in in case I am wrong, but we really need scripture to back each up. —Frecklefoot 16:15, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Only way for us to qualify for it now (according to SWKimball) is to see the light (open vision) and then deny it. He said "rank and file" of the church typically can not qualify for it in their current state. Visorstuff 20:23, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, then should we yank #2 from the article? —Frecklefoot 20:38, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What's all that 'katechon' stuff about? What are the sources?

See also section link to Adso?

What is that see also section wikilink to Adso supposed to be linking to. I very much doubt it is currently linked to the intended subject. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Section on Protestant churches is BS

today's Protestants either consider the "man of sin" to be a reference to antichrist or else they don't give it any thought. How many Protestants have you met that would talk about Nimrod, Adam or other such nonsense in this connection? The article seems to be quoting some marginal scholar's opinion as if it's gospel. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not a protestant.

By one man (Nimrod) sin came into the world, by one man it will be taken away. By inventing central government (Adam was before civilization)Nimrod replaced God. From then on man lives by the determinations of man rather then man as created by the creator. Central government demands you be made in an image of what they decide. Money, sex, materialism, the superficial. I see my input is always deleted. Perhaps it's because I'm not known as a religious leader or government representative. There-in lay the problem. One cannot expect those that operate the problem to solve the problem. Consider---it was not the people that had Christ killed---it was those in civil government. Think about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.226.85 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying then is- Civilization is the fall of man. I can understand that the bible is read with European undertones, which means that the euros would be way off in their understandings of what the bible is about. They seem to interpret in their state of mind ending up with no result to the problem. Their interpretation then, as it seems you are saying is exactly what the problem is. That means you are correct in saying that "authorities" cannot solve the problems of mankind as it is the process of authority of one over the other that is the problem. That makes sense in that, if Nimrod is the one who perpretrated the fault/civilization in replacement of God's creation, Adam, then the authorities of the world carry on with the fault. I agree that (since you put it in these terms) that civilization is the problem as it would also "today" be the fault the same as when it was installed. I can see (being you pointed this out) that Nimrod would be the perpetrater---that makes the original sin then ---the invention of civil government, or a government of the few over the many. It would be also then, that civilized authorities continously try to fix sosciety when it is thay that keep it broken in the process of superiority. Seeking superiority then keeps ir broken as we strive to be above one another. That means that if we are all created equal then the authorities don't believe it because they think themselves to be better then the people, which is a breaking of the ceation. That would also mean that civilization is a continously broken idea that cannot be fixed. So we end up with nothing more then a "fool's parade". If I understand correcdtly, you are saying that the end of the world is not thwe end of the planet, but merely the end of civilization. That means that Christianity is opposite civilization, and means then, that the authorities are an ant-christ in their own right. That would mean that anyone seeking betterment over others would be anti-christian. That undersatandably knocks the world off it's feet. I wonder what's going to happen when everyone figures this out. That means in the "real/Adams" world the prez of the US is really a nobody an is smeone simply because people believe him/her to be. Now, that's interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.72.39 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now this is real interesting. From what is said here I can see the end of the world as we know it. If Nimrod is the inventer of civilization then it's nothig but one big lie. He upset or changed the the creation of Adam to his own Idea. I can see that. We are now made in the Image of Nimrod as predators like himself. The authorities maintain this invention through laws and we all have to be as they say. Instead of being as God intended we are made as the State wants us to be. So, we send our kids to school to be made in the image of Nimrod, as predators rather then what we really shoud be. Thats interesting. . I hope the poster of this comes back. I waould sure like to know more. BACK--Nimrod does not return at the end time--but rather, the people take on the traits of his person. In his time Nimrod proclaimed himself God rather then the creator ( God and way mean the same thing)At the very end time people fall away from Christianity after it has been properly installed (by the belief of the people, as christianithy was removed by civil authorities of that time) This causes arrmageddon where-by the people become genocidal because civil government has been taken away (disbelived in) and are free to make up their own pesons as they want. They will become very distructive and begin to kill each other. The love of the greater number will turn cold. The restrainer is civil government. Once it is let go of by the masses and one begins to see the condition of the people detierating it becomes time to break off and go into hiding. They will be highly angry that their world is ended and become Gods (entities unto themselves)--unable to agree or get along with each other. Christyanity as a religion became extict before 50 AD and took on the appearence of europeanism- the Euros adapted their religion to christ but in no real resmblence of him. Christanity in it's true form removes all power, principalities and authorities. True understanding is that which does so.--It is now here---you have entered the end times. We will be here to insure that, and watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.72.39 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is real intereting. A buddy asked me to look at this. It's all over folks. I want this guy to come back too. I have to know more about this. JB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.72.39 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. What's Nimrod got to do with civilization. The best I can find is, The beginning of his kingdonm is called babel. I can see what that may have to do with it. What I can understand is is civilization is a pact with the devil as the babalonians claim then it's (civilization)the problem. How can things be right if it's such a pact. Then satan runs it through civil governments. That,s what makes sense to me. But how does that end the world. The police will enforce things on people at gunpoint if necessary. Sop how are things supposed to change. ATW -----The change comes when enough people can see clearly that all are made in the image of Nimrod. The creation of man-made government is contrary to the creation of Adam. Nimrod ended the era of Adam, and since then we have all been made in the image of the state. That is---the believe in the rule of men over men rather then rule by The Creator. The Creator is that which is proper morals and ethics as Adam had. Considerthat Adam is a "their" which is quite a number of people. There where a great number of people on the planet at the time of Adam. Genesis deals only with a people between the Tigres and Euphates rivers, and their direct decendants. In that area they became enlighted to the presence of a creator and studied their inner makeup. They dicovered they were made of animal (spiritually) and Human nature. They opted to cling to the human side which creates them in the image of the human creator- leaving off on the animal and subscribing only to the huiman. Intelegence is neither human nor inhuman, but merely a complitory process that can be applied to either or both. Nimrod returned the people of that area back into the animal nature (mentality)from which man came. Civilization (Babylon the Great)is a mixture of humane and animal process but relying mainly on animal (predatory) traits rather then humane traits under which are the creator. For instance- in acient times of Adam it was regarded as immoral to profit form the labor of others. But since Nimrod profiteering (doing business)at the expense of others became the norm. (Will return with more at another time. Alpha Guardian 4 ....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.22.114.34 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is-the bible is read The same as English literature. It's far from it. The Europeans seem to have confiscated the book for their own interpretation and use. Technically they changed nothing of their previous religion and adapted Christ to it. The ancient midasians expressed things quite differentl. There are three creations in the beginning. The seven days are one of them. The seven days are not the creation of the material universe but a spiritual adjustment of it's time and are the creation of man. Then-these are the generations of the heavens and the earth etc are another. Then-these are the generations of Adam in the day that god created etc is another. All three are the same thing expressed in different ways. The time of Adam goes up to Nimrod. It is Nimrod that changed the makeup of man-from Godmade to Manmade. The creation of central government "is" the fall of man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.226.85 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The man of sin is really nothing more then a social mentality. Nimrod founded civilization for the Isrealites and those generally of the middle east. Other civilizations may very well have developed on their own , such as, the South American civilizations as that continent was already populated before Nimrod. The man of sin is a social condition that arises at the time of the end, and is the start of the beginning of the end. Proper Christianity became extinct about 75 AD when it became infiltrated by civil thinking leaders. Christianity and civilization are two distinctly different ends of the same pole. What is common today is, Christianity became attached to Europeanism which Europeanism remained dominant. The re-founding of proper Christianity is the start of the end times when it begins to replace central governments---or government made by man. Adam was formed in the image of the creator-Nimrod deceived the people into throwing off the Creator as governance to being led by men such as himself. However- don't be confused. The Bible is a history of a particular people in a particular place on the planet. The bible doesn't cover the whole planet as "the world". The world of the bible is the middle east itself. The rest of the peoples on the planet are of the own lineages. When the end times are underway by the coming of proper Christianity (the 2nd coming)which spreads through-out the world and the people in time will wish to go back to the old ways but will find it impossible as a common understanding by all is that civilization in itself is it's own unsolvable problem. There-fore being frustrated in finding no way out of the truth of the matter they swing toward evil. Being that civil governments have been mostly given up there is nothing to with-hold or restrain the people from becoming anything that desire. Police forces will have been mostly dissolved leaving no counter force over the people. This process makes way for the "man of sin" to be seen as becoming active. Man of sin and man/spirit of destruction are the same. The people become destructive to the point of destroying each other. The hand of every mam will be against his brother, and by the hand of man shall man be destroyed. The "man of sin" is used in a singular term as all become of the same mind, that is, the masses that fall away and rebel against the re-creation of man are of one intent. There are only two mental entities that are possible---man and/or animal- of which are all made. Christianity is of one of those only. Civilization crates one in the animal entity, and when the fences (laws) are removed people aren't used to being free from man made government and like cattle without a fenced pasture overrun the land. The final price is then paid for animal keeping by authorities and police forces. When the people run free of civil government they become the "man of sin". Only a few, 20% to 40% remain. Alpha Guardian 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.170.234 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Guardian 6. The man of sin is a social condition not an individual. When the masses are free of civilization they have the throughway to become what they want. After a while they reject the messiah (proper Christianity, the word) after it has arrived. Instead of remaining changed or accepting "the word" they reject it and become and pursue evil toward one another. civilization is a few over the many and generally through false acquired authority. Superiority will become rejected also and no one will abide another attempting to assume authority over one's self. When the process is seen by people it is time to break off and go into hiding for safety. "The holy place" is the inner being of people. Guardian 4

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Son of perdition → Man of Sin — This article is clearly talking about the title "Man of Sin", as the emphasis on 2 Thessalonians 2 demonstrates. To even equate the title with Son of Perdition" (which appears in John 17:12, and most naturally refers to Judas Iscariot) seems at best a minority viewpoint, that in any case is not referenced at all in the article. Man of Sin currently redirects here, so this has to go via Wikipedia:Requested moves. StAnselm (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The phrase "Man of Sin" means pretty much nothing in Mormonism, but the article addresses the specific meaning of "Son of perdition" in Mormonism. Because of this, it might make more sense to have two separate articles, because if this one were changed to Man of Sin, the Mormon info would need to be made into a new article called Son of perdition anyway. I think it makes even more sense to just keep the current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy with two articles, one on each phrase, but you'll notice that the use in Mormonism in this article is nothing like what it is described in the introduction to this article. The Mormonism stuff is good - it's all the other material that doesn't belong. Maybe I should just split off the antichrist type stuff into Man of Sin. StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose two separate articles. In the (somewhat strange) circumstances, the more I think about this, it might be the best solution. A "Son of Perdition" in Mormonism is quite different than the the biblical "Man of Sin", though the name is derived from the Man of Sin, who presumably is Mormonism's ultimate "Son of Perdition". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revisions by Eickman (talk · contribs)

Hi. Sorry to revert your hard work, but I felt that changes of this magnitude should be discussed and reach some consensus before work is commenced. Here is a diff of the sum total of changes for us to begin talking about. For starters, I noticed that you removed at least two references from the old article. D. A. Carson, and Leicester(?) Also, you labeled the LDS (Mormon) theological view as "heterodox" - this is a loaded term, and it is POV. At Wikipedia we strive to present articles from a neutral point-of-view. To that end, all sides of a given issue should be explored and presented, giving due weight according to the importance and acceptance of each side. Please discuss with us how you would present your information, and when a consensus is reached, then we can continue the collaborative process by editing the article. Elizium23 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article is the whole thing is written from the Mormon perspective, which is heterodox. If something is a small minority opinion, it's "heterodox;" if it's a vast majority opinion, it's "orthodox"--and the vast othodox position is that there are three references to the "Son of Perdition" in the bible, just as I wrote. Moreover, the various schools of prophecy comprising the orthodox position would refer to these three biblical entires, but in different weights.

The Mormon position is strictly self-derived cult nonsense.

Now, I didn't attack the Mormon section of the article in any way.

But the TOP of the article is almost completely wrong.

If Wikipedia articles are supposed to be "neutral," then the Orthodox interpretations has to be entered first, which I did.

Now, if that violates someone's sensibilities, that's too bad--it's the facts. If somone wants to defend their Mormon nonsense in the Mormon section, have at it.

But the mainstream definitions belong at the top.

Ike Eickman (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article has POV problems, and I have added the {{NPOV}} template at the top, which will hopefully generate some more interest in bringing in other viewpoints. However, you do need to stop referring to religions as "cults" and ideas as "nonsense" because these are not constructive terms, and we need to be civil on Wikipedia. As for your definition of "heterodox" - that is open to debate. As is placement of things in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to take another crack at this, discuss the three tradional viewpoints, and see if there are any objections. I'll also check the reference and see if it's usable.

There is simply little on the page that refers to mainstream interpretations. 1) Antiochus, 2) Judas, and 3) some future figure.

I'll leave the poor Mormons alone. :-)

Ike Eickman (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a new revised entry to go at the top of the "Son of Perdition" page representing all of the mainstream interpretations of the term for comment.

(Mormon's need not comment as it is about the mainstream positions, and the Mormon position is already covered.)

________

"Son of Perdition" edit

According to orthodox Jewish and Christian eschatological beliefs, and secular historians and scholars, the concept of the Son of Perdition (also called "the beast that goes into perdition" in Revelation 17:8 and 17:11) is used in the Bible in one or more of three contexts, forming a triunism (or trinity, or typology) of three potential interpretive references.

First frame of reference: Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Many historians, critics, and many Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the Book of Daniel is about the events in Israel from the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity to the end of the Maccabean Revolt [see Book of Daniel]. These scholars say that the Old Testament reference is to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the man who attacked the First Temple in Jerusalem and defiled it by sacrificing a pig on the altar, erecting a statue of Zeus as himself in the temple, raiding the Temple treasury and minting coins saying "Theos Epiphanes" (God manifest), etc. Even those who advocate an interpretation of Daniel that includes the Roman Empire in their interpretations of Daniel recognize Antiochus as a prototype of "antichrist."

In Revelation 17:8 and 17:11, John borrowed the "Son of Perdition" concept from the prophecies of Daniel, relating them by language. He refers to "the star that fell from heaven" Revelation 9:1 by two names, one Greek, and the other Hebrew. (Revelation 9:11) The Greek name is "Apollyon" (Greek: Aπολλυων), from the Greek root word "apollumi" (Greek:απολλυμι) It refers to utter loss, eternal destruction, and disassociation." [Strong's 622] The Hebrew name is "Abaddon" (Greek: Aβαδδων), from the Aramaic root word "'abad" (Hebrew transliteration:שׁא), which means the same thing as the Greek root word. [Strong's 07] Daniel 7:11 says that the eventual destiny of the "great beast" is to be slain, and his body "destroyed" ('abad), and given to the eternal flames (generally accepted by religious scholars to be a reference to hell).

Second frame of reference: Judas Iscariot

In John 17:12, Jesus says that of all his disciples, none has been lost except the "son of perdition". The New International Version translates the phrase as "the one doomed to destruction." D. A. Carson suggests that this verse refers both to Judas' character and to his destiny. The phrase is also used in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where it is equated with the Man of Sin.

Third frame of reference: Antichrist

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul--writing well after both Jesus and Judas had come and gone to their respective destinies--referred to "the Son of Perdition" in some future sense from the point in time in which he wrote his epistle. He also equated this person with the Man of Sin.

Likewise, In Revelation 17:8 and 17:11, John, writing well after Jesus and Judas Iscariot had come and gone to their respective destinies, refers to "the beast that goeth into perdition." Assuming a futuristic mode of interpretation, this would also be a reference to a future figure.

In some variations of Christian eschatology, this future figure is commonly referred to as "antichrist," the "false messiah," or the "false christ."

Applications

The following statements are archetypal, and do not reflect every organizational or individual variation:

Various sects of Jews and Christians, as well as secular historians and higher critics would acknowledge the use of the phrase "the Son of Perdition" or "the beast that goes into perdition" in one or more of these three frames of reference:

Jewish Reconstructionists and some secular historians and critics would acknowledge the first frame of reference, as they hold that the book of Daniel is strictly Jewish apocalyptic literature.

Jewish Messianists and Historicist-type Jews [see Jewish Eschatology] would acknowledge the first and third frames of reference, but not the second, as they do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.

Christian Historicists, Dispensationalists and Partial Preterists, Messianic Jews, and some historians and higher critics would acknowledge the second and third frames of reference, as they acknowlege two advents of Jesus Christ. They may also acknowledge the first frame of reference as a typology.

Christian Preterists, Idealists, and the advocates of Realized Eschatology/Sapiential Eschatology would acknowledge the second frame of reference, and possibly the first frame of reference as a typology, but not the third, as they do not believe in a literal future fulfillment of prophecy per se.

A Triunist would recognize all three frames of reference as valid, but in different modes of interpretation.

________

Ike Eickman (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much dispute, or even interest, in my proposed edit. Gonna' move it into the article and see what happens.

Ike Eickman (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I totally dispute this. I don't see any reference that equate the "son of perdition" with the Antichrist. Revelation 17 uses the phrase "perdition" not "son of perdition". The Lanier references look suspiciously like self-published sources, and without a publisher name, that's what I have to assume. The endtime-truth.com wesbite is also not a reliable source. The application section looks like original research and speculation - it talks about what people "would" accept of the model. StAnselm (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As to your first point, see this article from Pastor K. Kirkland, "Antiochus Epiphanes, prototype of antichrist," in which he also equates antichrist with "the son of perdition" as per Paul.

http://www.endtime-truth.com/studies2.html

The Baptist theologian F.F. Bruce advocated the same system of typology in regards to the entire book of Daniel, stating that the post-Roman re-interpretation of Daniel came from the Essenes.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/re/jewish-apocalyptic_bruce.pdf

As to your second point, Lanier was a historian and Idealist theologian, and advocated a three-dimensional approach to interpeting prophecy. This book was copyrighted in 1908, and published by the author. The copy referenced on the Googlebooks website is from Union Theological Seminary.

The "application" section is generalized, just as I noted at the top, and substantiated by the individiual topic pages linked therein. There are generalizations like this on all manner of Wikipedia pages, with links to the pages discussing those topics.

If you dispute the generalizations, say so, but remember, I said the generalizations I noted didn't encompass every organization's or individual's viewpoints--there are dozens of variations for every one of them (which was the point of noting that).

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid we only have self-published sources and original research. Even though the Lanier book is old, it's self-published. The F. F. Bruce article is a reliable source, but it doesn't mention the "son of perdition". The question is not whether Antiochus Epiphanes is a prototype of the antichrist, but whether he is equated in reliable sources with the son of perdition. You said "as per Paul" but actually Paul doesn't use the word "antichrist". So it seems the whole lot as it currently stands has to go, but one would think a reliable source could be found to equate "son of perdition" with "antichrist" via the "man of sin" phrase in 2 Thess 2. StAnselm (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you're playing nonsensical technical games to get around the point instead of making a point: Which statement in the entry is wrong? Which one of them is not taught by some segment of Christianity, Judaism, or secularists? Whose opinion is it that you're trying to supress? The Unitarians, who use Lanier's works as source material? (Gee, Union Theological Seminary thought it was important enough to digitize and put on the internet.) The emerging opinion, even among Evangelicals like Bruce, who was a Baptist theologian, is that there is something seriously wrong traditional Christian interpretations of prophecy. So is that the opinion you're seeking to suppress?

You're argument might have started out better and had some validity if you had argued against one of the three frames of reference or the generalizations instead of going after the citations (falsely).

Ike Eickman (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Which statement is wrong? That's easy: in the lead, it says, "also called "the beast that goes into perdition" in Revelation 17:8 and 17:11". That's wrong. Then there's John borrowed the "Son of Perdition" concept from the prophecies of Daniel. Who's to say whether that's true or not. But in accusing me of "playing nonsensical technical games to get around the point" you've dodged the issue - J. H. Lanier is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your statement that the "beast that goeth into perdition" isn't "the son of Perdition" is a personal opinion. I'm not dealing in personal opinions; I'm dealing in broad opinions.

Here is another interesting citation from the sermons of Puritan Thomas Manton.

The Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition

In this sermon, Manton mentions that the Jews referred to Antiochus as "the man of sin" in 1 Maccabees 2:48. However, Manton equated "the man of sin" as the Jews did to Antiochus and then antichrist, then equated the "son of perdition" to Judas and the antichrist. But Paul equated them both, speaking of them in the same breath, saying "the man of sin, the son of Perdition. John did the same thing.

I've just found a reference from Martin Luther in which he equated Paul's statement with Antiochus.

Sorry, but the three frames of reference easily stand up: I just need to keep adding citations.

Ike Eickman (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's my opinion that "beast that goeth into perdition" doesn't mean the same thing as "the son of Perdition". But to say it isn't the same phrase isn't an opinion at all. That's a fact. The thing is, you can't deal in broad opinions except with citations to reliable sources. It sounds like the Manton and Luther quotes are useful - please add them into the article. StAnselm (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the citations from Matthew Henry and the Critical dictionary worked even better.

-)

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'm letting you finish doing your edits before I make any more revisions in an effort to get a consensus version. But let me warn you: anything you say about how people from various points of view would react to this "three frame of reference" perspective is original research. All the citations should mention the "son of perdition". And if we can't get a reliable source for the three frame of reference perspective, the whole thing has to go. I will try to salvage all the worthwhile references I can. StAnselm (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, a source could identify a specific method or period of interpretation, as per Annette Reed, professor emeritus at Harvard Divinity School, or F.F. Bruce from Ryland (which I included).

However, I really haven't started in with Jewish, Unitarian, or heavy idealist sources, but I'm getting there.

Thank you for your interest, but don't take down whole sections based on one (you say) disputable source.

And by the way, the rule pertains to contemporary writing, not historical documents like the post-Civil War writings of Lanier. If the rule applied to all "self published works," you would have to kick out all of the Greek philosophers. ;-)

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

STOP reducing the content to YOUR VIEWPOINT ONLY.

And appeasing YOU ALONE is NOT a "consensus."

I've covered every viewpoint on the subject across a wide perspective of viewpoints. You keep trying to reduce it to YOURS ALONE.

Ike Eickman (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could come to a version on which we both agree. I hope you are working towards WP:CONSENSUS also. I have introduced some new references into the article, as well as expanding some of yours, but you deleted everything I added. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I already covered "consensus," i.e. how all of the different factions relate to the "Son of Perdition" subject in specific, and the interpretation of prophecy in general.

Every opinion is covered (except maybe the Muslims, as I don't know that much about their assertions beyond their anti-Semitic/anti-Christian ones).

Ike Eickman (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I was, of course, talking about a consensus between you and me about what the article should say, not a consensus among scholars as to what the phrase means. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

Outstanding. Now we can put a stop to the suppression of other group's viewpoints.

Ike Eickman (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ike, did you read the template? It says This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion for editors to respond. I see no evidence that you have listed this dispute. Furthermore, I think you already have a third opinion that you don't like. We've repeatedly told you that you are in consistent violation of several policies, namely, WP:RS, WP:OR and now WP:CONSENSUS. You are now showing ownership tendencies on these pages by reverting any constructive edits that others make. Our persistent reminders of policy are met with abuse or accusations of bias. Yes, everyone's biased, no news there. We all attempt to adhere to WP:NPOV and present a balanced opinion. But you can't just run rough-shod over the other policies. Your so-called sources are not reliable and you're inserting your own words and analysis when there is no place for this at Wikipedia. I guarantee you that the more sane editors you attract to these projects of yours, the more you will find yourself reverted and overruled. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think Ike is being sarcastic. I had asked for the third opinion (and listed it at WP:3O), because the negotiations between Ike and myself had stalled. StAnselm (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't see the listing because I wasn't familiar with the layout of that article space. Seems odd to me that more people from the Wikiprojects haven't chimed in. I canvassed several of them when I had to revert Ike the first time, but you're the only one who's shown up here. Elizium23 (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Elizium, what do you think of this revision? This was my attempt at a compromise version, incorporating some of Ike's idea, but without what I consider to be fringe theories and original research. StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Typical bullying from ignorant traditionalist Christians. Various Jewish groups have an opinion? Suppress it. Unitarians have an opinion? Suppress it. Idealists? Higher Critics? Shut 'em down.

Time to call for a review and put a stop to this Nazi crap.

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by a review. Do you mean a Request for comment? If so, go ahead. I would like to be able to establish a consensus version of the page sooner rather than later. StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The controversy appears to go beyond the sourcing issue to how the article and headings are structured. A sermon (proposed footnote 1) would not be a published third party source with a reputation for fact checking. Similarly the fact that J.J. Lanier has, in fact, published his religious interpretations would not necessarily be enough. WP:RS requires something more authoritative and derivative (a published and researched overview of religious thought) and more likely to come from an academic than a minister. Lanier was mentioned, among many others, in turn of the century articles on religious thought but that alone would not make him a reliable source. If you can’t live without your additions being included, restrict yourself to those that can be reliably sourced to widely recognized authorities on religious thought (Central church counsel, the Vatican) and include the source in the text of the article. You may find that this self edits your additions to the point that other editors accept them. You might be wise to steer away from applying the “triunism” concept {setting out 3 frames of reference with the triunist accepting all three} to the article if that isn’t part of the mainstream thought regarding son of perdition. It may well be accurate, but you can only avoid accusations of violating WP:NPOV by providing reliable sources for it. The article shouldn’t read as if an argument is being made. Reading the 22:49 Dec. 7 unreverted version of the article, I notice much of the Antiochus paragraph is currently preserved. Apparently there is some controversy about whether the prophet Daniel’s son of perdition is Antiochus or the Roman Empire. Given the weight given to Mormon interpretations of son of perdition in the current version of the article, Erickman’s additional information covering Jewish Reconstructionists /Messianists and other Christian groups would bring some much needed balance to the article if properly sourced.—Eudemis (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me illustrate the problem of sectarianism, and why your suggestion doesn't exactly work.

There is a substantial article in the Catholic Encylopedia on "Biblical Exegesis," including a section on the three main phases of its development in the Catholic Church.

It basically outlines what I wrote in the "Historicism (Christianity)" edits.

1) The early church through 600 AD. 2) The divisions between the latin (eventually Catholic) and Greek (eventually Orthodoxy) theologians that lead to the East-West Schism. 3) The divisions between the Catholics and Reformers in the 1500s.

Problem: In regards to the first period, there is no mention in the article of the millennialists (who said Christ was still coming soon, and the millennium would come after) and the Amillennialists (who moved the millennium in front of Christ's return to explain why it was taking so long).

Now, if you search "millennialism" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, there is no article; but if you search "amillennialism," there is--however, it is framed entirely in the negative, which such statements as "one of the heretics said..." and "the Middle Ages were not tainted by millennialism...", etc, etc.

Even funnier, look up "Futurism," which came from a Jesuit priest--no mention!

Look up "Preterism," which also came from a Catholic authority--no mention!

The Catholic hardline is to stick to the traditional Historical interpretation, even if sources within Catholicism are saying otherwise.

You'll find this problem throughout theology--there is no reliable "central authority" to go to for a one-explantion fits all source--the "victors" (as they see themselves) write the history.

In order to circumvent the problem, one has to go to the central authorities of ALL theological schools to discuss differences between groups, examining all angles on any given subject, which is what I am trying to do.

As an example, Lanier and Fairbairn may not be relevant to these sectarians, but they are to the Unitarians and Idealists, who interpret the Bible three dimensionally (according to Lanier's Rubric). And they're digitally reprinting his works through two important Unitarian schools, Union Theological Seminary and the University of Richmond (formerly Virginia Theological Seminary).

Now, I don't agree with any of these positionss, but to get to the heart of matters, one must examine the strong and weak points of ALL of these schools of biblical interpretation, especially where prophecy is concerned.

Of course, this ticks off the sectarians who are dedicated to their one-dimensional take on things; but that's their problem, not mine. Unlike them, my position is strengthened, not weakened, by examining issues from all perspectives.

And I haven't made one claim on any Wikipedia article directly related to my own work, except by inference, i.e. I point to what other scholars and theologians are saying; but it makes the traditionalists look bad, which is why they're up in arms.

The fact remains: Many of their dearly beloved "fathers" had multiple ideas about how the whole "son of Perdition" thing fit into the big scheme, and its important to note it. If I have to reference the article to death to prove the point, so be it--but its an awful waste of time and effort, especially when my opponents already know that what I've written is true. It just needs cleaning up and clarification.

Ike Eickman (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed a single issue in the Response to 3PO. Look:

A sermon (proposed footnote 1) would not be a published third party source with a reputation for fact checking. Similarly the fact that J.J. Lanier has, in fact, published his religious interpretations would not necessarily be enough. WP:RS requires something more authoritative and derivative (a published and researched overview of religious thought) and more likely to come from an academic than a minister. Lanier was mentioned, among many others, in turn of the century articles on religious thought but that alone would not make him a reliable source. If you can’t live without your additions being included, restrict yourself to those that can be reliably sourced to widely recognized authorities on religious thought (Central church counsel, the Vatican) and include the source in the text of the article.

That's what you need to pay attention to.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

STOP attacking the Lanier reference

Lanier was a Southern historian and theologian during American Reconstructionism. He produced his works for the head of the Atlanta Unitarian Church. He self-published them because just about EVERYONE in the South was self-publishing them in the years following the Civil War, including Samuel Clement, a.k.a. Mark Twain. (In fact, Lanier and Mark Twain died about two years apart.) Lanier is an important part of the development of Unitarian theology, which is why Union Theological Seminary (which is non-denominational and pro-Unitarian) digitized his writings and made them available.

This is NOT what Wikipedia was talking about in regards to the "self-publishing" rule.

(And, of course, you never notified me when you asked for an opinion on this reference, since you are totally ignorant of who he was and what he did, and hence did not convey the historical facts and importance of his writings to Unitarian thought to those who didn't know who he was, either.)

Books by John Jabez Lanier:

The Kinship of God in man. (Delvered to the head of the Atlanta Church.)

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Church Universal: a restatement of Christianity in terms of modern thought. (Delivered to Virginia Theological Seminary)

The Larger Church (volumes I & II)

Why I am a Christian

Washington, the Great American Mason

The Song of Life

Prayer, the Soul's Desire.

Trying to remove Lanier as a reference is like trying to remove Luther or Samuel Clements as references because they "self published," too.

Absolutely idiotic.

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The key to assessing older writers then would be whether anyone else has ever republished them. But I've had a look at your talk page, and I have to ask, is this your website? If it is, then linking to it would definitely fall under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's his work. He has an idiosyncratic interpretation of prophecy which he has tried to insert in several articles now. He's not getting anywhere with it, because of his repeated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and lack of WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I notice he's received a one week block now, for personal attacks. StAnselm (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not for the first time either. I don't think he's going to learn quickly.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

continuance

Will continue later with more references.

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Your citations either: a) do not satisfy WP:RS, b) don't say what you claim, c) are sources you've already been told not to use by several editors and have been rejected by the relevant noticeboard.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fact checking

• http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.html

This source has been rejected multiple times as breaching WP:RS.

• "Kinship of God and man: An attempt to formulate a thorough-going Trinitarian theology" by J.J. Lanier, see "Trinitarian Idealism," pp 135-147, esp. Syllabus II, p 136
• God-Centered Biblical Interpretation, chapter 5: The Triunal Character of Truth, Vern Sheridan Poythress
• Hermeneutical Manual. Typologies pp x, 64, 155, 335, 379

These sources talk about typology, but say nothing about how to "interpret these multiple references [to the son of perdition] in multiple contexts".

• Milton S. Terry, Biblical hermenutics: a treatise on the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, Typology pp 10, 337-346.

This source does not say what is claimed. Terry interprets the son of perdition in Daniel as a historical reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, and states explicitly that it does not refer to anyone else.

• Darryl M. Erkel: A Guide to Basic Bible Interpretation, IX, 3, B, Typology.

Says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the son of perdition, or Antiochus, or the man of sin, and is not a WP:RS anyway.

• Bob Smith: Basics of Bible Interpretation, Phase 2, Allegories and Types

Typology of Scripture by William G. Moorehead, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Chicago: Howard-Severance Co., 1930), vol. 5, pp. 3029-3030.

These sources talk about typology, but say nothing about how to "interpret these multiple references [to the son of perdition] in multiple contexts".

• Typology: A Summary Of The Present Evangelical Discussion. Edward Glenny, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (March 1997): 627-638.
• A Study of Biblical Typology, Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier, November 3, 1999.
• Old Testament Types. Rev K D Macleod, in The Free Presbyterian Magazine, September 1999
• Shadows of Good Things, Or the Gospel in Type. By Russell R. Byrum (1922)

As above, and these are not WP:RS anyway.

• Many theologians and scholars also consider "the beast that goes into perdition" mentioned in Revelation 17:8 and 17:11 to be references to the "Son of Perdition."

Two references is not "many". I can find plenty more to substantiate this point.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

???

Go read the Wikipedia "Typology" article.

A "type" requires two things--a prototype person, object, or action, and the future fulfillment of that person, object, or action in a present or future sense in relation to the "prototype" and person, object, or action involved.

That's "multiples" in time and space--one past, and/or one present, and/or one future, i.e. the near sacrifice of Isaac as a "prototype" of the crucifixion of Christ, or Antiochus as a "prototype" of "antichrist."

This isn't "original research:" It's "common sense."

As for your "reliable sources" argument, it's just sectarian nonsense and the suppression of minority opinions.

And I put the Terry reference in the wrong place. It belongs with Reed and Bruce, or down in the "first reference" section. Will fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eickman (talk • contribs) 08:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I DID put the Terry reference in the right place.

Outline of Chapter 9:

CHAPTER 9 Interpretation of Types

Types and symbols defined and dis­tinguished Examples of types and symbols Analogy with several figures of speech Principal distinction between types and symbols Essential characteristics of the type: — (1) Notable points of resemblance between type and antitype (2) Must be divinely appointed (3) MUST PREFIGURE SOMETHING FUTURE

This is what "Typology" is--persons, objects, or actions in the past representing a person, object, or action present or future (from the time of the prototype in relation to the fulfillment).

Your arguments are getting downright pathetic.

Ike Eickman (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not reading what I wrote. As I said, these sources talk about typology, but say nothing about how to "interpret these multiple references [to the son of perdition] in multiple contexts". You are indulging in classic WP:SYNTH. As for my reliable sources argument, all you have to do is read WP:RS. It's not sectarian, and I didn't write it. You've been told this many times before by a number of editors who have rejected your non-WP:RS references. This has nothing to do with sectarianism, it has everything to do with you not doing proper research.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I also shouldn't need to remind Eickman (talk · contribs) that his "Triunism" link represents a conflict of interest. Please read and abide by WP:COI#Self-promotion for details on that. Elizium23 (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

He spams multiple links and sources because he thinks no one will bother to check them all. But I have always checked his sources, and have repeatedly posted demonstrating that he is misrepresenting them. He has also been told more than once to stop posting that WP:COI#Self-promotion link, but he refuses to adhere to Wiki policy. Looks like RfC time.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Eickman you are now repeatedly reverting without addressing any of the issues with your edits which have been identified by other editors. You are edit warring and refusing to discuss your edits. Think carefully about where you want this to end up. Not only are there more of us than you, Wiki policy is on our side and you already have a really bad behaviour record.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your junk edit yet again.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Satan, a son of perdition?

My recent removal of the category for articles about Satan was reverted with the explanation that to most Christian denominations, Satan is a son of perdition. However, according to the LDS Church, Satan doesn't fall under that category. I cite the following from the LDS Guide to the Scriptures on the subject: "Sons of perdition include (1) those who followed Satan and were cast out of heaven for rebellion during premortality, and (2) those who were permitted to be born to this world with physical bodies but then served Satan and turned utterly against God." If sons of perdition follow or serve Satan, how can Satan himself fall under that definition? For further proof I cite the following scriptures:

D&C 76:30-38, 43-48. Note in these verses that the lot of the Sons of Perdition is to reign with Satan.

D&C 29:40: Once again, it says that sons of perdition reign with Satan.

Moses 5:22-26: It says Cain shall be called Perdition. Sons of Perdition are therefore sons of Cain who do the bidding of Satan.

That's enough to chew on for the moment. I think that this is enough proof that, at least as far as the LDS Church is concerned, Satan cannot be called a son of Perdition. And I think that given this evidence, we should remove what, as far as at least one religion is concerned, is an irrelevant category. I will not remove it until others have time to examine this issue, but I vote that the category be removed. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate article for LDS views is Son of perdition (Mormonism). This article does not treat Mormonism at all, it treats Christianity. So why remove categories that describe the Christian view of the term? Elizium23 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article that mentions Satan, so it shouldn't be a category. In Christianity, Satan and the Son of Perdition are always distinct. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• The connection to Satan is not that Satan is the son of perdition, it is that the son of perdition is a follower of Satan or a figurative "satanic" figure; also, as discussed in the article, the interpretation exists that the son of perdition will be cast into hell fire. Satan is typically regarded as an overseer of hell. Adding a category does not "equate" the two terms, it represents that there is a connection between the two. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected about this, sorry but I am a noob to Bible scholarship and I don't know as much as I really should. Thanks for your input. Elizium23 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I still want to see a reliable source connecting the two. I also note that neither of the "companion terms", Man of Sin or Antichrist, are in the category. StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)