Talk:Son of perdition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: 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)
thread_title:  See also section link to Adso? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Protestant churches is BS 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that the article has POV problems, and I have added the  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)
thread_title:  Revisions by {{User|Eickman}} 

message: 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  and ) is used in the Bible in one or more of three contexts, forming a triunism (or trinity,http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=10 see paragraph 40 or typology) of three potential interpretive references.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
===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."http://www.endtime-truth.com/studies2.html
In Revelation  and , 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  by two names, one Greek, and the other Hebrew. (Revelation ) 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  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 , 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.D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Apollos, 1991), 563. 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 , 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  and , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Son of Perdition" edit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Applications

message: Outstanding. Now we can put a stop to the suppression of other group's viewpoints.
Ike Eickman (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits

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

text: 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)
thread_title: STOP attacking the Lanier reference

message: Will continue later with more references.
Ike Eickman (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: continuance

message: * 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  and  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I also shouldn't need to remind  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fact checking

message: 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)
replies: text: I have removed your junk edit yet again.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Satan, a son of perdition?