Talk:Man of sin

message: 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)
thread_title:  Man of sin or man of lawlessness? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chaotic Ramble? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should this be in Wikipedia? 

message: I propose merging and redirecting this article to Son of perdition for the following reasons:
#It is a blatant breach of the policy WP:Content forking, as it deals with exactly the same subject as that article.
#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)
replies: text: Agreed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breakhga (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Possible religiospam warning

message: 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)
replies: text: – 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)
thread_title:  Not a proper title 

message: Substituted at 22:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sedevacantist Point of View