Talk:Antichrist

Capitalization

Maybe it's not that important, but figured I would point out that there is a lot of inconsistency in the use of capitalizaton (god/God, church/Chuch, etc.). Beapluss 00:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Beapluss, capitalization depends quite a bit on context. Many of these instances are in direct quotes, and so we preserve the capitalization in the source material. MOS:CAPS is the general Manual of Style guideline for capitalization. I do not see any notably-wrong cases at this time. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23Thank you for responding. Good to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beapluss (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are they saying the antichrist is a group of people?

They are taking scripture out of context in order to say the antichrist is not 1 person but a group of people.

1)The "spirit of the antichrist" is the opposite of the "spirit of christ". Just because we carry the spirit of christ that does not make us christ himself.

2) Revelation states continuously that it is a singlular entity who is the antichrist and his number is 666.

3) Why is Wikipedia spreading misinformation about this topic and not keeping the edits that fix this? 174.21.41.243 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be sufficient reliable sources supporting the primary-source text that refers to multiple antichrists. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-Christian Views

The "Non-Christian Views" subcategory only contains the views of Judaism, Islam, & Baha'i. Perhaps Wikipedia editors could expand on this subcategory to include the equivalents in other world religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, etc? That would be really interesting to read up on.--Splashen (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are no "non-Christian views". Those are about false prophets, not specifically the Antichrist. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Splashen is correct and you are incorrect: as per the "Non-Christian Views" section, the article mentions the religions views of an equivalent Antichrist, or specifically, an Antichrist.

The Antichrist is considered to be a false prophet. 49.180.220.243 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

'They' keep reverting my attempts the edit the top portrait !

Unproductive discussion that degenerated into recriminations and AI nonsense. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's not fair that I get accused of vandalism , and face being blocked from editing if I continue to try alter the cover portrait for this article. The current painting is from the Reformation time period when Protestants begin having a lesser opinion of the Pope. The painting looks like the beast from Disney's beauty and the beast , but only with a sacred heart on its garment. I personally would prefer something more reflective of the book of Daniel's 70 weeks or Revelation chapter 13 , such as Titus Flavius or Nero Caesar. Even Napoleon Bonaparte , or Adolf Hitler or a miscellaneous image of a businessman in a dark suit with horns (similar to Damien in part 3 of The Omen trilogy The final conflict.) Is there anyone out there willing to discuss this or add to or aid my view ? SiteWiz (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You need to read the edit history after each edit. You are edit warring and even deleted a significant portion of the article. Edit warring is always wrong, no matter how right you may be. If your edit gets reverted, then follow WP:BRD and only discuss. Never try to force your version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Valjean, I'm new and you have been around as a wiki-editor for many years, and that I acknowledge and respect your decision. However, even still I believe that outdated painting violates Wiki-MOS (as it's 'preferential vs factual', as well as 'indoctrinating' to a certain outlook others may feel is predudice. Prior to the Reformation, a popular but controversial view began to circulate that the Antichrist would try to imitate Jesus Christ. This theory is what that painting attempts to convey (which is incorrect). Any Bible student can tell you, whether past or future, Antichrist will be a politician. Daniel 7 describes a politician that will pluck up three others by their roots and go on to wage war against the saints. 2nd Thessalonians describes a politician that will visit Jerusalem and defile it (similar to Antiochus IV , Caligula and Titus Flavius). And Revelation 13 merely describes the politician Emperor Nero and the Great fire of Rome in 66 ad, as well as the subsequent civil war that followed, until the Flavian dynasty brought order to the empire and rebuilt it. None of these three prophecies are reflective of that painting !

I would prefer a painting of Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 11) or Nero Caesar (666) , or Titus Flavian (Daniel 9:27), or one of Nostradamus's three Antichrist .... Adolf Hitler (1), Napoleon Bonaparte (2), and the coming mysterious Mabus (3),only two of which are pointable at in history. The article is preferential and indoctrinational its own self, and the painting is non factual and misleading. The Antichrist won't merely be a false prophet or an imitation of Jesus, but rather we'll be a powerful politician who will enforce a 'mark' upon the general public. But when other people try to make edits, they're accused of edit warring and violating Wikipedia MOS. Yet, it's the article and the painting their own selves that are the MOS violation of scriptural truth and historical accuracy.

Only when purposely vandalizing with nonsensical graffiti should other editors be refused to add to articles .... providing their additions are backed by facts. Otherwise , Wikipedia is being partial to certain users and not fair to everyone. SiteWiz (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. There are no pictures of the actual Antichrist for pretty obvious reasons. We don't have any photos. You use the word "facts" but I don't think it means what you think it means. A mainstream depiction from Christian art is entirely appropriate here and your objections make absolutely no sense. Again, please just stop. DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will stop (this will be my final comment). Maybe you are right and my objections do make absolutely no sense. But before I sign out of this conversation , I will make my underlying motive more clear to understand.

See, in Christianity vs popular art (regardless how medieval) , the painting in this article looks more like the 'Temptation of the Christ' in the desert for 40 days, in which he resisted to be beguiled. But a more appropriate painting from the Renaissance era would be more like this one :

https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/30ed37cd-9977-45fb-852f-03e328caa199/surfaces/6030fd27-36b8-4ba7-a05e-3c70bdddaf20/

The reason why is because it depicts Christ 'overcoming' in judgment, rather than confusing the water with the wine as so many non-christians do these days (thanks to paintings like those).

Nevertheless , I will 'drop the stick' and go as promised. (Unless directly responded to), consider this conversation closed. SiteWiz (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

look what I wrote back in 2009. Then ask AI if what I said is biblically factually correct. As a matter of fact if you type in "according to the Bible the word Antichrist means denial of the Christ" AI uses my argument almost word for word. That means my 100% logical argument was downloaded into AI as facts. There was a time when Wikipedia actually used my definition, but a bunch of goofballs changed it back to umbilical myths.

There is no Antichrist guy even mentioned in the bible. Everything you said is unbiblical fiction. Don't get mad, test it.

I came here to look for my article by the way. I think it's titled "according to the Bible the word Antichrist means denial of the Messiah" 2009 by TygeW ~2026-35043-39 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody gives a hoot what an AI says. An AI has no concept of truth or correctness. An AI will tell you whatever you want to hear. It will tell somebody else something else.

Anyway, you are right that a lot of the Antichrist belief is based on sources other than the Bible but there's no point in ranting about "unbiblical fiction" because Milton has been dead for more than 300 years. The article correctly sums up the subject. You don't have to agree with the various views it covers, only understand that it covers them correctly. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Your all 'MAD' , and part of an unholy conspiracy! SiteWiz (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)