<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" /> but once again, your "reasoning" is more eisogesis than exegesis. The denial of the Trinity is to deny that the Godhead consists of three persons; Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, etc., cf. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. The pope and the RCC both unequivocally affirm this doctrine. The denial of the deity of Christ is likewise a matter of His being God of very God and not one that is concerned with the extent or sufficiency of the atonement, cf. The Chalcedon Creed. And lastly, as to the matter of the return of Christ in the flesh, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged conquering of earth by the RCC and the setting up of an alleged golden age. Simply put, the Apostle John was inspired to write what he did to address specific truths and to refute those who denied them, e.g., the Gnostics, both in his day and all those who would hold similar beliefs throughout history. On these three particular issues, neither the Roman State Church nor the pope deny any of them.
You are twisting these texts to fit your private doctrine driven, no doubt, by your personal hostility toward the RCC and its leader. Once again, the RCC stands rightly condemned for the errors it actually holds and teaches. There is no need to fabricate things and convolute the Scriptures in the process so as to suit your own preconceived ideas concerning the identity of the Antichrist.
In His Grace,
Is it possible to engage in debate with you without recourse (on your part) to sarcasm and flippant smileys? It ain't how to win friends and influence people (apart from the sycophants who are scared to disagree with you).
As to your answer, your accusation that I am imposing my preconceived ideas on Scripture is what you want to believe. But I have shown that the papacy does indeed deny the Godhead, etc, albeit not in the hyper-literal way you insist to convenience your argument. And on that point, I could, by the same petty token you employ, accuse you of imposing the hyper-literal sense of the term "denial" just to suit your own preconception that the pope just cannot be the antichrist.
A final note on my "preconceived ideas" on antichrist. For years, I held that the antichirst was going to be some future world leader. But I looked at church history and saw what the papacy did and examined its claims. I consulted with Scripture, and saw that the papacy fitted the description of the antichrist. But my suspicion is, even if your idea of antichrist were to come on the scene tomorrow, you'd still not accept it.
