You are aware I am sure that because of the very things we are discussing, some futurists who recognise the "Roman factor" in the ascent of the Antichrist, have invented a future "revived Roman Empire" in order for a future antichrist to grow out of it? I see the dismissing of the "Roman factor" equally non-sensical as a future revival. The thing is Naomi it isn't just this one small passage of scripture we have to rely on for information regarding the identity of Antichrist. While the identity of the restrainer is important, (as was the identity of John the Baptist) it isn't all we have. Daniel and Revelation gives a huge amount of detailed prophecy which when looked at objectively and by using some well established fundamental rules regarding the interpretation of Bible prophecy, brings us to the same conclusion. Pagan Rome was Satan's vehicle which gave the Papacy its throne, its power, and its authority. Papal Rome was/is the second to last creation of a global religious vehicle for destroying and/or deceiving millions that paganism could never attain to.
Indeed, as prophecy revealed...
Da 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Of course. Satan was behind the RCC, and again, prophecy reveals this would be the case...
Revelation 13:1 ¶ And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Only through the legislative and secular power, enforced by the sword, of the empire could Papal Rome have come to power. The main protagonists as far as legislation in this rise to fame were Constantine and Justinian. And without the armies of the empire the three horns of the Heruli, the Goths, and the Vandals, whose beliefs on the Godhead were diametrically opposed to Rome's and their own armies a great threat, would never have been vanquished...or "plucked up by the roots"...and their so-called heretical beliefs buried and forgotten.
They do not teach "basic truth". Do you understand the base meaning of "Antichrist"? It doesn't simple mean 'opposition'...it is the means by which it opposes that is intrinsic to its identity that sets it apart. It opposes by replacing. By becoming a substitute. With that in mind, think about what you know of Catholic dogma, doctrine, and tradition, and ask yourself "do these things replace Christ in the minds and hearts of their followers'?
While they teach Jesus came as a man, they do not teach He came 'in the flesh'... "in the likeness of sinful flesh"...as scripture teaches. They teach He came from sinless/immaculate Mary. Thus they deny Jesus came in the flesh. And teaching Jesus is the Son of God is useless if they replace His efficacy as Saviour with a myriad of replacement saviours and gods such as Mary and numerous 'saints' and work related sacraments that all have their roots in Roman paganism.
Really? Not that I would disagree that there are genuine Christians within the Catholic system...but come to Christ through the RCC? I would suggest despite the RCC, not because or through.
