In a sense, I think maybe he is. They all were,.as is anyone who claims a seat of power in the name of Jesus, as a messiah, or as a savior.

Jesus never actually used the word and it's not even in Revelations.

The only place in the Bible that specifically uses the word "antichrist" is in the letters from John. He uses the word more as an adjective than a noun/ title. He says there will be an antichrist to come but there has already been many antichrists and there would be many in times to come.

He actually says a lot of things. He says the antichrists would come from within the church, that they would "come from 'us' and then go from 'us'", at one point he seems to imply that antichrist is simply a spirit at loose in the world that works in opposition to God and that those who deny the deity of Jesus are antichrists. He talks about spiritual liars and deceivers being of that spirit.

And that's where we get to all the popes and a great many clergy are actually operating in spiritual opposition to God and Jesus Christ. And have been for centuries. Ye-ouch.

The antichrist is one theological point that creates a lot of contradiction in the Bible. By John's definition, the Apostle Paul is also an antichrist even as he is the one who verified that very same divine intent that he later demonstrated opposition to. Or, he was made an antichrist after the fact by the canonization of his and John's letters as Holy Scripture long after their death. It depends upon your perspective.

The more modern theological decision to shift from utilizing the term antichrist to mean a basic spirit of opposition to God to being a single prophesied person who's going to be instrumental to the end times kind of salvages part of the quandary created by one of the Nicene conventions of text selection for canonization.

And of course, the modern insistence on the inerrancy of the Bible beyond all reason, just blows it all wide open again.