The Bible is not the end all be all of the Latin and Greek languages. You wanted to draw a false connection between both words, you even said the pope’s followers already knew this.
I don’t need a bible to know what a vicar is. You know darn well the idea is to vilify to equate a person to the devil. If you are insincere even about that fact you think I’m going to give any weight to what you say?
2 John 1:7 says that many deceivers are the antichrist. So I don't try to equate the antichrist with "the Devil". So your claim that this is my idea is wrong. Maybe you will apologize?
Also, I gave you not what I say, but what the Greek says. Do Greek definitions mean anything to anyone? Maybe the answer is "no". Are Greek definitions "laughable"? Let's see.
Try looking at a
The New Strong's Complete Dictionary of Bible Words. Try the entry for Greek word 499,
antitupon which means "representative, or counterpart". Now you said "anti" obviously always means "against". But in Greek, that's not true. I'm sure you noticed the prefix,
anti in
antitupon.
Does that mean your assertion was wrong? Yes.
What about that prefix? Look at Strong's entry 473,
anti, :"instead or because of (rarely "in addition to")...
Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
What happened to your claim that "anti" always means "against"?
Notice that
anti is the prefix in
antichristos which is translated "antichrist". As we have seen, the locus of meaning in the underlying Greek word can be any of those uses of
anti (Strongs 473).
Look up
anti in your copy of
A Greek Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich. What is the first and primary entry for
anti? What does it say?
1. in order to indicate that one person or thing is, or is to be, replaced by another instead of, in place of...Mt 2:22, "in place of his father Herod" ...Lk 11:11, instead of a fish, a snake [and tons of other examples from the NT and other period Greek writings].
Does that remind you of the meaning of the Latin,
Vicarus Christi? It means, "a person acting in the place of Christ". The connotation, by itself, is neutral. The same could be said of any Greek word prefixed with
anti as in
antitupon. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing depends upon the context. John The Apostle uses
antichristos numerous times and the context requires a negative connotation.
So, is "against Christ" as an interpretation of antichrist actually indicated by the Greek
antichristos according to the lexica? Unless the context of usage says otherwise, the answer is "no".
What can we observe in a New Testament context? From John's letters, opposition can be implied by the fraudulent aspect of an ersatz representation of Christ or of doctrines pertaining to His person and work. But ersatz by itself isn't necessarily opposed, merely a cheap copy. But as a FAKE, it could be in opposition as in its "subversive" effect. The FAKE (person or information) is made to look like the original. So people might say, the
Vicarius Christi is LEGIT. But is he? That is the question hanging in the air with antichrist (
antichristos). Is he (or the doctrines about Him) LIVE or is he MEMOREX? John says people are deceived by
antichristos. So if as you claim, antichrist is obviously opposed to Christ, where is the deception in that? The opposition comes in his being believed to be genuine. Do people believe
Vicarius Christi is a legitimate representative? Will people believe that
antichristos is a legitimate representative or even the article Himself?
This is why people wonder, legitimately, if the Pope, or a future Pope, could be the (or an)
antichristos (but not "the Devil") because the locus of meaning overlaps so perfectly with the Latin,
Vicarius Christi.
quod erat demonstrandum
Does this make me anti-Catholic? No. There are hordes of FAKE protestant ministers and self-appointed "apostles", too numerous to count. Does acknowledging that make me anti-protestant? No.