[BenKenobi]

“The article represents the historical view of people ignorant of, or revisionist of, peoples who came through history from Byzantania”

You mean the Roman Empire. Y’know the same place that hosted the Councils of Constantinople, Nicaea, Ephesus, etc.

“the Caucuses”

You mean Armenia, the first Christian nation? Since about 400AD.

“Eastern Europe”

You mean the Serbians, Romanians, Greeks? All Romans.

“the Alps”

Romans.

“northern Europe”

Romans again.

“British Isles”

Also Roman. All of these places were, for most of their history, with the possible exception of Armenia, both Roman and Catholic. The division of the Faith into West and East, did not exist in the beginning.

‘Biblicist never connected with Rome’

Horsehockey.

“There were Christians who had never heard of such a thing as a pope (there was NO pope until the 4th century”)

According to whom? You? There were Popes from St. Peter onwards.

“Biblicist Christians from the first century”

If by Biblicist you mean Catholic, then Yes, this is true.

[John Leland 1789]

Yours is the expected Roman Catholic revisionist reply. Not impressive. It only sees history as revised and approved to prop up Vaticanism. We do understand that it comes from the ridiculous fallacy of Catholicism beginning in Matthew 16:13-19, a teaching designed to say that there was nothing but Catholicism from the beginning of Christianity.

Yeah, we already know. We know. Yeah, ...uhhuh, we know. We've heard it all——Vatican approved revisionist history. It takes a lot of very fancy medieval art work caricaturizing truth and history.