So Jesus was the founder of a severely manifest deformation of a religion? In other words, he was wrong. That’s pretty funny right there.
No, nor did he create logical fallacies which you employ, apparently reasoning that if a de-formation, then it means that this is what the Lord founded.
A deformation quite obviously took place and a church of is not what the apostles ministered in, while Rome's apostles are false ones, failing of both the qualifications and credentials. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12).
Yet the church as the body of Christ (Eph_1:22, Eph_3:10, Eph_3:21, Eph_5:23-2,27,29,32; Col_1:18,24, etc, the "one new man," "household of God." (Eph. 2:15,20) overcomes by faith, though the visible expression called the church has tares and wheat. Yet none of the 7 churches was told to submit to a supreme pope as a remedy, or a commendation, and which exalted supreme pope is also absent from all church epistles, as is a planned successor to Peter, who was the pastoral street level-leader among brethren.
Jesus didn’t come to begin ANY religion because religion doesn’t save, so there’s no point in religon.