When still means that you are engaging in psychology, attributing motive to Luther's writing of the 95 theses, which is your fitting opinion,
You seem frighteningly able to ignore the fact that no one ever heard of (at least) a couple of the "Solas" (Insofar as the way the Reformation defined them) for fifteen hundred years before Luther showed up.
" Frighteningly able to ignore," how dramatic. But instead it seems you are frighteningly (to some) able to imagine that sola scriptura and sola fide are manifestly taught in the 95 theses, "the culmination of Luther's work to design a pseudo-Christianity." And even if one accepts your psychohistory babel, that this was the culmination of Luther's work in that regard is absurd.
All the speculation about some hidden strain of Protestantism that existed from the time of Christ is just so much wishful thinking on the part of those who will not tolerate themselves to be refuted, even if it's by their own standards.
Actually, the idea that the NT church was that of Rome with her distinctives is just so much wishful thinking on the part of those who will not tolerate themselves to be refuted by the supreme standard the NT church invoked, and thus seek to avoid it. Meanwhile, it was always a relative remnant that made of the only one true church of 100% believers, which exist in the admixtures of visible organic fellowships.
How does the NT Church "invoke" a standard that hasn't even been codified, let alone circulated, yet?
Furthermore, it seems abundantly clear, from the Corinthian letters if from nothing else, that what Scriptures they DID have and used had to be clarified by Apostolic authority (i.e. the Church) because of the easy descent into error when the sheep lack a tangible, conscious, shepherd.
Either way, the proposition that someone reformulating Christianity, under the rubric of "rediscovery" fifteen centuries after it's founding only makes sense to those desirous of making Christianity in their own image.