There is simply

 

a mountain of evidence 

to support a view 

of a false church right here.

And I aint talking about the one in Ethiopia,

The Magnificence of Aksum: 

Revisiting Ethiopian Civilization

"It is also during Ezana II that the translation of the Bible (the Old Testament) into Geez had begun although the completion of the translation, including the New Testament, took place during Kaleb. The reign of Ezana coincided with the official adoption of Christianity in the first half of the 4th century AD but there was no mass baptism as is usually taken for granted in some history books, and to be sure there were some Christian sects in Ethiopia as far back as the first century AD. The latter argument could be more palpable if we accept some theologian claim that St. Mark was in fact preaching in Ethiopia around the first half of the 1st century AD.  If we are not satisfied with this thesis, however, we may want to validate our argument based on some history and geography pertaining to the birthplace of Christ and the beginnings of Christianity in Rome and Ethiopia. If we accept that Rome became Christian in 312 AD and Ethiopia in 350 AD, the historical and geographical facts will not match. Ethiopia is closer to Bethlehem and Nazareth than Rome is and major religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam juxtaposed in Ethiopia. This never happened in the European context."

(Dude has a point yall.)

"Moreover, when the first Christian sects appeared in Ethiopia, Rome still professed paganism and it is for this simple reason that we must put the horse before the cart and not vice versa."

"After the Calcedonian Council in 451 AD, where schism occurred among Christians on the nature of Christ  (Christology) and where Ethiopia was represented by Ethiopian bishops, the Ethiopian Church evolved its own Monophysite doctrine and dogma whereby the Ethiopians maintained that Christ, despite his physical human attributes was altogether divine. And following the adoption of this doctrine, the Ethiopian Church (now incipient Orthodox denomination) grew dramatically in the 5th and 6th centuries AD along with the proliferation of monasteries. In most Eurocentric history books, the Syrian monks are considered as the founders of the Ethiopian monasteries and hence responsible for early evangelism in Ethiopia, but this is completely erroneous. A medieval Ethiopian book entitled Gedla Tsadkan (The Struggle of the Saints), states that the initial evangelical teachings were undertaken by 62 Ethiopian monks and priests and eight Syrian monks."

WHORE OF BABYLON

Reformation view

Historicist interpreters commonly used the phrase "Whore of Babylon" to refer to the Catholic Church. Reformation writers Martin Luther (1483–1546, author of On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church), John Calvin (1509–1564), and John Knox (1510–1572, author of The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women) taught this association.[40][41]

Most early Protestant Reformers believed, and the modern Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches, that in Bible prophecy a woman represents a church.[42][43] The connection noted on the seven hills of Rome is argued to locate the church.[44][45][46]

Identification of the Pope as the Antichrist was written into Protestant creeds such as the Westminster Confession of 1646. The identification of the Roman Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon is kept in the Scofield Reference Bible (whose 1917 edition identified "ecclesiastical Babylon" with "apostate Christendom headed by the Papacy"). An image from the 1545 edition of Luther's Bible depicts the Whore as wearing the papal tiara.[47][48]

Jerusalem

Biblical scholars such as Alan James Beagley, David Chilton, J. Massyngberde Ford, Peter Gaskell, Kenneth Gentry, Edmondo Lupieri, Bruce Malina, Iain Provan, J. Stuart Russell, Milton S. Terry[29] point out that although Rome was the prevailing pagan power in the 1st century, 

(When there were Christian sects in Ethiopia.)

when the Book of Revelation was written, the symbolism of the whore of Babylon refers not to an invading infidel or foreign power. It refers to an apostate false queen, a former "bride" who has been unfaithful and who, even though she has been divorced and cast out because of unfaithfulness, continues to falsely claim to be the "queen" of the spiritual realm.[30][31][32] This symbolism did not fit the case of Rome at the time.

(But it sure does fit The Catholic Church we see today.)