It would kind of go against the preachings of peace and humility to go prancing around about being the true King. If he was called that, I'm pretty sure it wasn't by himself.
Well since you're the first person in history to find inconsistency with religious teachings, I guess that makes you either a heretic or a prophet. But whether he gave himself the title or others bestowed it on him doesn't matter. He was a heretic who became the figurehead of a religious order.
People should avoid using the new testament of the bible without outside supporting evidence when looking for the historical basis of the events. Everything that was included in there was agreed upon by leading Bishops and Emperor Constantine purely for political expedience. They wished to ensure that the christian religion was as homogeneous as possible so that the Roman Empire would not fracture apart into factions of religious infighting. That's the reason there is such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.
Why didn't anyone think of that before? Could've cleared up a lot of disagreements over the last 2 millenia. Seriously, I don't think the debate here is about history so much as it's about what's believable in the context of a medieval fantasy world. Someone on here earlier said that a heretic becoming the pope is totally implausible, but you only need to think about that statement for a few seconds, and know a little bit about any major religion, to see that it's a totally baseless argument.
