[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Lets not go overboard here, and Jesus himself had nothing to do with bringing the cult forward. For over a thousand years, Christianity ruled the world with an absolute iron fist, where just doubting was seen as an offence punishable by torture or death.

Jesus himself had some interesting things to say about morality and how we should treat others, but nothing that hadn't already been said before by earlier philosophers like the Buddha.

What really pushed the cult forward were the people rising up and saying enough of this ****, and the bringing on of the enlightenment.

I didn't mean he was responsible for spreading the message. As we know he was killed for that and before he could do much. Tho he managed a small group of fiercely dedicated followers and as we know the rest is history.

I meant he modernized and updated the message with his teachings which later became the basis of New Testament. It was that (and his messianic status and death) what made Christianity into a new religion which slowly but surely caught on in the whole region.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

I didn't mean he was responsible for spreading the message. As we know he was killed for that and before he could do much. Tho he managed a small group of fiercely dedicated followers and as we know the rest is history.

I meant he modernized and updated the message with his teachings which later became the basis of New Testament. It was that (and his messianic status and death) what made Christianity into a new religion which slowly but surely caught on in the whole region.

I think it's indisputable that Judaism is a far more tolerant and peaceful religion than Christianity, and that's without Jesus' message and teachings, so the relevance of his more temperate "teachings" is overplayed. I wasn't making the point that he plagiarized anyone, although it's entirely possible; my point was that he didn't even say anything that new or revolutionary for his time.

I know your statement that he was mentioned in roman history was to LT, but he actually wasn't. There are no mentions of him in the literature from the time he was supposed to have lived, but there were a couple of forgeries that were added a later date to make it look as though he was a contemporary, Josephus being the best example of this.