08-26-2011, 07:15 AM
The empirical proof that he wasn't as influential/important at the time he was alive is, presumably, the lack of proof that he was. Certainly there are records from that time, as opposed to "records" from several hundred years later. That our "knowledge" of the man is based on those later records is evidence in itself.
Leanne is correct though--the points that were made by him/in his name are basically decent points. You're also correct even though you've actually missed the point. "the writings about him changed the world. that people thought him god changed the world." is correct. But the writings would still have been written even without him, and would still have changed the world, they'd simply have anointed someone else as the deity.
Leanne is correct though--the points that were made by him/in his name are basically decent points. You're also correct even though you've actually missed the point. "the writings about him changed the world. that people thought him god changed the world." is correct. But the writings would still have been written even without him, and would still have changed the world, they'd simply have anointed someone else as the deity.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."