It didn’t take speed until the time of Constantine. he used it for political purposes, and helped it unite. anything not agreeing was considered Hersay,then during the Crusades many non believers were slain. People use people through fear or guilt. Most people were illeterate and just believes anything they were taught.
There are many religions even today that are older than Christianity, and they didn’t grow through missionaries, that could be even more remarkaible!
That is just your belief not a fact! Of course you are entitled to your own beliefs but it has no appeal or does it sound very good to me. You present your God as a terrible being (like the OT, who picks out some of his children and has his special ones kill them). Proves he is not a Good, or loving being.
You should preface each statement you make with the words “I believe…” 
And you should learn the difference between a belief and a verifiable fact.
I’m going to attempt to reboot this by rephrasing the above-
Assuming that there was a historical figure that we refer to as Jesus Christ and he taught & purported to do what the Gospels claim he did, what were his own thoughts about himself?
Did he really think he was the savior?
Did he really think he was the son of God?
Did he really think he performed all those “miracles”.
Did he really think that one day he was going to judge the entire planet and everyone who ever lived?
Or was he, as pkbites suspects, a con man who woke up every day and thought* “I can’t believe these suckers are falling for this crap!”.*
There- now we can dispatch with the hijack- “well, we don’t REALLY know what he claimed…” Deal with the Jesus we have. Don’t try to whittle him down.
Oh also, every statement on this is gonna be a belief or opinion. So stop hijacking the discussion with “Well, that’s your belief! You can’t prove it!” Of course it is! And of course we can’t!
You can’t even distill a coherent picture for what the Gospels say he claimed about himself. There are four different books with four different JC’s.
Assuming that those four Gospels are even the most believable out of all materials which could have been used. There’s a significant body of material outside of the Paulian tradition, which was suppressed as heretical. Much of this material appears to be based on the Jewish Christian tradition, and the church run by St James (until you get out to the post-Valentinian materials) – the people who actually met and talked to Jesus. The date of compilation may be later than Paul’s writings, but Paul as well admits that he only knows anything via magic, and all other materials were edited and censored to match Paul’s vision.
I think we can probably infer something from the fact that Paul claims the disciples - including Jesus’ own alleged brother, still kept kosher and followed Jewish law after the crucifixion. That would no appear to suggest a radical change in their religious views or a belief in a “new covenant.”
I think the Ebionites were probably closest to what the original movement was.
Since your statements were used, it is more than my belief. You have given no facts, facts can be proven by the person who has stated things as facts!
Jesus was a teacher, not God, not Savior, is not coming back, and had no thoughts of self glory. But what He taught is the most important thing we humans can learn, unconditional love. If you don’t try it you won’t feel it.
To affirm that, you have to disregard a huge chunk of teachings attributed to Jesus, be it from ‘orthodox’ sources (the NT) or ‘heretical’ ones (the Nag Hammahdi Scrolls). So let’s go back to my rephrase of the OP-
IF the NT gives us an accurate picture of what JC said & claimed to do, then was He delusional, a con man, a combination of the above? And was he well-meaning, self-serving or malicious?
Not enough evidence to say conclusively, surely?
Some specific verses suggest a kind of Old Testament pride and fury, such as driving the merchants out of the temple, shrivelling the fig tree, saying “You will always have the poor, but you will not always have me,” etc. These behaviors indicate certainty, which could indicate honest belief. If Isaiah and Jeremiah truly believed they were speaking God’s word, then it appears that Jesus truly believed in his own role as prophet.
If he truly comforted the Good Thief, crucified beside him, in the time of his own agony – then it definitely seems that he had true belief in his mission.
In the opinion of this atheist, then, Jesus was sincere. He was not deluded, not self-serving, not malicious.
I think he was “well-meaning” in the somewhat edgy way that most prophets were: their job was to give warning. “Keep this up, and God will forsake you!”
(Is Fred Phelps “well-meaning?”)
Trinopus
The historical figure in question is Jesus.
The religious symbol of a divine entity is the term “Christ”.
Therefore your question is meaningless.