Reasonably written from a historical perspective, but it's missing a few points:

1)

The 'monotheistic' religions, particularly Christianity and Buddhism (though Buddhism is not exactly 'monotheistic' it's not 'pantheist' in the classical sense) - represented a fundamental shift from pantheism.

It's wrong to claim that 'Pantheism = many gods' and 'Monotheism = one god'. This the literal meaning, but it's not remotely accurate.

Pantheistic gods were almost always a soap opera of 'super human like' people who loved, fought and interacted with each other like a superior cast of beings.

'Pray to me and I'll smote your enemy'

'Give me offerings or I'll hurt you'.

Montheism wasn't just about having 'one god' - monotheistic religions were about ideas not so much rites and rituals (as mentioned in the article). Particularly - monotheistic religions required moral and conscientious behaviour.

Jesus had only two commands: 'Love God and love one another'. In a more secular sense that could be 'Recognize the divine and knowing that - do your best with what you have to make the world a better place'.

Buddhists are required to be 'more enlightened' and more civilized people lest they be reincarnated as animals, if they want to 'escape the cycle of reincarnation'.

Christian and Buddhist religions centre around moral philosophies at least in terms of how they apply to the real world.

The Christian God is not a 'bearded buy in the sky' (even though he is often presented as such). He's 'unknowable' and completely transcends our understanding. 'I am that I am'. This is not like the Greek gods who all have very tangible attributes and are mostly interested in human like things - i.e. power.

Similarly, though Buddhists are technically 'atheists' in that they don't have a 'God' per say - they do have a kind of 'monotheism' in that they present very specific ideals of 'nothingness' etc.. They definitely present a metaphysical construct for us. And it's not a bunch of angry super-dudes.

Monotheism is a huge leap forward in terms of our metaphysical evolution.

2)

It's not fair to use the word 'exclusive' so many times in this text.

The most powerful element of Christianity is that it was open to anyone. For the first time slaves were equal to kings. This was a very, very powerful idea, and obviously scared the bananas out of the elite.

Status and class were clearly delineated in terms of class in Greek mythology. Higher status = more 'godliness'. That's an artifact of human culture ... but it's rejected in Christianity (and Buddhism).

Your 'status' in Christianity is dependant on how good you are, not 'how much money you have'. For the first time, you couldn't just buy your way out of bad deeds (at least in theory, obviously not in practice, quite often).

Christians were the first international solidarity movement. They were the first 'social movement of equal peoples'. The first to feed the poor as moral action, not just a political action. Moreover - they were organized. What the article failed to mention was that Constantine had a political motivation to be Christian because he could leverage the international network of organized and efficient non-state bureaucracy that the Christians had. Their 'system' had efficiency on some level - and authenticity.

A strict historical articulation of the facts, I think fails to illustrate what it was that made Christianity so widespread.

I think the key to understanding is that 'common era' religions such as Christianity and Buddhism are completely unlike their predecessors.