Quote Originally Posted by HitWithThe5 View Post
What kind of logic is that? Crucifixion was a direct result of sedition, this is a historical fact. On paper and as far as we know, he engaged in sedition. Obviously the Gospel would stand against that entire idea.

It's already there. I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. Nothing special at all but facts are facts.
You are completely ignorant of the concept of false accusation?

He was accused of sedition, that doesn't make him guilty of it - it also doesn't mean Pilate believed it - just that he sentenced him.

Antonia fortress, west corner of the Temple Mount. The temple was swarming with Roman soldiers so it was an abomination not only because of its corruption but also for embracing the Roman occupation. Herodian elite were Hellenized Jews, considering "we have no king but Caesar!" Jesus clearly was against this marriage and rightfully so.
Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonia_Fortress

Not the site of the Praetorium, also not actually part of the Temple, just connected to it.

Messiah means descendant of King David, here to reestablish David’s kingdom on earth (hence twelve tribes/apostles), usher in the rule of god. This is treason plain and simple, and it’s why previous so-called messiahs were executed as well. Jesus was making huge claims for himself and this threatened the imperial prefecture.
"Messiah" means "annointed one" Jesus became a Messiah (note "A" and not "The") after John the Baptist "anointed him" in the river Jordan. Jesus claimed to be a "Messiah", i.e. a leader anointed by God but NOT an earthly King. A Pro-Roman, or even apathetic, religious leader for the Jews would potentially be attractive to Pilate, as opposed to the expected Messiah whome the Jews believes would lead a revolt.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Lestae means bandit, which was synonymous with "insurrectionist" for Rome.
A "bandit" is essentially someone who "disturbs the peace". The thing about that though is that you can apply it to any Gentile within the Imperium Romanum and Pilate's loaned Imperium (via Tiberius) allowed him to summarily execute anyone not a Roman Citizen for "breaking the peace".

But the initial point is things go however god wills. Since you believe that the prophet and god's intentions can't be separated than the prophet is absolved of his actions. Or we could just go with his enemies are inherently evil because they chose war over god.
Well - theologically speaking - opposition to God is the definition of evil. Of course, what God wills and what Man writes about God's will don't have to match. Judaism, Christianity and Islam can't all be right - two of them must be wrong and in opposition to God's will, or a poor reflection of it at best.

Harun Al Rashid's reign generally gets that title. It's a misleading idea. What's the golden age of Christianity?
His reign would fall within the accepted Western Definition of the "Islamic Golden Age".

As to a "Christian Golden Age" there is no such concept because Christianity isn't the defining cultural feature of "Christian" societies.

Last I checked all of them do, not just Islam. Qur'an references early struggle, doesn't ask you to emulate it since no Muslim should live through it again unless they are endangered in their own holy sites again.
Try to find references to "Holy War" in Christian theology before the Islamic invasions - I'm betting you won't find any until the Eastern Romans have to fight Muslims. In fact, Holy War is only really a concept in Western Latin Christianity following the Crusades.

This is how the first Muslim ushered in the rule of god in a barbarian society. Throughout history there were Muslim societies built in a way that subverts that, so Islam is infinitely malleable and not definable in that sense just like every other scripture. Saying it's a religion of peace is equally as true as saying it's a religion of revolution for example.
This is precisely why I have said that Christianity, as taught by Jesus in the Gospels, is a religion of peace. Modern Roman Catholicism is emphatically not a religion of peace, it has a whole theology devoted to the justification of war.

No love for James? I remember that Paul was responsible for the big departure from the original message, maybe for the better but still I don't see how you can credit Jesus when Paul basically reinvented his teachings based on the big claims he made for himself.
I am not a fan of Paul - particularly his views on woman and sex which have been picked up by the Roman Catholics especially. However, it remains true that Paul was instrumental in shaping the early Church whilst James was far more important during Christ's life than after.

My point is that prophets like Jesus failed because they did not have the capability or were willing to step out of the pacifist circle of prophets to join the king circle. Muhammad learned from these mistakes and acted accordingly considering his society had spoken, wanted his rule en masse, and the majority was open for reform. He seized the initiative but sacrificed the purity that's attached to many prophets that were poorer or lower in their social hierarchies. Basically Muhammad started out rich, while Jesus was a (materially) powerless man from the backwoods of some village that wasn't even on the map.
You see this as Muhammed's virtue, I see it as his mistake and that is what divides Christians and Muslims and defines many of the differences between us.

Ok. But what's the deal? There must be a point to this.
Well, partly the point was to reach agreement on the point. The reason I brought it up originally was to demonstrate that Muhammed is generally accepted to have done things in his private life that we today find distasteful.

Which is, I hasten to add, distinct from being morally wrong.