Quote Originally Posted by PFH
You can argue the Gospels are just wrong but you can't read them and see the things you're pointing to.
That's true. It's still a historically legitimate argument though.
Well, there is no "historical Jesus" outside the Gospel
1. He existed (?)
2. He was crucified

The second is already a lot to go by and enough for a historical overview of Jesus the man.

Of the three things you brought up I'd say 1 and 3 are tied together. It was the question in 3 that sealed his fate iirc.
By the Temple, not by Rome.
Here's where I believe you're wrong. Jesus wasn't stoned to death like Stephen, he was crucified by Rome. This was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one. I see what you're saying but in the grand scheme of things it was the Romans that allowed this to happen and decorated it with their marks - the crux.

I actually agree that it was more a rebellion against the "imperial prefecture" and temple authorities than Rome, but in hindsight this was a crime against the state and was treated like one.
For the Twelve Tribes, obviously. He's also called Joshua in Hebrew and his tour of Palestine roughly tracks with the route Joshua took when he conquered Israel. This does not make Jesus a revolutionary against Rome
Isaiah 11:11-16 so I don't look like I'm taking things out of context.
And I made the point that Muhammed fights wars of conversion, or more accurately he sends armed forces to destroy idles and demand submission to Islam from non-aligned tribes, and if they resist there is fighting.
Makkah was the mission. We know for Meccans started the war and denied pilgrimage. Conversion wasn't as important as you'd think, there were way too many fake conversions that led to betrayals. Muhammad destroyed the idols in Makkah after occupying it, this is true. You can criticize the origins of Islam as being immoral or whatever but it's very clear that Muslims won the moral high ground in their approach to governance and warfare.
there are still a fair number of armed expeditions to demand submission or to destroy idles after the fall of Mecca, it is hard to argue these are truly "defensive".
The usual post-occupation endeavors. Muhammad, even before Islam, was known for the "Abrahamic way" of life. Meaning no idols.
You very clearly tried to deflect my from this point by saying it's "not in scripture".
"Well, if it's a sacred and inviolable text then presumably it all happened as described. Which means the Prophet married a 9-year-old girl "

This is what you said. I then made it clear that this is not in scripture like you seem to have implied.