Battle of the Books: Bible and Koran discussion

[AE Bravo]

That he made powerful enemies and offended people, yes, that he engaged in Sedition - not necessarily.

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.

You are engaging in historical revisionism

It's already there. I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. Nothing special at all but facts are facts.

Incorrect - Pilate's own house as governor was in Caesarea

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.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Lestae means bandit, which was synonymous with "insurrectionist" for Rome.

Just because the Jewish scribes believed God ordained something doesn't automatically make it true, so the argument goes.

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.

I would say the Golden Age of Islam

Harun Al Rashid's reign generally gets that title. It's a misleading idea. What's the golden age of Christianity?

that doesn't make it a religion of peace because I believe such a religion should preach peace to the exclusion of violence and Islam, contrary to that, quite literally wrote the book on how to conduct Holy War for a monotheistic God.

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.

I don't believe you can argue for pacifism from within Islam because the Prophet made war in the name of God

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.

If you look at Jesus' mortal life it was an abject failure, his Cult only begins to grow under the combined leadership of Peter and Paul after his death.

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.

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.

Well, let us be honest - the earlier the Haddith the younger she is.

Ok. But what's the deal? There must be a point to this.