More than that, both you and I were discussing Jesus and Mohammed. For Mohammed you can get sources on him from the Koran, the Hadithas, and being a historical warlord there are likely going to be some Byzantine and Sassanid sources regarding him.
As for Christ, if you are going to discuss the actions of our Lord, I'd be interested to know which sources outside of the Scriptures Nektarios is using. I use Sola Scriptura when discussing the earthly life of Christ because it is the only source I know of (as well as some Traditions of the Church - e.g. Christ's presence smashing the idols in Egypt). Nonetheless, the New Testament is the largest, most complete set of information regarding the life of Christ that I know of, so it is what I use. Information regarding our Lord from Suetonius and Tacitus is a bit too scant.
Actually there are a wide variety of sources about Mohammed. That's what makes the book Hagarism so interesting. Nonetheless it is unfair to compare an idealized Christianity to actual Islam. If your thesis is that Christ rejected violence and terror, that would put you are direct odds with the history of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church has liturgical services dedicated to bloody tyrants. So if you are going to argue against Islam with that tactic, you are just as strongly arguing against historic Christianity.
But I could argue against Mohammed being a peaceful religious leader on his own merits, without even getting into the actions of his followers - past and present. The same could not be done regarding Christ. In all of the Scriptural and Historical evidence, and Traditions of the Church, I doubt you could name one city that Christ and his Disciples sacked.
So you are arguing that sola scricturists are the true heirs of Christ and not the Orthodox Church.
Oh no, I am arguing three things - first that Mohammed was a warlord. I think historical evidence can back this up. Sure, we'd have to define the term "warlord", but I think most accepted definitions would suffice and would prove me correct in this assertion. Second, I am arguing that Christ was not a warlord. Once again, I believe that using all accepted definitions of "warlord", Christ would not fit this description.
Third, I am arguing that there are scant written sources on the life of Christ. I am arguing that the four canonical Gospels contain the most reliable, and are the largest source by volume, regarding the life of Christ. All other sources - Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, and various inscriptions are minor in comparison to the Gospels. Likewise, I do not accept any of the Gnostic Gospels, or other heretical (or at least non-canonical) writings to be worth discussing. If the various Traditions of the Church regarding the life of Christ were compiled into one written source they would be a valuable source, but I do not have access to any such compilation, so I have to use what I have.
Since I am a reasonable person, if you can provide ANY historical examples that would show Christ to be a conqueror in the same manner as Mohammed I would be interested to hear them. Fortunately for me, I don't think they exist, seeing as that such a claim would be exceptionally blasphemous.
And as a final point, I believe that you are trolling me - seeing as that you have skirted the issue entirely, up to this point. If so, I recognize this to be in response to me trolling you on another thread. So - good game. If you would like, you can just whistle the Horst Wessel Lied and I will admit to being a Sola Scripturist, then we will both have won. (FWIW, I would be lying to admit such a thing, just as I'm sure that you are not actually a member of the NSDAP.)