Not quite, as Islam holds Mohammed to be above Jesus as a Prophet. That kind of precludes them from being Christian in my opinion.
Where do you get this idea? I mean Jesus is mentioned more in the Quran than any other person. Similarly the Quran regularly says that Muslims should make no distinction between Prophets, but that Allah sometimes gives more or less powers to individual prophets. Read more
here or
here
As for your quote from John, that wasn't a claim to divinity. Read the entirety of John, Chapter 8. It was a lengthy argument between Jesus and the Pharisees. In the verse you mentioned, that was Jesus responding to them that he had in fact seen Abraham because he had existed as God's Son for millennia before he came to earth. Obviously, I am way simplifying that chapter, but the context in which things are said matters.
That would make sense if he wasn't directly quoting Exodus 3:13-15 where God says his name is "I am". Similarly, throughout the chapter Jesus is saying "I am He" repeatedly. He also claims dominion over death, something that to Jews belonged only to God. No to me it is pretty clear that you have to be seriously misreading the Bible to think John doesn't claim Jesus is divine. Furthermore, from a historical context it doesn't make sense. The Bible was put together by the Council of Nicaea, as a distillation of the faith, this is why the Orthodox say that the Bible isn't supreme, the tradition is supreme, of which the bible is a part. And those Bishops wanted to very clearly portray their message, namely that Jesus was the Messiah, Son of God, and God. This is why they chose John to be in the Bible, specifically to explain the divinity of Christ.
But if you accept Christ as your savior (which is what I believe all Christians agree on) than that is it, your in as a Christian, all the rest are just personal extrapolations that gained followers.
I mean most Trinitarian Christians, read 90%+ of all Christians, believe that non-Trinitarians aren't Christian.
I think maybe what I just wrote is gnostic? I also think (I am pretty ignorant on this topic) that the follower types found these these gnostic guys threatening and pretty much wiped them out early on.
Gnostics as a group didn't really exist, or rather they were several related groups all of whom had often wildly different views. To say they were wiped out is sort of correct, but not very accurate. The early church considered them a threat however, with Nicaea they almost all died out, or only existed on the fringe. Most gnostic communities were dead by the 5th century, which is before paganism began to be persecuted officially by the state.
It took 1,700 years for the gnostic belief to finally return via the 'free will' doctrine of the American First Great Awakening, only to have that enlightenment result in new teams being formed anyway, who then once again started to argue over mere extrapolations. e.g. full immersion and the such.
I have no idea what this means. The Awakening's where explosions in Evangelical belief. If you mean that Born Again's are gnostic that makes little to no sense, as they feature none of the characteristics of Gnostic groups. Similarly it didnt take that long for Gnosticism to return, the Bogomils were Gnostic, the Paulicians were Gnostic, the Cathars were Gnostic, so historically it is just wrong
Can someone answer a question: is Luke the only gospel that mentions the 'virgin birth' or are there other references in the New Testament?
Matthew mentions it as well.