Yes he is considered a Prophet. Actually when Islam came, there were two theories of Jesus floating about, one that he was Divine, while the other was that he was just another Prophet (Arianism). Indeed, Islam spread in the areas where Arianism was mosts prevalent.

 

 

It has been suggested that Clovis, the first frankish king to be christianised, was in fact an Arian christian, rather than a heathen. And his conversion was from the 'false' faith to the 'true' faith. Arianism certainly lingered for quite some time in the west.

 

I do not think that Arianism contradicts the bible. After all, the bible had not been canonised until the 4th century. And I am not sure...does the bible actually explicitly state that Jesus was both human and God (as is the present doctrine)? For most later heresies were based on different opinions on the trinity, so about the divinity of Jesus... I would not be surprised if it was not too clear in the bible, or there would not have been so much controversy about it.

 

Interesting enough and according to what I read before, a significant number of Berbers tribes were Arians before Islam reached their homeland in northern africa. Many historians attribute that some berber tribes adopted Islam faster because of similarities of Arianism and Islam on the issue of Jesus non-divinity and human nature.

 

His reverance is high like any other prophet in the Islamic world

 

I refer to Islam because I assume you are referring to the changing of particular passages in the scriptures which allegedly refer to Muhammad as 'Ahmad" meaning "Praised one"??

 

Didn't Islam also have variant versions of the Quran which had to be destroyed too? Was that not an example of an executive order?

 

And there were no variants of the Gospel I might add, there were pseudigraphical books. They are not variants but unique books in their own right which were not regarded as divinely inspired and therefore non-canonical...but that depends on which sect you are, in which case, there are variant canons, but the books in those variant canons are not variants.

 

A variant is defined as a change of an original or a version.

 

The pseudigraphical books don't fit this definition thats why they are labelled as "pseudo-graphia" which implies "doubtful" authorship as many of these books claimed to be written by well known early Christians. They did not change the original versions of any canonical scripture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arians were an early Christian tendency in the 3rd century, who believed that Jesus Christ was created by God, and not identical with him, as opposed to the majority view held at the time, that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were one being in three manifestations.

The dictrine was first proposed by Arius, a bishop in Egypt, and found quite a large number of followers in the Roman Empire, and especially amongst Germanic tribes, the Vandals and the Goths were all Arian Christians.

During the council of Nicea in 325, summoned by Constantine I,  Ariansm was denounved as heretical and   Arius and his disciples were excommunicated, but the dispute went on for another couple of centuries or so.

The Nicaen creed, that formulated the Trinitarian doctrine, is still recognised by all major Christian Churches today.

 

Why then were they banned and Arius excommunicated?

 

There must have been something more than questionable authorship involved...

The earliest Qurans which have been discovered are identical to the present one. As has been pointed out time and again, the Quran has a numeric code, which gaurentees its authenticity.

Nothing divine, just a man made code (which was in common use elsewhere as well) to ensure that the content and the order remain the same.

 

Finally yes its true that the compilation of the Quran was done at a later date, and was an administrative action more than anything. But it was doen within the life time of most of the main protaganists. Except Muhammad.

 

Arius arians arya aryans? that sound similar no?

So muslims will consider all the jewish prophets as their own and all those followed them, be it christians or jews as believers and people of paradise.

 

Not just that but implicity acknowledge prophets that may have been sent to other peoples of whom there is little knowledge. What would be evident about these probable prophets is a call to monotheistic belief. I hope it helps.

 

Yes, it is solely a matter questionable authorship as the banned pseudigraphical books were written by Gnostics who were a dangerous sect in early Christian history. The Gnostics themselves "authored" books as a means to replicate the authority of the Petrine and Pauline letters.

 

A good recent example is the "Book of Judas" and the "Book of Barnabas". Muslims have used the latter in theological debates with Christians despite the fact that no Christian canon accepts the "Book of Barnabas".

 

An example of a variant Bible is the Jehovah's Witness' "New World Translation". Their ideas are more similar to Islam's. However, non-partisan Greek scholars have lambasted their translations of poor scholarship so make of it as you want.

 

Eg. They don't believe in the Trinitarian nature of God.

 

Eg. THey don't believe that Jesus is God.

 

Alawites are a Muslim group in Syria that are sometimes sarcastcally referred to as "little Christians" by other Moslems.   Syria has a significant number of Eastern Christians so it is not surprising that a form of Islam developed there that perhaps blended some Christian beliefs about Christ.

 

Is anybody here an Alawite?   If so, how do they view Christ?  

 

Mithras was a Persian God, he was always depiced with a persian cap (which looks a lot like a smurf hat) and a bull (which was part of his legend).

 

During the later years of the empire, the belief in the old gods was fading. People were looking for something more personal to believe in. There were various sekts or beliefs which provided for this need. Mithraism, Isisism and Christianity were the most popular ones. They have many similarities in appearance, as the shared meal, the need to be included into the group by a ritual and the need to study to further belief. So not all Romans were Mithraic.

 

Oh and to be somewhat on topic, the Vandals and Berbers were not Arians per se, they were mostly Donatists, who believed that impure (reverted) priests couldn't perform their duties anymore. And actually as I understand it the Berbers were the only peoples in North Africa that actually gave the muslims a decent challenge?

 

Muslim means believer or to commit to surender to God. so they mean he is an profit(muslims call all prophets muslim)

 

The factor in the middle east well I think the middle east will allways be a conflict zone. If it is religion, oil, cultural difference. The most people are arabfied.