If you can't believe Moroni visited Joseph Smith, how can you believe Gabriel visited Mohamaad in a cave? Do you believe in Christ as Savior or not?
And yet you call yourself a Christian. Exactly who wrote what in the New Testament is still an unsettled matter. Indeed the very existence of Jesus as a real historical figure is contested with no fool proof way to settle the matter once and for all. In fact the whole of the Christian Bible needs to be taken on faith as there is so very little in the way of corroborating evidence. If any.
So where's the proof? Point me to the verifiable source and I'll happily read it if I can. I've never seen any proof at all that Jesus actually existed. And yes scholars do still debate over who wrote what in the Bible. So what part is not true?
The Roman historian Tacitus mentions a Christos who was executed on the orders of Pontius Pilato. Josephus wrote that it was the execution of James, brother of Jesus, the wise man and teacher that sparked the Jewsih Revolt.
Indeed. However I don't think he ever mentions the name Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Christianity Christos, Christ. It's a title. Not a name. Jesus was also called The Lamb of God, the light of the world, the Alpha and the Omega. All of which are titles used for used for several other deities.
The filioque clause has to do with the phrase "who proceeds from the father and the son" rather than "who proceeds from the father" when describing the holy spirit. It has nothing to do with whether the son or the holy spirit are part of the trinity, or whether or not the members of the trinity are a single being. Historically, from at least the 5th century, the Catholic church held that the holy spirit proceeds eternally from the father and the son, although sometimes the addition of the phrase was objected to on traditional grounds (i.e. the creed hadn't been traditionally said that way), rather than theological grounds.
From the creed "Born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father" the old translation used to say "eternally begotten of the Father" instead of "Born of the Father before all ages".
Yeah because it is not like people can form a group to fleece people out of money or that eyewitness testimony is the least credible evidence there is.... The "11 witnesses" evidence is some of the weakest ever. Every con man in history can produce witnesses to his honesty - when that is all there is and the said individuals other actions reveal him to be a criminal a liar and a fraud then the "origin" story becomes absolutely meaningless