The Bible?, historical acocunt or a political agenda Options

[sadolakced acid]

the Bible hasn't been "revised" for a good 2200 years or so after the dead sea scrolls were discovered.  scholars checked the manuscripts from these scrolls and compared them with the Bible and found them to be nearly 98~99% accurate, with only minor errors involving "a"s and "an"s, and other small grammatical errors.  note that these scrolls were found 50 years ago, so the Bible hasn't been touched from 20 BC up till 1950s, and I doubt it hasn't been touched from then.

right...

so the dead sea scrolls are in english?
and what about the missing books of the bible that were found in the scrolls?

[*kryogenix*]

right...

so the dead sea scrolls are in english?
and what about the missing books of the bible that were found in the scrolls?

The dead sea scrolls were Jewish texts...

[sadolakced acid]

The dead sea scrolls were Jewish texts...

and the modern bible... is in hebrew?

right... it's really word for word. And there is the controversy of the left- out books of the bible that were found in the dead sea scrolls, no? that information hasn't been fully released, but is not there text in the dead sea scrolls they can't find in the modern bible? perhaps it was never part of the bible, we don't know yet. but it probably was part of the bible, and was purposefully or accidentally excluded. I wonder why....

[ichigofan]

The book added to the canin is The Book of Revelations Written supposedly by John.

edit//

There is no actual proof that the Bible itself is true, It is based on the Gospels of Peter, Paul, John and other apostles of jesus christ. It is believed that a group of greco-roman leaders found the gospels and picked the ones that suited best, For example the gospels of John the youngest apostle and closest follower of Jesus Christ reflect jesus' supernatural like qualities for example the story of lazarus. This was used to the leaders advantages because during this time Jesus christ followers were beginning to become distant from the countries belief and stopped "donating" money to the state which they believed was due to jesus' "human" like qualities so the gospels of john were used to show how his father "god" gave him "magical" qualities and that he was not just a prophet but in a way god himself. So I do believe that the bible is full of propaganda but I also believe it is a fairy tale book that hides the truth. Its just up to us to differentiate truth with fiction which this country has not yet done so.

[antix10_kos]

religion threads are tiring...

It's all choice....you can keep loving someone even though they don't love you, will never love you, or because the love is forbidden. Love can twist, bend, break....all sorts of things. Love is.....confusing....

Why can God be angry but people can't???

That's a good question. I think it's because anger inspires many sinful acts. I don't think that anger was actually made a sin because it's universally wrong as much as it was made a sin because it makes people lose control and commit acts that are indeed quite wrong. Such as murder, rape, etc.

So why is that God expects to be loved because He gave us His love?

Another excellent question. I always believed that it wasn't really God who wanted all of this love....but the church and authority figures over time who have continually used God's love as tool to control their subjects. God wants you to pay taxes, sacrifice your children, give your land, die...etc. Eventually, the truth of a loving God was erased and replaced by a semi-truth of a selfish God who only loves if you love his so-called "chosen" servants here on Earth. It's not so much that God expects to be loved because he loves as much as his servants have changed his love into something that it's not, which is human. Humans give love and take it away, if God really exists and is such a sentient being, then God wouldn't expect anything in return....even love....

Scenerio A:
I love someone. There is no punishment for not loving him. I can freely come and go as I please. This is free will. The freedom to choose is not constraint by any means of pain and punishment. I make the choice to love him because there is no reason not to.

No problem there, in my opinion. You make the choice, control the choice and own the choice.

Scenerio B:
I love someone. There is a punishment for not loving him. I have the freedom to choose to love him or not to love him, but I am constrained by the knowledge that there is punishment if I choose the latter. Is this true love, or forced love? Can it be called love at all? In this case, I would choose to not love this man. Why? Because I would rather be punished and retain my freedom then to give up my freedom for something I fear.

Well, then, that is not true love. That is love by fear. Love by fear is great for controlling people. If there is always a harsh consequence for not loving someone, then you will love them or at least pretend to love them to keep from facing those consequences. In my opinion, you are not free if you stay with this person. You are living in fear of this person. This scenario could easily be twisted into a reason to believe in God, a justification if you will....I choose to believe because I would rather repent and pray and go through my life with my beliefs and my supposed free will than give it up and be proven wrong at the end....however, it can also be used as someone's perspective on why NOT to believe....why give into fear when you have a choice??? Perplexing...

But again, why do Christians do it when God doesn't like it?

It's not the God doesn't like it, it's that his servants realise that it is easier to manipulate people who will pray passively than those who will actually be strong and fight back. I just watched a movie called "Uprising" the other day, about Jews in the Polish ghetto who tired of the Nazis and decided to stop praying and start fighting. It's easy to dream and pray, not so easy to fight. They fought because they knew that their chances of survival were meager anyway, so why not die with honor???

[_suzie_]

ok ok ok ok.......calm it a second

Some posts imply that the dead sea scrolls arent a part of the bible or whatever...Well, they arent the ONLY unincluded parts of the bible that exist.

The unincluded scriptures are called the Nag Hammadi gospels, or, the Gnostic gospels. and there are over 90 unincluded AUTHENTIC gospels, that were not chosen to be in the new testament. Only four were: mark, matthew, luke, and john. Constantine, Roman emperor who compiled the books of the bible, chose only these four. who knows why, but Constantine himself was a Pagan. Remember those halo's above angels' heads? yep, they originated with the Egyptian god Ra.
any Christians out there who attend mass on sundays, u ever noticed the ankh symbol on the candels? yeh, thats egyptian too. pause for thought.

The gnostic gospels are very interesting, and i recommend any Christian who considers themselves a true Christian should give them a read and make their own judgements on them. Anyone who has ever studied religion at school or University , and has had to gather critical analysis (quotes) from texts, and have been given handouts, may have come across religious leaders refering to the book 'Q'. yet are not taught what this book is.

This is the book kept locked away and will never be published. only the cardinals and pope may read/interpret it. this is very selfish of them in my opinion. they should share the teachings of this book with humanity, but dont because it will ruin their situation of power.

Q - the name given to the teachings Jesus wrote down. Who has ever heard of a teacher, preacher, philosopher who hasnt written their wise words down? exactly. The church has admitted this exists.

i dunno like. the corruption within the church breaks my heart. its disgusting.

heres a link to a site that has the gnostic scriptures listed and uploaded:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

I was a sceptic at first. i still am , and i dont take all words of any one text as the total truth. you have to question you faith to make it stronger.

interpret for yourselves.dont let an institution and its manmade laws stand between you and God.

[*kryogenix*]

the gnostic books, which I believe are called the Apocrypha, are books not deemed to be canonical by the Catholic church.

some of these books are heresy.

I asked my religion teacher when I was in eigth grade about the gospel of thomas. if I remember correctly, I said that in the Apocrypha, specifically the Gospel of Thomas, there is a claim that Jesus killed another boy for destroying an earthen dam that he made. is this true? My teacher said that the Apocryphal books were not only heretical but lacked credibility. He told me that Thomas was younger than Jesus, and could not have possibly witnessed Jesus doing this. And that Thomas was a doubter, if you recall his reaction after Jesus death.

In summary, the Apocryphal books are heretical and incredible.

[Spirited Away]

the gnostic books, which I believe are called the Apocrypha, are books not deemed to be canonical by the Catholic church.

some of these books are heresy.

I asked my religion teacher when I was in eigth grade about the gospel of thomas. if I remember correctly, I said that in the Apocrypha, specifically the Gospel of Thomas, there is a claim that Jesus killed another boy for destroying an earthen dam that he made. is this true? My teacher said that the Apocryphal books were not only heretical but lacked credibility. He told me that Thomas was younger than Jesus, and could not have possibly witnessed Jesus doing this. And that Thomas was a doubter, if you recall his reaction after Jesus death. 
In summary, the Apocryphal books are heretical and incredible.

So because Thomas was a doubter, he is not credible?

[*kryogenix*]

So because Thomas was a doubter, he is not credible?

well, if you think that his gospel belongs to the bible, yeah that discredits him. if he didn't know Jesus well enough, why should we trust his word?

[sadolakced acid]

provide links to support your so called facts, or whatever those paragraphs were.  dont expect me to go on google to find it on my own time.  if you want to make assumptions, provide back up as you assume along.  and before you respond with "well if you wanna defend yourself, you have to look it up", remember that you posted a debate with out a reference.  so for all i know, you could've just made up stuff.

im not flaming you, just making a conversation.

im for the Bible.  Torah kicks ass.

the catholic church has made it impossible to get the text of the dead sea scrolls.

anyways; here's your links:

http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...radictions.html

here's an excerpt from the second link of bible verses.

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

enjoy. (and i could care less if you were for the bible. )

[*kryogenix*]

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/morgand03.html

I've posted this link before, it's Bible Inconsistencies answered.

And some of those verses you posted are taken out of context.

[Spirited Away]

ok mr hostile,

Well that was uncalled for Mr. Acid is just 'making conversation' as well. You asked him to provide sources, so he did. Whether or not you're convinced by them is rather trivial. After all, Christians are unconvinced about a lot of things non-Christian, just like the Church was unconvinced about Galileo and the spherical earth. To be fair, non-Christians are also unconvinced about things Christian.

No need for name calling.

as for contradictions, well it took us sometime to figure out the world was round...understadning every single thing in the bible... hey we'll get there someday.

Also, if you still haven't understand contradictions in the Bible yet, don't be surprised if non-Christians don't understand them either. But that's usually why non-Christians are unconvinced, it's because we don't understand. Or at least, I don't understand.

[Spirited Away]

thus mr. hostile.  sorry.

He could care less because of what I said. It's trivial. You won't convince him and he won't be able to convince you. But he did do as you asked and provided sources. It's all good though.

[*mipadi*]

It's not surprising that Christian texts would be politically motivated; much of Christianity has been influenced by politics. This goes back to its very beginnings.

In ancient Rome, Christianity was in direct conflict with the cult of Mithras, which was remarkably similar to Christianity in several ways, most notably that it was one of the few religious cults that preached of the possibility of salvation. Mithraism came first, followed shortly by Christianity, which adopted many of Mithraism's practices. A perfect example is the celebration of Christmas: it's widely accepted that Jesus was born not around December 25, but rather in the early summer; however, since Mithraism had a huge celebration around December 25, Christianity moved their biggest celebration to this time, as well. This is but one example of Christianity adapting and evolving to become more appealing to the masses (Mithraism was one of Rome's more popular cults). There are many other examples, including:

The cult surrounding Mithras had many similarities to the early cult of Christianity. Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day. His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ He was supposed to have been born of a virgin. For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles. Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. In particular, Mithras's birth was celebrated on December 25 and his followers practiced baptism.

(From Mithras on Wikipedia.)

[sadolakced acid]

some of the verses are out of context. not all.

and you're right. i used a bad source. i used bible quotes.
after all, i can't use the actual bible to tell you it's wrong. i have to get a priest or a bishop, becuase i'm too stupid to intereperate the bible... right?

[*kryogenix*]

It's not surprising that Christian texts would be politically motivated; much of Christianity has been influenced by politics. This goes back to its very beginnings.

In ancient Rome, Christianity was in direct conflict with the cult of Mithras, which was remarkably similar to Christianity in several ways, most notably that it was one of the few religious cults that preached of the possibility of salvation. Mithraism came first, followed shortly by Christianity, which adopted many of Mithraism's practices. A perfect example is the celebration of Christmas: it's widely accepted that Jesus was born not around December 25, but rather in the early summer; however, since Mithraism had a huge celebration around December 25, Christianity moved their biggest celebration to this time, as well. This is but one example of Christianity adapting and evolving to become more appealing to the masses (Mithraism was one of Rome's more popular cults). There are many other examples, including:

(From Mithras on Wikipedia.)

so what christian text points to december 25 then? i don't see the connection here.

[*mipadi*]

Many of Christianity's core beliefs have been altered in order for political reasons. I'm sayin that it's not inconceivable to deduce that the same coud have been done to texts such as the Bible.

[*suddenly she*]

The key is that only the righteous have a "right" to be angry. Appropriately, this is called "righteous indignation." There are rare cases where we are angry for the right reason: when we hear someone make racist remarks, lie to destroy another's reputation, or witness a heinous crime. However, none of us is truly righteous: we do wrong things, too. Given our own sins, we are in no position to judge, and righteous anger implies a kind of judgment, at least of an action. We aren't called to stand high above other people but with them. We fail, and we desire compassion and patience from others.

Many times, our anger over situations is not due to the situations' actual morality, but is because they conflict with our own ideas about what is good. And our ideals are not always God's. A good deal of self-examination is required: why am I really angry? Is God angry about this? If not, do I claim to be more righteous than God?

This may be the most helpful idea in dealing with anger: is God angry about it? We had better know God very well, though, or we may simply make God in our own image and then have Him bless everything we do.

So, righteous anger is simply a matter of agreeing with God over serious matters. However, God really doesn't need our anger, so something more productive is called for: action on behalf of good. In all the Gospel, Jesus spent almost no time being angry, and in each case it was very short lived. If we are angry often, it is most probably not righteous anger.

Lastly: if we believe we should be angry because we want to agree with God, then are we also compassionate for the same reason? Do we agree agree with His mercy? Do we genuinely try to follow the full Gospel or do we pick and choose? Are we prepared to humble ourselves for the sake of others as Jesus did? Do we remember God's patience and mercy in His dealings with us?

The safest course is first to imitate God's mercy, compassion, humility, gentleness and above all, love. When these are in our hearts, perhaps we may also have some righteous anger.

that's from the link i posted earlier.
God's righteous anger cannot be a sin because God cannot sin and remain God. God is perfect and lives in a perfect residence. Committing an act that is sin would prove that he is not God.

I hope that's somewhat understandable.

[sikdragon]

Question 1:Why would we be dependent upon the knowledge that He is there?
Belief with out faith isnt really belief at all. Believing is seeing, but seeing isnt believing. We would rely on big miracles all the time. God can't help anyone go stronger in themselves by being obvious. By that i mean he can keep you from crashing your bike into a metaphorical oncoming truck by jumping in the way, but he couldn't run with you on your bike all the time. He wants us to learn how to ride our bikes on our own, while knowing that he's watching over us.

Question 3: Is praying to God not a Christian culture?
A christian is one who loves Christ. Talking to someone you love is of course what you're supposed to do.

Question 4: Is this not a form of dependency?
Yes, but it's not the same. Prayer requires faith.

REGARDING ANGER: anger is not a sin. There is righteous anger and sinful anger. Sinful anger is the biproduct of sin. It stems from things like hate and jealousy. The bible says we are to be slow to anger just as Jesus was.

[sadolakced acid]

that's from the link i posted earlier.
God's righteous anger cannot be a sin because God cannot sin and remain God. God is perfect and lives in a perfect residence. Committing an act that is sin would prove that he is not God.

I hope that's somewhat understandable. 

so god can kill, lust, and do things that would be considered sin, but because he's god, it's NOT SIN?

[Spirited Away]

Question 1:Why would we be dependent upon the knowledge that He is there?
Belief with out faith isnt really belief at all. Believing is seeing, but seeing isnt believing. We would rely on big miracles all the time. God can't help anyone go stronger in themselves by being obvious. By that i mean he can keep you from crashing your bike into a metaphorical oncoming truck by jumping in the way, but he couldn't run with you on your bike all the time. He wants us to learn how to ride our bikes on our own, while knowing that he's watching over us.

"How Fae Learned to Rollerskate" (Rollerskate is substituted for "ride a bike".

My brother learned to skate before me and was pretty good at it. Me? I scraped my knees more times than I, or my parents would like. We couldn't afford two skates, so I used my brother's to practice. He didn't mind but didn't help me to learn either. Actually, I used to think he was entertained when I would come home bruised, and sometimes bleeding from my falls. One day, I was so angry at my brother that I hid the skates from him for a couple of weeks. He was mad at me but in the end, he decided to "teach" me. -___- He barely taught me anything relevant to skating. He just came along with me when I go skating on sidewalks. I remember how he stood on the side and snickered at me when I wobbled and bursted out laughing when I fell. Sometimes though, he would grab my hand to help me regain balance or tell me to "watch out for that bump". About two weeks of practicing with my brother on the side, I learned to skate, albeit badly. My parents asked my brother why he didn't just teach me in the first place and he said he wanted me to learn on my own first as he did. No one taught him but our cousin was the one who stood on the side and laughed at him. My brother wanted me to have the same experience, hoping that I would learn a lesson or two in trying, failing, then trying again. Oh, and after a while, instead of giving me his skates (because I hog them all the time), he bought me a pair of my own since his were always a loose fit.

I don't think I have ever shared that experience with God. My brother gave me balance. He gave me encouragements and warnings. My brother was the one holding my hand, not God. It would be a shame to give credit to God when my brother was the one who was there with me the whole painful experience.

My brother didn't exactly taught me how to skate and I did not ask that of him, but I did gain the knowledge that he wanted me to have in the first place AND I also learned that he will be there for me when I need him.

By the way, if "believing is seeing", then if I believe the sky is yellow, will I see it?

Question 3: Is praying to God not a Christian culture?
A christian is one who loves Christ. Talking to someone you love is of course what you're supposed to do.
Question 4: Is this not a form of dependency?
Yes, but it's not the same. Prayer requires faith.

What do you mean "it is not the same". According to our earlier debates, I remember you saying that there is no gray areas, only black and white. Dependency is dependency just as black is black, not shades of black. So, please explain to me how dependency by way of prayer is "not the same". It's not the same as what exactly?

Some people pray to talk to God, others pray to request things from God. Christians do both, I think. Is not asking for things a form of dependency?

REGARDING ANGER: anger is not a sin. There is righteous anger and sinful anger. Sinful anger is the biproduct of sin. It stems from things like hate and jealousy. The bible says we are to be slow to anger just as Jesus was.

Anger is part of the Seven Deadly Sins. "Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath." [source] There is no such thing as sinful anger and righteous anger according to the definition provided by the source. I'm not sure if God ever spurns love and I doubt anyone knows for sure either, but at times, He has opted for fury. No one knows if it's possible that God has ever spurned love, but since he has opted for fury, I think God has experienced a kind of half-anger, which is still anger.

Now then, feel free to give me an example of righteous anger and sinful anger. However, do remember that to be righteously angry over a murderer killing a child is still being angry.

[parallel]

Just for the sake of debate and out of sheer boredom, I'm going to pick a fight and use religion as a tool to wreak havoc in the debate forum.

'What is it with you aetheists? I don't understand how you can be so narrowminded and ignorant as to believe that everything about Christianity is wrong, or that the absence of religion in your life allows you to be superior over the pious. How can you tell me, a Christian, what the bible is and what it isn't when you aren't a Christian yourself? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but driving religion into the ground because you don't agree with it is just as bad as me trying to impose my beliefs on you. I swear, you goddamned aetheists make me sick. I find it ironic how you have a God complex and pretending to be masters of theological studies when, in fact, you don't know much about what you talk about at all. The bible is a historical account that has been slightly altered through the course of history. I dare you to go to Jerusalem and tell the people of Israel that the bible is a piece of fiction and what is known as holy land is simply a piece of rock.'

Those were "my words" but they weren't "my words." I'm just pulling something out of my ass so you have something to argue. Personally, I find this topic to be mundane and boring, so, enjoy the debate with the little leprechaun that tells me to burn things.

Kay. It's a somewhat old post in here. But whatever.
I must say I agree.

[*suddenly she*]

God must be both loving and just. Just as parent punishes a child out of love, as would god, our heavenly father, punish us out of love.

God is perfect, unblemished, and without sin. So says the bible, the foundation of Christian doctrine. God kills so there is punishment against our sins. Yet god no longer kills, because of the sacrifice done by jesus, His son. God has killed in the old testament,  before, when jesus had not made his sacrifice. And even then, it was not an often occurence, as god would not involve himself so closely in human affairs. doing so would reveal his presence so very obviously in the world. If he did so, then our faith would not  be tested when we enter christianity. It is a leap of faith.

God is angered by injustice. Since he is without sin he is right in carrying out justice. In the bible, Jesus says to the pharisees, who are about to stone an adulturer, "if any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone." God is without sin, and thus, he may carry out justice, and does so. Therefore, Since god killls out of justice, he is without sin.


If God were to sin, then the system would fall apart. But God cannot stand sin. He is disgusted by it. Which is why christians- those who believe in jesus, are purified by Jesus' sacrifice, so that they may enter heaven. But god is not completely like us. He has a greater will, and will not sin. Genesis tell us that God made man in his image. So basically we're kind of like a broken mirror that incorrectly represents God. His will is so much stronger than ours.

That would be Mitchell. My brain hurts.

ps. neither of us are catholic, referring to the seven unforgivable sins (a catholic thing).

[Spirited Away]

Kay. It's a somewhat old post in here. But whatever.
I must say I agree.

Which part do you agree with? The part where he playfully jabs Atheists or the part where he says religion topics are mundane?

[sikdragon]

Christian beliefs are altered by politics, but the bible remains unfazed. The latin vulgate, the origin of the catholic bible, does not support many of the catholic/roman catholic beliefs. The bible remained rightly translated, but the message was still altered so that the people would follow them and call them father without controversy. When people like martin luther started to actually read the bible they saw the blatant disregard for scripture in their endeavor to make political/monatary gain. Christianity has been corrupted by the devil and the wicked hearts of men to decieve the masses. If you wish to show contradiction and try and prove your conspiracy theory you should read the different translations and compare. You'll see which ones were altered to fit the beliefs of the people rather than their prior intention. The king james version is almost word for word with the dead sea scrolls. It's translated as close to perfect as it possibly can be between the languages. The bible is infallable and cannot be proven otherwise. What can be proven is false prophets and their twisted interpretation of said scriptures used for political gain.

Mithras sounds like a different name for christianity. The apostles didnt become christians until they met and the assembly(the jewish congregation) assembled(came together as the greek word for church). This happened quite awhile after Jesus ascended. Some people may have heard bits and pieces of Jesus's story and retold them, much like the telephone game.