Easter weekend - am I religious?

Traffic jams all over Germany... People want to travel... I won't. But I will go to the movies tonight. I was very reluctant at first but tonight I will watch "The Passion of the Christ". It is a little strange to watch that movie on the day we remember as Jesus' crucifiction day.

However, I have been curious about the movie, so today might be as good as any day to watch it.

I like Mel Gibson's attempt to be as authentic as possible. I like the idea of filming in Aramaeic and Latin. From seeing the trailer I am a little disturbed by the accent of Pontius Pilate. Doesn't sound like the Latin I learned in school. Anyway, I don't wanna judge before I have seen the whole thing. The spirit of attempted authenticity will probably also show in the amount of violence, blood and gore.

But how authentic can it be?

Firstly, we know today that The Romans didn't drive nails through people's hands and feet because they are too weak to support the whole body weight. Instead the Romans used the wrists and ankles. But in Mel's trailer they do it the "traditional" way. But anyway, tat is only a detail.

Secondly, and more importantly, how authentic is the source? How authentic is the bible?
Mel Gibson's main point in his strive for authenticity is that he tells the exact story of the scriptures. But is this really how it happened?

I have my thoughts about the authenticity of the bible. It seems like I cannot forget for one second that I am a historian. We are tought to critically read and interpret our sources. When reading the bible I can't help but applying the concept of critical reading to it as well.

Some examples that puzzle me: (I apologize in advance for not quoting my sources here exactly as historians should. This due to the fact that I am only brainstorming right now. I will check my sources later, though. If any reader can assist me, I would be grateful)

1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Why is he called Jesus of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem? Bethlehem is the town of David. And a king would have to be from David's kin. So maybe, people told the "legend" of Jesus being from Bethlehem in order to make him fulfill the prophecy. That he would be the king of the Jews coming from the town of David.

2. Let's say, he is from Bethlehem, though. So the prophecy would fit. Or wouldn't it? Because why are they in Bethlehem in the first place? Because it is the town of Josef not the town of Mary. So if anyone is from David's kin then Josef. But Jesus isn't Josef's son. Mary was a virgin when being pregnant with Jesus. So, how can Jesus be from David's kin then? How can he be the King of the Jews prophesied?

3. Last sunday in mass the priest explained to the kids what made Jesus different from your usual king. (Because people courted Jesus as if he were a king). The priest said among other things that Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey out of humility, modesty. A normal king would have had a noble steed. Then a few minutes later the according part from the scripture was read and it said that Jesus told his disciples to go to a village and borrow a donkey from a peasant because he needed it to fulfil the prophecy of the king of the jews coming into Jerusalem on a donkey.
That hit me like a hammer. So the bible basically said that Jesus strategically chose to borrow a donkey for propaganda effects. (Sharply contrasting the reason the priest gave to the kids just minutes earlier)

These are only three points that make me wonder sometimes if I can be christian if I raise these kind of questions? I think I lelieve in God and Jesus. But I am a very sceptical person. Because of my doubts I haven't been to church for about 8 years. But a few weeks ago I decided that I wanted to give it another shot. There is a great priest in my church. I am going to ask my questions to him. Maybe it will be good to hear what a theologist has to say on those matters.

EDIT:
I CHECKED THE BIBLE FOR SOME QUOTATIONS: I FOUND THE STORY FROM MY THIRD POINT IN MATTHEW 21