That date reads October 25.  :D

That date reads October 25.  :D



;D I didn't even notice that.

That date reads October 25.  :D
One report one the true birthdate of JC was in September the time of the census, so I took it as read,

That date reads October 25.  :D


I noticed that too.

ok so durring the crusades, one group of people that england was fighting with believed in multiple gods and one was the tree god (the reason we have x-mas trees) and they celebrated the tree god on dec. 25th. and to settle the fighting with them and at the same time sort of convert them a little, england said to them , "hey our god jesus christ was born dec. 25th too" and then to prove it we made the holiday christmas, and it kind of stuck with us. jesus was really born in early spring.


I thought that was common knowledge unless you belong to the Church Of God.

That date reads October 25.  :D


oh woops

Ok, is it me, or have I heard at least twenty versions of why we celebrate Christmas on 25 December? This must be the most vague and academically sloppy of them all. No offense to yourself, because I know you are just recounting what you've heard from other people, but even you must know that Christmas is not a uniquely English holiday, and that England was indeed only one of several Christian kingdoms involved in the crusades.

There are many reasons that we celebrate this holiday in Winter, all of them having something to do the various pre-Christian religions parctised throughout Europe. All the latter were very similar, and shared many basic religious concepts. This is why it is easy for people to get to bickering over whether it was the popular Roman cult of Mithras (a sun deity), or the Winter Solstice celebrations of the various Germanic tribes of Northern Europe (usually called midwinter/midvinter, or yule/jul/jol, depending on the language) which can account for the date we use today. The most likely explanation is somewhere in between... that it was simply convenient for early European Christians to celebrate it in winter because most European peoples already had a holiday with similar theolgical significance around the Winter Solstice. 

I encourage you, if you are at all familiar with the Scandinavian languages, to check out the Swedish "Jul" (modern translation: Christmas) article on Wikipedia. It has a lot of insight to the pre-Christian midwinter celebrations in that part of Europe. And remember that the Anglo-Saxons were relatives of the Scandinavian peoples, both linguistically and culturally. Their languages were related and they practised virtually the same religion.


hey man i know what im talkin about.

Modern English is over 50% French. Or so one of my professors said at least.


That is true, although many of those "French" words are actually Latin words we received via Norman French. But it's all the same to me. Makes it really easy for us to learn French, that's for sure. A new French student has literally thousands of French words already in his vocabulary, and most of them follow predictable gender patterns.

Another interesting observation about Modern English is that our vocabulary is practically split between words that are Gernamic and words that are Latinate... and we typically use mostly Germanic words in everyday speech, and we use mostly Latinate words in formal settings, writing, technical contexts, etc... There is also a perceived quality of lower-class in respect to a lot of words that were originally Anglo-Saxon, thanks to that long-gone time when the Normans were the royal class and their language was considered proper, while the English language of the time was seen as vulgar and detestable. For instance, one can say "excrement" (a French word) to be polite about things, or one could say "sh*t" (an English word) and be considered vulgar. You can be prudent and "engage in intercourse" or you can be raunchy about things and "f*ck." Forgive my examples, but they certainly do get the point across.

Quite a lot of astronomers (not astrologers) believe that his birthdate is 29 May 6 CE, with 3 October 6 CE as a close second.  This is based on an astrological tripple conjunction of Juiper and Saturn in the House of Pisces.

However, this also conflicts with writings, since Herod The Great died in 4 BCE.  But there is another conjunction that occured in March 6 BCE, which also would apply to the Birth.

And as to why was it celebrated on December 25th?  If you look at Roman Religion of the era, it is fits in rather well.  The Feast of Saturn was on December 17th.  It was followed by 7 days of fasting and religions ceremonies.  The day after the end of the "Holy Week", it was again celebrated with a feast (not much different from "Fat Tuesday" and Mardi Gras or Ramadan).  And this feast day was...  December 25.  Remember, most of the dates were simply lifted from existing Roman holidays, and became Christian Holidays once the Empire converted from the old Pagan beliefs to Christianity.  Just as the office of Pontifex Maximus (an office that existed before 300 BCE), who went from being the High Priest of the Roman Pantheon, to the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church (which formally adopted the use of the title in 590 CE).

Then of course there is a legitimate school of thought that says Jesus never existed, and that he is a composite figure.

Then of course there is a legitimate school of thought that says Jesus never existed, and that he is a composite figure.


Well, there are no official records from that time to verify his existence. Also, the Gospels(which is really the only "evidence" that he existed) were written by people who were not even alive at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. Recent archaelogical findings have also shown that the city of Nazareth was not settled at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.

The story of Mithra is also suspiciously close to that of the New Testament's Jesus, and it was several centuries older. Also, you have to remember that in the early centuries of the 1st millenia C.E. Mithraism was especially popular in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Paul(who essentially was the founder of Christianity historically) was from Cyprus.

I read somewhere that a census was held every seven years by the Romans, so hopefully a clearer date can be worked out?

Well, there are no official records from that time to verify his existence. Also, the Gospels(which is really the only "evidence" that he existed) were written by people who were not even alive at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. Recent archaelogical findings have also shown that the city of Nazareth was not settled at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.


Check out the histories of Josephus.

Flavius Josephus was a historian who lived from 37-100 CE.  A Jew, he was related to the Royal Family and was a Priest in the Temple Of Solomon.  He was also a survivor of the Jewish Uprising in 70 CE, and most of the information from the destruction of Jerusalem and Masada come from his works.

He wrote about many things, including the history of Jerusalem, The history of the Jews, and a detailed history of the failed uprising in 70 CE.  His works survive today, and are quite extensive.  I actually have a copy of them, and have been working my way through them for the last 2 years.

Remember, he was born at about the time of the Crucifiction, and his works predate those of the Gospels (which mostly date from the middle to late 2nd Centure CE).  And he wrote about the "Rabbi From Nazareth", and also about "John The Baptist".  But because his works were historical and not religious in nature, it simply talked about the men, and those who followed them.  But he did describe both of them as good and holy men, much as he did High Priests, and other religious figures of the era.

And remember, his work also predated the seperation of the Jewish faith and what would become Christianity.  During this era, the "Pseudo-Christians" practiced openly in Jewish Synagogs.  They were about as different then as the Pharisees and Sadducees were from each other, but none denied that they were all Jews.

Check out the histories of Josephus.

But do dig further when doing research into the writings of Josephus: most biblical scholars (and that's mainly Christian ones) agree that the passages in Josephus which mention Jesus by name are at least in part later interpolations added by early Christians to try and (and I quote) "add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (well, I quote WS Gilbert, anyway)

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html :-
Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

It ain't exactly proof...

Well, there are no official records from that time to verify his existence. Also, the Gospels(which is really the only "evidence" that he existed) were written by people who were not even alive at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. Recent archaelogical findings have also shown that the city of Nazareth was not settled at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.

The story of Mithra is also suspiciously close to that of the New Testament's Jesus, and it was several centuries older. Also, you have to remember that in the early centuries of the 1st millenia C.E. Mithraism was especially popular in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Paul(who essentially was the founder of Christianity historically) was from Cyprus.


If I write a Biography about Alexander the Great or anyone else that died before my birth no one has a problem with it.  There are many ancient people in this world born before Jesus that we "know" existed and no one has a problem with the credibility behind their existance.  It makes me wonder why, even with no written records we know the names of cities and the names of people without question.  Yet pages and pages of written words, along with archeological proof of the times and the place, and serious doubt enters the mind. 

If I write a Biography about Alexander the Great or anyone else that died before my birth no one has a problem with it.  There are many ancient people in this world born before Jesus that we "know" existed and no one has a problem with the credibility behind their existance.  It makes me wonder why, even with no written records we know the names of cities and the names of people without question.  Yet pages and pages of written words, along with archeological proof of the times and the place, and serious doubt enters the mind. 


What about the ancient religion of Mithraism? It come from Persia centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. It was based on Mithra who supposedly was born of a virgin birth on December 25th, claimed to be the son of God, performed miracles, was executed and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Doesn't that sound more than just a wee bit similar to the story of another religious figure?

What about the ancient religion of Mithraism? It come from Persia centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. It was based on Mithra who supposedly was born of a virgin birth on December 25th, claimed to be the son of God, performed miracles, was executed and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Doesn't that sound more than just a wee bit similar to the story of another religious figure?


Yes it does.  But how many high school recruits have similar credentials going into college?

Yes it does.  But how many high school recruits have similar credentials going into college?


ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!! ;D :D ;D :D

If I write a Biography about Alexander the Great or anyone else that died before my birth no one has a problem with it.

Provided you quote sources - ideally contemporary sources - then nobody will have a problem with it.  If you were to write a book about a historical figure without ever quoting a single reference, then as an academic text it'll stand no chance of gaining acceptance.


Yes it does.  But how many high school recruits have similar credentials going into college?

Let me get this straight: you are agreeing that Mithra had the same credentials as Jesus after having been "born of a virgin birth on December 25th, claimed to be the son of God, performed miracles, was executed and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven"... so you don't worship Mithra simply because there wasn't someone around who said they'd seen him three days later.  If there had been, would you be a Mithra-worshipper instead (or even as well)?

The outcome of this one will be interesting:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html

Hi Philbo,
I don't think deadrockstar professed to worship Jesus either.  Or maybe I missed it???  I have never heard the Mithra story.  Very interesting that it sounds just like the Jesus story though.

Anywho, good points raised by all. 

Hi Philbo,
I don't think deadrockstar professed to worship Jesus either.  Or maybe I missed it???  I have never heard the Mithra story.  Very interesting that it sounds just like the Jesus story though.


Mithra was a very popular religion during that era, especially in Rome.  In fact, it was probably the leading cult among Roman Soldiers.  One of the chief beliefs that made it common was it's protrayal of an afterlife.  And there are a lot of similarities between it and Christianity.

Then again, because it was a common religion in Rome, how much of it was simply adopted into Christianity?

One thing about Rome, it was very cosmopolitin for it's era, allowing freedom of religion.  You could walk down a street and find houses of worship for Zeus, Mercury, Apollo, Mithra, Odin, Isis, Jehova, and dozens of other belief systems.  The later persecution of early Christians was actually an aberation in Roman history, not the rule.  Rome did not demand acceptance of their gods, simply acceptance of their rule.

One thing about Rome, it was very cosmopolitin for it's era, allowing freedom of religion.  You could walk down a street and find houses of worship for Zeus, Mercury, Apollo, Mithra, Odin, Isis, Jehova, and dozens of other belief systems.  The later persecution of early Christians was actually an aberation in Roman history, not the rule.  Rome did not demand acceptance of their gods, simply acceptance of their rule.


I'd like to take this chance to bring out another point thats sort of related to this. I once read an artical that was trying to historically disprove the existence of Jesus, and the most interesting point it made is one that I had never heard before.

Rome was indeed a civilization that was unusually liberal socially for it's day. Rome was also known the world over for something else unique at the time, and that was an orderly justice system with (supposedly) fair trials, almost similar to the justice system of the United States(infact, didn't the Founding Fathers draw inspiration from the Roman courts when designing our Justice system?). This article argued that its unrealistic that a man(in this case, Jesus) could have been unjustly executed because of the outcrys of  an intolerant mob, and thats its especially unrealistic that a Roman governor(in this case, Pontius Pilate) would have been part of it.

Could you maybe address this?

I'd like to take this chance to bring out another point thats sort of related to this. I once read an artical that was trying to historically disprove the existence of Jesus, and the most interesting point it made is one that I had never heard before.

Rome was indeed a civilization that was unusually liberal socially for it's day. Rome was also known the world over for something else unique at the time, and that was an orderly justice system with (supposedly) fair trials, almost similar to the justice system of the United States(infact, didn't the Founding Fathers draw inspiration from the Roman courts when designing our Justice system?). This article argued that its unrealistic that a man(in this case, Jesus) could have been unjustly executed because of the outcrys of  an intolerant mob, and thats its especially unrealistic that a Roman governor(in this case, Pontius Pilate) would have been part of it.

Could you maybe address this?


As of yet, I take no position on whether or not Christ existed. I just don't know, but I believe that Judea was under a sort of quasi-homerule at that time. Rome was in charge, but I think they allowed the Jewish leadership to continue to some extent. That may or may not be totally correct.

I'd like to take this chance to bring out another point thats sort of related to this. I once read an artical that was trying to historically disprove the existence of Jesus, and the most interesting point it made is one that I had never heard before.
...

Could you maybe address this?


Most of what we call "Christianity" today is what has been saved and recorded by the Roman Catholic Church (and the churches that followed it).

Remember, none of the "Gospels" were written by the Apostiles they are named after.  They are all loosely written down "as told to X person by Y person as being told to them by G Apostile".  In most cases, it was over 100 years later that they were written down.

And in reading them, a lot of things can be discovered if you know what to look for.

For the most part, I view everything about the Crucifiction as "Revisionist History".  In fact, the accounts of the story bend over backwards to place the blame on the Jews, and not the Romans for the deed.  Why is that?

Well, they were written down at an interesting time in history.  For one, the early "Christian Church" finally broke from the Jewish faith.  They were no longer welcome in synagogs, and were largely treated as heretics.  For another, the Jewish revolt made it unpopular in many areas to be seen as "Jewish".  By creating their own identity, they avoided the stigma of being seen as "just another sect of Jews".  ANd by showing the Romans as mislead, it prevented further persecution.

There is one important clue during the trial: there was no custom to pardon a condemned man during Passover.  That's right, it was not a custom.  So why put it in?  To show the Romans being compassionate.  It shows that they tried to set him free, but those evil Jews really killed him.

And how about that round-robin of going from the Temple to Pontus to Herod back to Pontus?  That is not Justice, that is Machiavellian.  Does anybody believe that the Roman system of laws was that weak in what was essentially a conquered province?  Pontus would have let him go, flogged him, or executed him.  Passing him to what was a puppet king is not something a Roman Patrician would have done.

And one more clue:  Barrabas.  Now we all know about the murderer who was freed instead of Jesus.  Barabbas, the murderer.  Most accounts portray him as a Zealot, who killed a Roman soldier during a riot.

In an earlier thread, I mentioned that Jesus real name would have been "Joshua Bar Joseph".  In other words, "Joshua, Son of Joseph".  And in Aramaic, Jesus was known as a Blasphemer because he would frequently call God by what some would call a less then reverent name: Dad.  Of course, thanks to King James, we get "Lord" and "Father" in place of what Jesus used: Abbas, or "Dad".

Therefore, Barabbas also translates to "Son of the Father".  Hmmmm, rather interesting.  And I addin another bit of information:  Barabbas is NOT a traditional Jewish name.  In fact, it was never found on any document or tomb that predates the second century AD.

Mysefl, I believe that he was tried by the Sanhedron, then passed over to Pilate for sentencing.  Because of the unrest associated with him (the riot in the Temple), Pilate had him executed in order to try and preserve peace.  Josephus himself wrote that Pilate was a stern man who was unforgiving of Jews and their religion.  Does that sound like the man who agonized over a petty criminal, and then would "wash his hands" to try and absolve guilt?

I do not doubt that Jesus lived.  Be he Son of God, God, or simply an Essene Rabbi I will leave up to you.  But remember, even the Jewish faith admits he existed, although to varrying degrees that range from "Gifted Teacher" to "Mad Rabble Rouser".  I find it hard to believe that within 200 years of his death, an entire religion could appear with as much detail if he did not exist at all.

Interesting points, Mushroom. And I think you are right about mistranslations changing the meaning of Abbas.

You have to remember that Judea had a semetic culture that was removed from the Western culture that interpreted what we call Christianity today. Lord was often used to address him and many will point to that as evidence for the Trinity; which I believe was a fabrication meant to help justify the split of Christianity from Judaism. Originally I figured it was purely for political purposes(i.e. Constantine's) but you make an interesting point about the persecution of Jews at that time as well. I'm sure that was part of why they felt they needed the Trinity. Plus, in their culture at that time "lord" (or whatever word that was translated as this) was used as a title of respect; it didn't hold the literal meaning assigned to it.

In light of that I also feel that the story of the nativity is completely false. If I remember right(correct me if im wrong) it says that at the time of Jesus' birth Mary and Joseph had just returned from somewhere else(can't remember where) because the Romans had been taking a general census and had required all heads of households to report in person, and they had been required to bring their wives and children with them. But thats historically innaccurate, because the Romans always required only the male head of the household to report in person. The nativity story was probably created to give more credibility to the Trinity.

Whats also odd is that it mentions nothing of Jesus' life after the nativity until he is 12 years old I think(the Baptism), and then it again skips ahead to when he is about 30. Why would most of this man's life be left out? Perhaps the events of his life during that period would have contradicted what they were trying to do, and so they only included the parts they needed in order to accomplish what they wanted(deifying him so that they could establish a seperate religion). Just some thoughts..

I consider myself a "Christian".  But at the same time, a lot I am sure would consider me a heretic.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.

However, I do not believe in the Trinity.  I do not accept Jesus as God.  To me, they are 2 distinct and seperate individuals.  The Trinity concept itself came about much later, between 325-500 CE.  I view it as an attempt to incorporate more of the old Greek/ROman mythos onto the new "Religion" of Christianity.

I look at Christianity through "Jewish" eyes.  To me, unless it is firmly based on the Old Testament, it is largely not valid.  And I ophold the original covenant, not the "New Covenant".

For example, I do not pray to Jesus.  I take it seriously when God ordered "Put no others before me".  To me, this includes His Son.  I would no more pray to Jesus then I would to Mary, Joseph, or a sack of flour.  That does not mean I do not revere them, simply that they are not God in my eyes.

However, I also do not criticize those that do.  One of the wordings in the Judeo-Christian faith is the Commandment "Put No Others Before Me".  This is different from the Islamic "There is no God but Allah".  The ancient Hebrews did not go around saying that there was no other God, just that his followers were not allowed to worship them before Jehova.

One thing I am very understanding of is religion.  As long as your religion does not persecute others or involve unwilling human sacrifice, it is OK with me.  After all, I will not know the Final Answer until after I am gone.  And even if I am totally wrong, hopeflly whatever God is out there would judge me for how I lived and treated others, and not by something as petty as how I prayed to Him/Her/Them.

However, I also do not criticize those that do.  One of the wordings in the Judeo-Christian faith is the Commandment "Put No Others Before Me".  This is different from the Islamic "There is no God but Allah".  The ancient Hebrews did not go around saying that there was no other God, just that his followers were not allowed to worship them before Jehova.


"There is no God but The One God" would actually be a more accurate translation of "la ilah ha il-Allah"(which is the Arabic phrase you just translated). In Arabic, before the arrival of Muhammad's religious movement, "ilah" was the word commonly used to refer to the various deities such as Hubal that were worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabia. As you know "al" is the Arabic equivalent to our word "the". The word "Allah", linguistically speaking was not in use prior to the advent of the Qur'an(which translates to "the reading"..I actually know quite a bit of Arabic). "Allah" was a contraction of "al" and "ilah", so it literally should translate to "The God" or in the case of the shahada(the phrase you translated) "The One God"; meaning the word inherently indicates you are referring to a monotheistic deity. Actually, the full shahada is "La ilah ha il-Allah, Muhammad ar-Rasulullah", meaning "There is no God but the One God; Muhammad is the messenger(ar-rasul) of God".


I will reveal something now I don't believe I've revealed on this board before: I am an ex-Muslim. I was a convert(actually a "revert" as they call it in the Islamic faith, because they believe all people are born into this world/dunya as Muslims, but are made into other things by their enviroment); I become one in December of 2002 and I left the religion(deen) in July of 2004. While I was with it though I did not hit on girls or try to date them, I didn't drink, I didn't eat pork, I followed many of the customs associated with the "Hadiths" such as eating with the right hand, I performed Salat(prayers) five times daily, I went to Masjid everyday(although the Muslm sabbath is on Fridays, you can technically pray at the Masjid for all 5 prays a day if you wanted, and if the people who maintain the Masjid keep it open for all five, seven days a week), etc. Masjid is the Arabic word for a Mosque, btw(its rarely used in Western news broadcasts). Heck, I even memorized a few surahs(chapters) from the Qur'an. The memorization and recitation of them is called Tajweed, by the way. Btw, the word "Muslim" literally translates to "submitter". The word "Islam" comes from a similar root word(aslam) which means to submit; in this case to the will of God. In the Arabic language, the pre-fix "Mu-" is similar to the suffix "-er" in English. Thus a Muslimer is a "submitER". The name Muhammad itself, means "one who revers" as hammad means "reverence". I believe that Muhammad was actually a title similar to The Christ; I think Muhammad's given name before he became a prophet was Ahmed(may be wrong on this part).

"Kul hu Allah hu ahad. Allah hu samad. Lam ya lid wa lam yulad, ku la hu kufuwan ahad."  That is one of the Surahs I memorized, and the only one I can still remember in full(as you can see some of them are very short..while some are very long). It translates to something like "Say he is God, the one and only, God is eternal, he does not create nor is he created, and there is nothing like him".

So yeah..theres that.

I consider myself a "Christian".  But at the same time, a lot I am sure would consider me a heretic.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.

However, I do not believe in the Trinity.  I do not accept Jesus as God.  To me, they are 2 distinct and seperate individuals.  The Trinity concept itself came about much later, between 325-500 CE.  I view it as an attempt to incorporate more of the old Greek/ROman mythos onto the new "Religion" of Christianity.

I look at Christianity through "Jewish" eyes.  To me, unless it is firmly based on the Old Testament, it is largely not valid.  And I ophold the original covenant, not the "New Covenant".

For example, I do not pray to Jesus.  I take it seriously when God ordered "Put no others before me".  To me, this includes His Son.  I would no more pray to Jesus then I would to Mary, Joseph, or a sack of flour.  That does not mean I do not revere them, simply that they are not God in my eyes.

However, I also do not criticize those that do.  One of the wordings in the Judeo-Christian faith is the Commandment "Put No Others Before Me".  This is different from the Islamic "There is no God but Allah".  The ancient Hebrews did not go around saying that there was no other God, just that his followers were not allowed to worship them before Jehova.

One thing I am very understanding of is religion.  As long as your religion does not persecute others or involve unwilling human sacrifice, it is OK with me.  After all, I will not know the Final Answer until after I am gone.  And even if I am totally wrong, hopeflly whatever God is out there would judge me for how I lived and treated others, and not by something as petty as how I prayed to Him/Her/Them.


I don't understand what you mean when you speak of a Christianity firmly rooted in the Old Testament. Could you elaborate on that?

Much of the Old Testament is not recognised by the Jewish people as being the word of God; only the first five books (The Torah). The others are also part of the Tanakh, but are regarded as mostly a history of the Jewish people. Also in the Jewish religion it is considered very disrespectful and taboo (and to some Orthodox, blasphemous) to use the word "Jehovah (Yaweh)," as it is calling God by his true name. This is why you have many substitutes such as Hashem, Adonai, Elohim etc...

Have you looked into Messianic Judaism? Would you consider yourself a Messianic Jew?

Yes...I think most people know this though.

not most people that I know, know this and if you were to mention knowing this they'll nail you to the wall

On what day was Santa Claus born?
???

The same day as Kris Kringle & St Nicholas?

:)

I don't understand what you mean when you speak of a Christianity firmly rooted in the Old Testament. Could you elaborate on that?

Have you looked into Messianic Judaism? Would you consider yourself a Messianic Jew?


To me, one of the problem of most CHristians, is that they spend 95% of the time studying the New Testament.  They almost totally ignore The Scriptures, unless they relate in some way to being a prophecy of Jesus.

I try to look at Christianity as I think the earliest Christians would have looked at it.  In other words, in the first 100-200 years CE.  The religion began to change drastically once it was adapted by Constantine, and became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

The Messianic beliefs of the Jewish Faith has many precedents.  It really means "The Anointed One".  Kind David was a Messiah, as was Sampson, and a great many others.  It was also a title often given to the Kings of Judea and Israel.

Mostly, I see the religion as a widening of Essene philosophy.  Jesus lived in an area where this was the major sub-sect of the Jewish faith.  This was an area where communes lasted for generations, and clean simple living was the standard.  And scholarship was highly valued.  They were also very mystical, and strongly believed that a new Messiah was comming who would transform the Jewish faith.

In fact, I think that was one of the reasons he was executed.  The 2 leading powers in the Temple of the time were the Pharisees and the Saducees.  Both of these groups were very traditional, believing that the Temple was the ultimate authority in day to day Jewish life.  Then along comes this Rabbi from what was considered to be a "backwards province", claiming that they were all wrong.  He starts a riot in the Temple, and claims that the Romans have no right to dictate Temple policies (this was shortly after a lot of their Holy Relics were returned by the Romans).  They were mostly afraid that his preachings would cause the Romans to take the vestaments back, and stifle their rights to practice their religion as they saw it.  Add to this the fact that he was related to John The Baptist, who was recently executed by the prior King.

"The Bible" is a rather interesting collection of "stories".  Some of them read like a classic oral history.  Others read like a religious text, going into detail about prohobitions and requirements of the faith.  Yet others are plainly nothing but "fantasies", nothing but elaborate morality plays (Job is a perfect example of this).

I try hard to hold to things the way Jesus said them.  The Lord's Prayer is a perfect example of this.  Most people tend to overlook that it starts out "Pray, then, in this way".  It does not state "This is the prayer to use", nor does he state "this is how you will pray".  He says "in this way".  I read this to read "sincerely, from the bottom of your heart".

However, the Roman religion was always a religion of rote repetitions, where you do certain steps in order to assure your way to paradise.  And Catholacism is the same way.  What I see as a simple appeal to make prayer personal is transformed into a rote prayer, where people will repeat it over and over again, and not really understand what they are saying.  And it's translation as directed by King James makes it even more impersonal and remote.  In this I believe that Martin Luther was exactly right.  God needs to be more personal, not some remote figure on high.

And yes, I have looked into a great many different faiths.  I have attended services in a Mosque, in a Synagog, as well as churches belonging to the Mormon, Presbyterian, Baptist, Roman-Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentacostal, and other Christian sects.  I have even gone to "services" for Scientology, Christian Scientist, Hare Krishna, Self-Realization Fellowship (an early "New Age" religion based on Yoga and other Hundu religions), and even the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon.

Sadly, I have yet to find a faith I am fully comfortable with.  I mostly attend Presbyterian services, because they tend to be the most "middle of the road".  I think this largely stems from the practice of letting the individual congregations determin their own practices.