>>>Men who do not behave as Jesus did, are not Christians, no matter what they call themselves. A person who is born again is literally rewired. The entirety of their life will be changed. Forever.
>>
>>Then christians do not exist, as nobody really knows how Jesus did behave, the best we can do is guess. The information has been lost, corrupted, bended for political purposes. The best prove of that is what is written in the dead sae scrolls.
>
>>If you think that christ did not have any children, then your definition is flawed as if we all don't get any children there won't be any christians left in a few decades. We can't be all leaders and we are not all able to ressurrect from death.
>>
>>Better is, as the Genesis popgroup sings: "Do as I say, don't do as I do". But then again, nobody knows what exactly he did say, only what has been written down by others and what has not been removed over the centuries.
>
>If "They" have bended the information about Jesus for political purposes, "they" have done an awfully bad job indeed! So many people repeat this idea, that I often wonder to which group "they" belong and what agenda "they" are following, nobody ever could really explain that. Although it is intriguing that with the large wealth of ancient manuscripts that are still available today, you won't find any proof of that accusation, so in my book "They" are innocent until proven guilty.
>
>I must say, I am amazed the four gospels did not get censured early on by the political and religious powers. Everything that Jesus did expose and criticize were those political and religious powers, and he defended the poor and less fortunate.
>
>it is written in the gospel of Matthew for instance "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
>
>Still very much to the point today, but of course they don't teach that in school, do they?

I don't know what you mean about teaching it in school. I was taught to read. I read the Bible twice by the time I was 15. I read it again as an adult. But I was also taught history and critical thinking. And I managed to read a few things that were not the Bible.

Actually, if you know anything of the history of the first 500 years CE you will know the degree to which the new testament was assembled by committee and what the philosophical and political issues were, including the tailoring of the message to make it more appealing to the gentiles and to compete with all the other mystery cults popular in the Roman empire at the time. This has been the subject of pretty extensive historiography since the 19th century and is common knowledge among historians. It is not taught at Bible schools but is well known to students of history who do not start from the presupposition that every word of the Bible is literally true and reason backward from there.

Reading Ireneaus "Against Heresies" from the second century quickly demonstrates the degree to which there was hardly unanimity among early Christians. The persecution of the Arian Heresy was to say the least intense. There is even a dispute about books that made the cut but are considered Apocrypha outside of the Douay Bible. Literalism of any kind requires faith not only in the inerrancy of the "revealed" message but on everything in the translation chain and on all editing decisions to come from the various councils.

Do you know anything of the Q source for the Gospels or of the history of including books like Revelation as part of the NT.? Reading Paul's letters makes it clear that a lot of writing which he is refuting no longer exists. What do you think happened to it? Not only history, but The Bible is written by the winners.

Journey to central Turkey in the Cappadocia region and you'll see where whole communities of early Christians fled into exile when the winners held Constantinople.

As to Jesus marital or parental status, I have no idea, nor does anyone else as the entire issue was settled once the Church decided on the issue of divinity. I don't find The Davinci Code (or the more scholarly work that preceded it ) to have settled it either.

The argument I find most compelling though is that for a rabbi to be unmarried at that age at that time would have probably been unusual enough to cause comment and it never seemed to be an issue. But again, anything on that topic one way or another would have been a factor in agenda that were at the very core of the new religion and would have been very carefully controlled by those who were shaping it. By the time of the Council of Nicea there is little chance anything truly "unorthodox" would have survived.

This was not a matter of "they" bending things for political purposes. it was a matter of doing exactly what fundamentalists do today : start with an assumption about The Truth and ignore, suppress or refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit. Even a cursory understanding of what happened in Nicea in 325 pretty much demonstrates that.

Do they teach that in Bible School?