You are absolutely correct #76749. Barnabas, in his Gospel, points out that Paul was in fact spreading misinformation about Jesus. Paul was the first to bring up the idea that Jesus was divine and, among other things, also preached that there was no need to get circumcised, whereas Jesus had, indeed, got himself circumcised. And as we all know, Jesus didn't come to change The Law but, rather, to fulfil it.
As for all of us being Gods 'children', my only problem with using that terminology is that, as humans, we can only relate to the word 'children' according to our own experiences. In the context of man's relationship to God, the term that been translated as 'sons' or 'children' has, according to the 'real' scholars, many meanings. Indeed, according to Thayer's lexicon, among the many meanings attributed to the word, it is also a word used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower or pupil. It is also a term used to describe man and carries with it the connotation of weakness and mortality.
However, in stark contrast to man, God is unique and, among all His many attributes, He is all powerful and eternal, so, it is not really fitting to describe our relationship to God as father/child when our only tangible experience tells us that parents beget offspring of like nature.