>So What? Christianity began with the birth of Jesus Christ and the converison of people to believe he was the Messiah, hence the name Christ-ianity. It wasn't called God-ianity or any other term. It was called Judaism in the time of Adam and Eve and Abraham, etc, or so the Torah says.

That's a narrow understanding of Christianity. Christ could not be the savior had he not fulfilled the prophecies of the OT. You do realize that not just any Jew could have been the Messiah? The Messiah had to be born of a certain tribe (Judah) and in a certain town (Bethlehem).

>The New Testaments is supposed to fullfill the law in the old testament, hence the law at the birth of christ and his teaching supplanted anything before, ergo, Christianity, the fullfillment of the old law, began with Christs ministry.

Seems to me you understand the issue somewhat, but you seem to want to argue semantics.

>You can twist the facts any way you want to support your evangelical outlook, it doesn't change the truth of the matter.

I'm not the one doing the twisting. I'm actually trying to bring some additional enlightenment here (although Howard is doing pretty well by himself). There's clearly a great deal of misinformation widely believed about Christianity as exhibited in this thread.

FWIW, the original statement that spawned this part of the thread began with this...

>>it amuses me that religous groups claim ownership to marriage...<<

So, even if you continue to argue the true origin of Christianity, the fact remains the idea of marriage still came from God.