That's a complex question.
You point out the 'Jewishness' of my link, Ummm, wasn't Christ a Jew?
He was born of Jewish parents. He was trained as a rabbi. Nationalistically, he was a Jew.
Whether he was a religious Jew depends upon whether you believe he was the Son of the Jewish God or not. The current Jews do not believe that he was. Or, if he was, he has not yet proven that he was.
Anyway.
I said that "One nation, under God" refered to the Christian "God".
You attempted to refute that with a link to a site on Judaism.
Isn't the Old Testament the book of the Jews? Isn't it included in christian bibles? Not sure I see any point being made here.
Yep and yep.
Yet there are VERY large differences between the Jewish faith and the Christian faith. Just because they share SOME teachings does not mean they are the same.
That link is amusing. Allow me to quote:
In the Hebrew Bible the concept of God is not a unified one. The attitude of believers to this apparent inconsistency has generally been that God, unchanging, revealed Himself more and more to Israel.
But, since the Christian religion is the same as Judaism, right up to the point o Jesus' birth, wouldn't that statement apply to Christianity as well? Does the author realize that the Bible is NOT a distinct work? That it is composed of various stories and such? By different authors. In different locations? At different times?
The Christian Bible has been HEAVILY edited. The Apocrypha aren't included in all of them.
Your link to that would seem to contradict your earlier statement about them being similar.
And I do know what Judaism teaches about the name of God. That's why I chose "Tetragrammaton" as the "name" to search on when you posted it. Tetragrammaton isn't a name of God. It's the name of the construct that is the name of God.
It is generally not possible to tell from English translations of the Bible what was the exact form of the name of God in the original.
Sure it is. Here's a link. Look at the glyphs at the top of the page.
[link|http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/tetra.htm|Here]Note: I never said you'd be able to read it.
Credit to you, some do consider 'God' as the name of god.
Not Muslims and not Jews. Only Christians consider "God" to be God's name.
Seems to be that the only ones who do this, though, are Catholics. Not Catholic are you? If so, the argument is over and you win by divine right.
I'd also include Protestants. Nope. I've been christened, but never took communion.
God can variously be defined as:
And "smith" can be a job or a name or a verb.
Context.
This one pretty much demolishes your point.
Nope. Again, Smith, smith, and smith.
In case the point escapes, the word god/God describes a giant invisible ghost in the sky. It is not the name of a giant invisible ghost in the sky.
And "smith" describes one who works metal. Of course, there weren't any smiths named smith. "god" as a noun describes the invisible ghost. "God" as a proper noun is the name of the invisible ghost.
You are still wrong.
Whatever. I'm still saying that Ike did NOT refer to a generic "god" nor Yahweh nor Allah. Ike refered to the Christian "God".
The "God" in "One nation, under God" is the Christian "God".
-and-
Any organized recitation of the PoA, in a public classroom, during mandatory attendence, is a violation of the separation of Church and State.
