“ The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” George Washington

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should…make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Thomas Jefferson dated 1802

“The purpose of the Separation of Church and State is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries,” James Madison, 1803.

Nuff said…!

Talmud and Mishnah, though revered, are not scriptures.

Wrong, the Talmud is the “Oral Torah”, and therefore scripture.

For one thing, they came very much later than the Old Testament. In fact, they came significantly later than the New Testament. So why would Christianity, which “diverged” if you will in the 1st century AD, have incorporated them into their scriptures?

The written form is indeed about 100 years younger than the New Testament, however there is proof of the practice and implementation of the lessons of Torah back to several hundreds of years before (since the Talmud was an Oral Tradition long before it was written).

Only one by an author unknown is Hebrews. Can you see the Jewish connection even there?

We don’t know who wrote most of the Gospels, except for a tradition that ties certain people to certain books.

We the only authors who identify themselves are Luke (for Luke and Acts) and John in revelation. Paul for Romans, the Corinthians, Phillipians, Galatians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. After that it is all up for debate. Quite honestly we dont even really know who Luke was, traditions is that he was a follower of Paul, but his accounts seem not to match up all the time with Pauls own teachings and recountings. As for Mathew Mark and Luke and their relationship to John, I suggest you read about Synoptic Gospels.

There are minor differences in how the books of the Old Testament are laid out and labeled compared to the Jewish scriptures, but the text is the same.

Keep telling yourself that, I would recommends you get a Tanakh and an Old Testament KJV and read again. And then get a better translation of your Bible like the New Oxford Study Bible (one of the best for both NT and OT).

I’m not the one confused here. The close ties between Judaism and Christianity are obvious and well-known to the world at large. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is almost comical.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that this is what I think.

Christianity took several Jewish tenets and slapped it together with some Greek philosophy.

Islam took some Jewish and Christian tenets, slapped it together with Arab mysticism and adopted abridged versions of the Torah and the Gospels.

The Jewish scriptures are also Christian scriptures.

You take a few, you leave a few. I know my Tanakh looks fair different than the KJV New Testament. Also you are missing the Talmud and Mishnah.

Talmud and Mishnah, though revered, are not scriptures. For one thing, they came very much later than the Old Testament. In fact, they came significantly later than the New Testament. So why would Christianity, which “diverged” if you will in the 1st century AD, have incorporated them into their scriptures?

There are minor differences in how the books of the Old Testament are laid out and labeled compared to the Jewish scriptures, but the text is the same.

Every writer of books in the New Testament was a Jew, with the possible exception of Luke, who was either a Gentile or a Hellenistic Jew.

Luke was very clearly a gentile I dont think there is any question. Since the authorship of several letters are unknown, I would not bet on it.

Only one by an author unknown is Hebrews. Can you see the Jewish connection even there?

Also, the identity of the author of John is unclear, he may have been a Gentile Convert, or he may have been a Hellenistic Jew. However, by the time he wrote his Gospel (100+ C.E.) Christianity had diverged so far from Judaism that it was inrecognizable.

John, the brother of James, the disciple Jesus loved, the son of Zebedee, fishing partners with Simon Peter and Andrew? He was pretty well known to the early churches, I’d say! The exact date the Gospel of John was written is not known, but Ignatius, who died in AD 107, wrote his Letter to the Philippians based on it, so it was obviously not written after AD 107.

But this highlights the problem you have: there’s no good reason to doubt the authorship of the Gospel of John, and the early church, which was about 1800 years closer to the time in question than you are, accepted John as the author. So why claim he was a Gentile? Only because it helps your argument.

In fact, I venture to say there are NO closer ties between Muslims and Christians than there are between Muslims and Jews.

Here you confuse historic ties with philosophical ties.

Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 8:31 AM

I’m not the one confused here. The close ties between Judaism and Christianity are obvious and well-known to the world at large. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is almost comical.

I was going to ask you to explain the supposed philosophical ties between Christianity and Islam, but it’s a waste of time. You’re obviously not arguing so much as rationalizing.

Spartacus on June 21, 2008 at 10:15 AM

I really hope you are being sarcatstic.

If not F**k you.

It is a religious war.

“Allah” was the name of the moon god worshipped by Babylonians and various Arabs at the time Mohammed was making his opinions into a religion.

And the Hebrew G-d shares his name with a land and sea deity of ancient Canaan.

Get with the program, try to keep up.

Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 6:04 PM

However, it is not something I oppose. I do not write His name, but others doing it is not against my belief.

I dont normally carry cash, so it is a fairly moot point.

My goy wife does it for me :)

It is to me, but I dont much care for His name being on anything.

Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 6:01 PM

That’s what I figured.

I honestly wonder when we’re going to see that taken off anyway.

cs89 on June 20, 2008 at 6:01 PM

I think my point was that religion should not be banned from public life, but public funds and authority should not be used to promote it either.

And as I said to him, it’s still discrimination if you’re an atheist, no matter how abstract, and if you’re willing to be generous and accept that “God” can be a metaphor, then there’s no reason you couldn’t do the same for a cross.

Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Yeah, the cross is a metaphor for Christianity. Would it be offensive if I had the exact same license plate, only it said, “I don’t believe?” It’s such a contentious issue, the state is better off not getting involved.

Like I said, I’d like to see the silly “In God We Trust” scrapped. Realistically, it’s not going to happen.

Our founders always had a little trouble putting their principles to practice.

Just because our founders did it does not make it right.

Squid Shark on June 19, 2008 at 10:21 PM

I can see a little water has gone under the bridge since this comment, but…

I think the practice of the founders is quite relevant to the thoughts behind the words in our Constitution. Personally, I don’t think I would buy the cross plate, but opposition to it on “separation of church & state” grounds appears silly when you look at the historical context of the Constitution, as I alluded to earlier.

Incidentally, I once attempted to purchase a vanity plate with “1Lord” as the characters, and was rebuffed by the Nevada DMV. Maybe I should hire a lawyer- Nah.

Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM

It is to me, but I dont much care for His name being on anything.

“In G-d We Trust” is quite non-sectarian, for fellow Monotheists of course.

Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM

What about the fact that God is spelled out? Is that seen as offensive?

Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Whatever your interpretation of the Establishment clause, I think the S.C. Constitution (despite having a word-for-word rehash of the Establishment Clause) provides a little more protection for this brand of stupid than the federal Constitution.

flenser on June 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM

But at least you are a consistent idiot.

If I gave a rat’s arse about this whole kerfuffle, that is ;)

LimeyGeek on June 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Fair enough. I agree with you that this is all ridiculous.

I can’t put it any better than LimeyGeek already did, so ditto.

RightOFLeft on June 20, 2008 at 5:12 PM

And as I said to him, it’s still discrimination if you’re an atheist, no matter how abstract, and if you’re willing to be generous and accept that “God” can be a metaphor, then there’s no reason you couldn’t do the same for a cross.

the cross is just an instrument of Roman torture and execution to me

Because you’re Jewish, right?

I am not an athiest, you jackass, so shut your damn trap.

I guess it varies from day to day, depending on the topic under discussion.

Squid Shark on June 20, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Apologies to the rest of the board for that last post.

The Federal government issues money with “In God We Trust” on it. I can’t see why a state license plate with a cross is not acceptable, while that is.

flenser on June 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Even the Founding Fathers were not good with supporting one sect over the other, the cross is just an instrument of Roman torture and execution to me, so I see it as an endorsement of one faith over the other. “In G-d We Trust” is quite non-sectarian, for fellow Monotheists of course.

flenser on June 20, 2008 at 11:07 AM

I am not an athiest, you jackass, so shut your damn trap.

So a motto of trusting in God is significantly better than a picture of a cross?

Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 2:33 PM

I can’t put it any better than LimeyGeek already did, so ditto.

And if you’re so inclined, then maybe you’d consider the cross a metaphor as well.

Esthier on June 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM

A little harder to swallow, but I can try.

If I gave a rat’s arse about this whole kerfuffle, that is ;)