If your theory were correct, he wouldn't be mentioned at all. Now you are trying to spin the fact that you were wrong about Jesus being mentioned in the US Constitution as a trivial issue.
No, it demonstrates that people's modern understanding of that time period is simply incorrect. Christianity was a far greater influence on the nation at that time, and the assumption was that it would always be so.
For people that believe in Divine guidance, this is a very reasonable position to have.
And you're also the same person saying the plain wording of the Religious Test Clause in Article VI is unclear?
It is unclear to the extent that it was meant to apply to Muslims or some other religion. The default assumption was that everyone who was going to hold office, was going to be some denomination of Christian.
From my perspective, claiming that this allows Muslims or other religions should require a burden of proof. The clause might have been intended to mean this, but given the context of that time period, this seems unlikely to me.
I find it highly doubtful that all the very religious state legislatures that ratified the constitution would have read that passage as applying to Muslims. I am fairly convinced that they read it as precluding doctrinaire disputes within differing denominations of Christianity.
In other words, their understanding of it was very different from that of modern times.
If maintaining that mention of "the Lord" in the equivalent of a date stamp = a specific mention of Jesus makes you feel better, so be it. Honestly, I have bigger fish to fry.