Examining the Engineering behind Jesus’ (p) title as “Lamb of God”

Donate To Discover The Truth

Examining the Engineering behind Jesus’ (p) title as “Lamb of God”


Question Mark



We have been arguing on good grounds that gospels elicit internal evidences – in fact, hard evidences – which alludes that its verses have been penned to meet biased theological agendas; as such on one hand where the gospels compromise with historical facts, on the other hand, it defies the very concepts of divine “inspiration”.

Thus, in this paper we would bring to light another intriguing incident which shows that gospel of John’s portrayal of “doctrine of vicarious atonement” through the alleged death of Jesus (peace be upon him) was the result of that conscious engineering which was meant to bolster one of the fundamental “orthodox” doctrine, albeit, at the cost of conflict with Mark’s gospel!


Mark’s “Passover” did pass!


Mark narrates that before being trialed by the Sanhedrin and subsequent crucifixion, Jewish Jesus (peace be upon him) ate the famous “Passover” feast with his disciples:


“On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the day the lambs for the Passover meal were killed, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and get the Passover meal ready for you?” Then Jesus sent two of them with these instructions: “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house he enters, Teacher says,Where is the room where my disciples and I will eat the Passover meal?’ Then he will show you a large upstairs room, prepared and furnished , where you will get everything ready for us.” The disciples left, went to the city and found everything just as Jesus had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal. When it was evening, Jesus came with the twelve disciples.While they were at the table eating, Jesus said, “I tell you that one of you will betray me – one who is eating with me.” The disciples were upset and began to ask him, one after the other, “Surely you don’t mean me, do you?” Jesus answered, “It will be one of you twelve, one who dips his bread in the dish with me. The Son of Man will die as the Scriptures say he will; but how terrible for that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would have been better for that man if he had never been born!” While they were eating, Jesus took a piece of bread, gave a prayer of thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. “Take it,” he said, “this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks to God, and handed it to them; and they all drank from it. Jesus said, “This is my blood which is poured out for many, my blood which seals God’s covenant.” (Mark 14:12-24)


It is vitally important to observe a few incidents as it turned out in the above passage:


Firstly, note the day. It starts with the day before the Passover is to be eaten. In other words, it is the day when the sacrificial animal would be slaughtered for the Passover meal: “the lambs for the Passover meal were killed

Secondly, Jesus (peace be upon him) specifically directed his disciples where they should prepare the Passover meal for him: at the house where the man with the pitcher of water enters.

Thirdly, the disciples prepared the Passover meal for Jesus (peace be upon him)and they ate it.

Fifthly, on the foregoing, Jesus (peace be upon him) symbolized that the food and drink is like his body and blood!

From all of the above, we want to stress that Jesus (peace be upon him) ate the Passover meal with his disciples at his chosen place before any case and conviction by Pontius Pilate. In fact immediately after the meal, Jesus (peace be upon him) goes to the well-known garden of Gethsemane where he is subsequently arrested by Roman authorities with Jewish elders (c.f. Mark 14:27-49). Thereafter he was convicted to be finally, biblically, crucified to death.

This is good enough a narration on the face of it; however, when this is juxtaposed with John’s narration of the same incident it starts to create problems!


John’s “Passover” never passed!


Quite contrastingly, John claims that Jesus (peace be upon him) was captured, litigated, convicted and crucified before the Passover meal was ever eaten by him:


“When Pilate heard these words, he took Jesus outside and sat down on the judge’s seat in the place called “The Stone Pavement” (In Hebrew the name is “Gabbatha.”) It was then almost noon of the day before Passover. Pilate said to the people, “Here is your king!” They shouted back, “Kill him! Kill him! Crucify him!” Pilate asked them, “Do you want me to crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “The only king we have is the Emperor!” Then Pilate handed Jesus over to them to be crucified. So they took charge of Jesus. He went out, carrying his cross, and came to “The Place of Skull,” as it s called. (In Hebrew it is called “Golgotha.”) There they crucified him; and they also crucified two other men, one on each side, with Jesus between them. (John 19: 13-18)


Notice that Jesus (peace be upon him) is being prosecuted when it was “almost noon of the day before Passover”, in other words, more or less the exact time when the slaughter animal would be made ready for sacrifice and simultaneously preparations for other associated rituals would be made. This in turn implies that John’s Jesus (peace be upon him), unlike Mark’s Jesus (peace be upon him), did not ever had chance to eat the Passover meal.

In fact, John’s narration gets internal support for his timing of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) prosecution; this is so because John alludes that the Jewish elders who conspired against Jesus (peace be upon him) did not enter into Pontius’ hall. They tarried outside while Jesus (peace be upon him) alone was standing in front of the Roman governor:


Early in the morning Jesus was taken from Caiaphas’ house  to the governor’s palace The Jewish authorities did not go inside the palace, for they wanted to keep themselves ritually clean, in order to be able to eat the Passover meal.(John 18:28)


Note the reason why the Jewish priests did not enter into Pontius’ hall; so that they might not be defiled for being into the chambers of a pagan gentile – Pontius Pilate. And, they wanted to remain “ritually clean” so that they “be able to eat the Passover meal”! So, Passover feast is yet to materialize and Jesus (peace be upon him) ingospel of John is being prosecuted.

To further bolster John’s position, we can observe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is not portrayed as symbolizing his body and blood to the food and drink of the Passover meal respectively as he did in Mark’s gospel; simply because he was never present in the Passover meal! Probably, by the feast time, he was in his alleged tomb!



What did author of John achieve?

It is extremely difficult to resolve the conflict between the two so-assumed god breathed “injeels”. However, what exactly were these “orthodox” authors achieving by these well-thought manipulations of data. In fact in the passages to follow we would realize that the author of John did achieve an “orthodox” theological agenda which happens to be the cornerstone of the “orthodox” Christianity which, otherwise, would have been impossible to achieve:

Remember that we were talking about the Passover meal. And in Jewish culture it was marked by slaughter of an animal – a lamb for that reason.

Quite interestingly, John’s gospel happens to be the only gospel which symbolizes Jesus (peace be upon him) as a (sacrificial) animal – a lamb:


The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “There is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)


So when author of gospel of John manipulated the timing of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) crucifixion from after Passover meal to before Passover meal when the “lamb” is traditionally “prepared” for slaughter, he was able to draw a strong theological link between the crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him) as the “lamb” slaughtered for the traditional Jewish “Passover”!

In other words, when Jews in Jerusalem were slaughtering their “lambs” for Passover meal, Jesus (peace be upon him) – the Lamb of Lambs, so to say – was also slaughtered for the “Passover” of the sins of the world unto himself. Not surprisingly, of this happening just at the exact time when traditional Jewish slaughter takes place, namely, just after noon so that when sunsets, i.e., when the Passover day really sets in, the Passover meal would be ready! Obviously this strong figurative correlation would have been impossible given the way Holy Ghost “inspired” Mark; thus, a manipulation of “God’s word” was inevitable and necessary.

In all of these, do keep in mind that when John’s gospel was being written, Pauline epistles with its outstanding emphasize on the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him) than his life, was already available for at least half – a – century!

Therefore, if author of John’s gospel was one influenced by Pauline philosophy or used his epistles as source, then it certainly makes sense why Jesus’ (peace be upon him) crucifixion was meticulously shifted before the Passover meal in John’s gospel!




It is not the blatant contradiction between so called god-breathed “scriptures” which intrigues; rather, it is the hefty price of allowing flagrant contradiction(s) between gospels to meet skewed theological agendas – that has to be observed!

On this regard, it would be best to end this brief investigation with New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman’s note:


“The main point is that the stories that Christians told and retold about Jesus were not meant to be objective history lessons for students interested in key events of Roman imperial times. They were meant to convince people that Jesus was the miracle-working Son of God whose death brought salvation to the world, and to edify and instruct those who already believed. Sometimes the stories were modified to express a theological truth. For the early Christians who passed along the stories we now have in the Gospels, it was sometimes legitimate and necessary to change a historical fact in order to make a theological point. These are the stories that the Gospel writers inherited.” (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, The Traditions of Jesus in their Greco-Roman context, Chapter 3, Pp 48-49)


We need to think about a certain aspects! If gospel author(s) can manipulate the timing of alleged crucifixion for mere correlation with a Jewish custom, then is it possible that they can modify other aspects of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) life and alleged death as well! How about manipulating his words too which ended up in thecurrent New Testament? How about exaggeration of his status and miracles? In fact the possibilities just open up like opening of floodgates. We leave that for readers to cogitate further when they pick up New Testament.


Finally an exemplification at par for the treatment of “Scriptures”:


Then We made you heirs in the land after them, to see how ye would behave! But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: “Bring us a reading other than this, or change this,” Say: “It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (to come).” (Qur’an 10:14-15, Yusuf Ali)


In the hostile situation where Prophet (peace be upon him) preached it was easier for him to compromise the revelations he was inspired with at least at nominal level, yet it was not in his authority to change God’s word.



  • Unless otherwise mentioned all biblical text taken from Good News Edition.
  • Textual emphasize wherever not matching with original is ours.



Lamb of God

Tagged as: , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses »

  1. 2 Corinthians 5: 17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
    1 John 3:5. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
    6. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
    8. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
    9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

    Ephesians 2: 8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

  2. Everyday I find reasons to believe that I NEVER MADE a mistake leaving Xstianity for ISLAM.
    I love You guyz for the deep research you are doing to expose the consealed truth.
    I am now PROUDLY called HASSAN.

    I am realy amazed by this passover thing how it was well calculated to fit their desired objectives.

    I am eager to learn more abt CRUSIFITION.Would you PLEASE send me mails to educate me further? pauljerome50@gmail.com

    Thanx in anticipation.

  3. Hmmp.. not convincing yet

  4.   John 18:28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning (ην δε πρωι). They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. 

    19:12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”  13 So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgement seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha.  14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” 

    It does NOT say noon. John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, which was the capital of the Roman province of Asia and he wrote it to be understood by people there first of all. In the Roman system, the sixth hour is six o’clock in the morning. So John agrees with the synoptics that Jesus was brought at first light to the Governor’s residence and condemned quite early in the morning. He was then taken to be crucified, at the third hour (Mark 15:25 – Hebrew reckoning) which was around 9 am.

    It was the day of Preparation. The Jewish day runs from evening to evening, so this was still the same day that Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples. There was a sacrifice in the temple on this day and it was this that the priests did not want to be defiled for, so that they could eat of it.

    John 19:31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 

    The next day was a Sabbath which was a high day. That means it was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread:

    Numbers 28:16 “On the fourteenth day of the first month is the LORD’s Passover,  17 and on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast. Seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.  18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, 

    So John agrees with the synoptics that Jesus died on the day of Passover and was buried before the end of it. The next day (Thursday evening to Friday evening) was the 15th Nisan, the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, and the day following that was the normal weekly Sabbath, Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, 17th Nisan, which is Sunday for us.

  5. ” house where the man with the pitcher of water enters” is also the star sign of Aquarius.

  6. 2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    1Cor.2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

    1cor.4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
    1cor.2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
    1cor.2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: Vs 7 -But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
    11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    1Cor.2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

  7. Lamb of God – Courtesy Dr. Lawrence Brown
    There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.
    -Ansel Adams

    Many Christians claim to find proof of the crucifixion and atonement in John 1 :29, which calls Jesus Christ the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Others are more speculative, and for good reason.
    To begin with, Christians disagree on the meaning and significance of this concept of “lambness.” Some question the Bible translation while still others fail to link Old and New Testament “Lamb of God” references into a reasonable chain of logic. Even John the Baptist, whom this verse quotes, seemed to have trouble with the term.
    The Christian claim is that John the Baptist knew who Jesus was, and identified him as the “Lamb of God” in John 1 :29. But if he knew Jesus so well as to identify him with certainty in one verse, why did he question Jesus years later: “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11 :3)
    Among those who have difficulty rectifying Old and New Testament inconsistencies are Catholic clergy themselves. The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits inability to determine the origin of the title “Lamb of God,” for although attempts are made to trace the term through Isaiah (Chapter 53) by way of Acts 8:32, “this text is incapable of explaining the expression … ” (New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 8, p.338)

    The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament has this to say:
    “The Aramaic might also offer a basis with its use of the same word for both ‘lamb’ and ‘boy or servant.’ Thus the Baptist in Jn. 1:29,36 might have been describing Jesus as the servant of God who takes away the sin of the world in vicarious self-offering (Is. 53).”(221-Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich. p.54.) Excuse me, but was that servant of God? Hm … lamb/servant; animal/human … Perhaps we should be content that the translators confined their differences within the same animal kingdom, but all the same …
    So could John the Baptist’s native Aramaic have been corrupted in translation to the New Testament Greek amnos? Could the correct translation be “boy” or “servant” rather than “lamb?” If so, any link between Old and New Testament references to “Lamb of God” would shred faster than ticker tape in a turboprop. Hence, it is with great interest that we encounter the New Catholic Encyclopedia agreeing that the Aramaic word talya’ can be translated to “boy” or “servant,” as well as “lamb.” (222- New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 8, p.339) Furthermore, the proposal that the phrase uttered by the Baptist was “Behold the Servant of God,” and not “Behold the Lamb of God” is, in their words, “very plausible” and “much easier to explain.’?” (ibid p.339)
    As with pais theou, the first translation of which is “servant of God” rather than “Son of God,” could this be yet one more instance of theologically prejudiced mistranslation? Quite possibly.
    Finally, there is the now-familiar pattern of Jesus being labeled “Lamb of God” in the Gospel of John but in none of the other gospels, which implies a minority opinion or, at the very least, lack of substantiation. Once again, the vote is three gospel authors to one that the phrase was never spoken in the first place, or not stated with the meaning into which it has been translated. Had the original meaning been “servant of God,” (assuming the phrase was uttered in the first place) the other three gospel authors are to be applauded for refusing to corrupt the message into an abstract recipe of “lambness.” On the other hand, if we are to trust the Bible as the word of God, we have to wonder why God didn’t inspire this knowledge to the other three gospel authors. Assuming God’s objective to be that of spreading His truth as widely and precisely as possible, we have to ask which is more likely:
    1. Our infallible God failed to propagate His truth three times (uh-no).
    2. The author of the book of John, verses 1:29 & 1 :36, espoused a false doctrine twice. (Possible, but let’s assume not, for if this were the case it becomes difficult to trust any part of the Bible.)
    3. The true meaning is “servant of God,” but doctrinal prejudice resulted in the translation “Iamb of God.”
    Perhaps we should consider this issue in the context of Christian creed as a whole, for the doctrine of Jesus being the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” bleeds into those of original sin and atonement. After all, what’s the need for a sacrificial lamb, if not to atone for the (original) sin of the world?

    • I wouldn’t go to Catholicism for truth about the bible, and certainly not to unbelieving academics!

      Each gospel writer presents Jesus from a different perspective: Matthew – Messianic King; Mark – the servant; Luke – the man; John – the divine Son of God. All four are needed to make the complete picture.

      The Lamb of God does not need to have an earlier occurrence in the Old Testament; God gives a lot of new revelation in the New Testament, and this is some of it. The phrase identifies Jesus as the sacrifice for sins provided by God. It picks up the typology of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, aborted by God’s provision of a ram instead. It also picks up the Passover, where the blood of the lamb on the door posts kept the angel of death out of the house. Paul says explicitly, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the feast.” (1 Cor 5:7)

      NET bible notes on John 1:29 – Gen 22:8 is an important passage in the background of the title Lamb of God as applied to Jesus. In Jewish thought this was held to be a supremely important sacrifice. G. Vermès stated: “For the Palestinian Jew, all lamb sacrifice, and especially the Passover lamb and the Tamid offering, was a memorial of the Akedah with its effects of deliverance, forgiveness of sin and messianic salvation” (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [StPB], 225).

      Speculations about the Aramaic are irrelevant. The scripture is given to us in Greek; that is what God inspired.

      John was shown by God who Jesus was. Some time later he wondered if he had made a mistake, because he did not see Jesus doing what he had expected, we suppose. Jesus reassured him.

      The translation of “pais theou” would be “Son of God” according to the primary meaning of pais; servant is a secondary meaning.

  8. In a previous reply I said that the sixth hour in John 19 meant 6 am rather than noon, but I noticed that the same expression is used in chapter 4, where it could not mean 6 am. So I was wrong in my explanation. Therefore I now think that John says the sixth hour because that was the time when Christ’s work of bearing sin began, as denoted by the darkness that came over all the earth for three hours at noon, according to Luke 23:44.

    It is recorded in the Bible that the Lord asked Abraham to offer his ‘only son’ as a burnt offering. It is quite clear that it was only Ishma’el who could have been called the ‘only son’, because it was only he who remained the ‘only son’ of Abraham for fourteen years, until Isaac was born. The Jewish scholars thought it an honour to be offered before the Lord; and they did not like it to be attributed to the actual ‘only son’, Ishma’el, who was not their ‘real ancestor’, but was their ‘uncle ancestor’. So they managed to manipulate it in favour of their ‘real ancestor’, Isaac.
    According to the narrative of the Bible the objective of the sacrifice was to ‘tempt’ (test/try) Abraham which has been explained in the very first sentence. In the holy Qur’an, as well, there is the mention of ‘tempting’ Abraham:

    And recall to mind when his Lord put Abraham to test with certain commands, all of which he fulfilled. He said: ‘I am going to make you the leader of the humankind.’ He asked: ‘Does this promise apply to my offspring!’ He answered: ‘My Promise does not apply to the transgressors.’
    It is to be noted that it was merely a test and was not meant to be carried out verbatim, which is evident from the story.

    The story of the ‘Offering of Abraham his “only son” for Sacrifice’ goes in the Bible as follows:
    And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. (2) And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (3) And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. (4) Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. (5) And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.7 (6) And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife8; and they went both of them together. (7) And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? (8) And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:9 so they went both of them together. (9) And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. (10) And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. (11) And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. (12) And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing upon him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son10 from me. (13) And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (14) And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day11, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. (15) And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, (16) And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: (17) That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed12 as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed13 shall possess the gate of his enemies14; (18) And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed15; because thou hast obeyed my voice.16 http://neurotherapy-of-christian-brain.blogspot.ae/2012/10/the-only-son-offered-for-sacrifice_12.html

  10. 7 Abraham was taking his son to offer him as a burnt offering; and it is not the whole truth that they were going there for worship. However, if the worship be taken here to mean sacrifice, it is clearly false to say that he and the lad will ‘come again’ to them. He was taking his ‘only son’ to offer as a sacrifice; and as such he and the lad, both of them together, could not have ‘come again’ to them. Having Isaac sacrificed, it could have been only Abraham to ‘come again’. Anyhow, if it be claimed that Abraham was not telling a lie, and he before hand knew that a lamb was to be provided for offering in lieu of the lad, then the whole drama of the so called offering becomes quite insignificant and the plea of ‘tempting’ becomes quite vague and meaningless. It shows that this
    part of the story is a concocted one, because it depicts Abraham as a false and deceiving person. It is quite contrary to the status of a Prophet. A person who is not sincere and dependably veracious and honest cannot be taken as a Prophet.
    8 It again looks unbecoming of the patriarch and Prophet Abraham to put the heavy load of the wood on the shoulders of his son who is supposed to be just going to be offered for a sacrifice and keep the lighter one for himself. It is simply an indifferent ruthlessness, hence unbelievable regarding the patriarch and Prophet Abraham. As such this episode of the story loses its credibility.
    9 Here again it is not true on Abraham’s part to say ‘God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.’ He was asked by the Lord to sacrifice his son and he was going to do so. He did not know before hand that a lamb would be provided to be sacrificed in his son’s stead; otherwise the ‘temptation’ would have been a mere drama and should have lost all significance. The clause ‘God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.’ was obviously a false statement if claimed to be uttered by the patriarch Abraham and as such it can be taken as if
    appended by some redactor. It is inconceivable of the patriarch and Prophet Abraham that he would try to appease his son through such mis-statements. It means that this part of the story is not true.
    10 The phrase ‘thine only son’ indicates the stress and significance of the event of the ‘offering’ the only son by an old man of about a hundred years, who direly needed the assistance of his young son at this advanced stage of his life; and who had no other son so far. It reveals the gravity of the situation and makes the ‘temptation’ perfect.
    11 ‘as it is said to this day’ is obviously a later interpolation inserted, may be, centuries after the occurrence of the incident by some simple redactor. Some commentators attribute it to Moses, e.g. This name, Moses adds, gave birth to the proverb, ‘In the Mount of Jehovah it shall be seen.’ [7th Day Adventist BC, ed. Francis D. Nichol et al. (Hagerstown: Review & Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 1:353].
    But now no credible scholar assigns the Pentateuch to Moses, as it was not written until the lapse of almost half a millennium after him (See Appenix-II at the end of this book).
    12 The context dictates that this promise be considered to relate to the son who is being discussed here and who had just been offered to be sacrificed by Abraham. However, when ‘thy seed’ be spoken in such an indefinite, unqualified, and absolute manner, it can also be applied to the others of ‘his seed’ as well. But it would by all means include Ishma’el and his descendants in the first place. So the progeny of Ishma’el is definitely included in the promise of ‘Blessing’ and ‘multiplying’.
    13 Here again ‘thy seed’ can genuinely be applied only to the progeny of Ishma’el among whom ‘a Prophet’ was to be raised for all the peoples of earth, whereas the Jews do not extend the blessings of revelation and faith to the whole of humamnity. They rather keep it restricted unto the children of Israel exclusively.
    14 It obviously relates to the progeny of Ishma’el, which captured almost all of the Arabia and perpetually dominated there. They never went under the captivity of any of their enemies, whereas the Jews had to suffer the captivity at the hands of Egyptian Pharaohs. The progeny of Ishma’el never suffered any exile, whereas the Jews had to suffer ethnic cleansing and exile at the hands of the Assyrians (in 722 BC) and Babylonians (in 586 BC). As such the clause of the verse cannot be applied to the seed of Isaac. Not to speak of possessing ‘the gate of their enemies’, they could not retain and protect their own gates–and even the gates of their Temple–from their enemies throughout their history excepting an ignorably short period during the united kingdom.

    All of mankind are the servants of ALLAH [God]. If a man were to own another man then that man would be his servant. Obviously this servant would be held in a lower regard than this man’s own children (or himself). We do not usually find people telling their sons (or themselves): “come here my servant,”or “Go over there my servant.” Let us compare this with what God has to say about Jesus (pbuh): Matthew 12:18: “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen.”http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/12-18.htm
    Acts 3:13(RSV): “The God** of Abraham, and of Isaac,…. hath glorified hisservant Jesus.” http://biblelexicon.org/acts/3-13.htm
    Acts 4:27(RSV): “For of a truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hast anointed….” http://biblelexicon.org/acts/4-27.htm http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%204:27&version=NIV
    servant παῖδα paida
    The Actual Greek word used is “pias” or “paida” which mean; “servant, child, son, manservant.” Some translations of the Bible, such as the popular King James Version, have translated this word as “Son” when it is attributed to Jesus (pbuh) and “servant” for most everyone else, while more recent translations of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) now honestly translate it as “servant.” As we shall see in later chapters, the RSV was compiled by thirty two Biblical scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating Christian denominations from the “most” ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today. Chances are that no matter what your church or denomination you are able to name, that church took part in the correction of the King James Version of the Bible which resulted in the RSV.

    The exact same word “pias” is attributed to Jacob (Israel) in Luke 1:54 and translated as “servant”:
    “He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;.” http://biblelexicon.org/luke/1-54.htm

    It is also applied to King David in Luke 1:69, and once again, it is translated as “servant”: http://biblelexicon.org/luke/1-69.htm

    “….the house of his servant David;” (also see Acts 4:25 http://biblelexicon.org/acts/4-25.htm ).

    However, when it is applied to Jesus (e.g. Acts 3:13, Acts 4:27), NOW it is translated as “Son.” (notice that it is not only translated as “son” but as “Son”.) Why the double standard?Why the dishonest translation techniques?

    “And verily, among them is a party who twist their tongues with the Scripture that you might think that it is from the Scripture but it is not from the Scripture; and they say, ‘It is from Allah’ but it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie against Allah while [well] they know it!” The noble Qur’an, A’al-Umran(3):78

    “The Messiah will never scorn to be a servant of Allah, nor will the favored angels. Whosoever scorns His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him; Then as for those who believed and did good works, unto them will he pay their wages in full and shall increase them from His bounty. [But] as for those who were scornful and proud, He shall punish hem with a painful torment, nor will they find for themselves other than Allah any ally or champion”The noble Qur’an, Al-Nissa(4):172-174
    Matthew 23:8
    “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Jesus; and all ye are brethren.”
    Here it is clearly proved that Jesus was servant of Allah, and that there is only One Master and He is Allah. Note that “Jesus and all ye are brethren (are servants)” and their Master is only One Allah.
    Matthew 23:9
    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
    From this you will note that fatherhood and sonship is meant metaphorically to be the relationship between Allah and His servants: it is meant in a general sense and not specifically for Jesus son of Mary (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
    Secondly note that present day Christians go in sinister confession boxes and call their sinister priests and pastors as father.
    Jesus was a man who spent 9 months in his mother’s womb and had an umbilical cord at the time of birth and a belly button like all humans. He used to eat and used to go for the call of nature like all normal humans. How can the son be the father of himself?

    Last Testament – Quran 19:88. They say: “((Allah)) Most Gracious has begotten a son!”
    89. Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
    90. At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
    91. That they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious.
    92. For it is not consonant with the majesty of ((Allah)) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
    93. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to ((Allah)) Most Gracious as a servant.

  12. Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic which we all know, and in Jerusalem they spoke Judean Aramaic and there is a difference in words and dialect.
    Talya ALAHA in J.Aramaic means “son of God”, in the tongue of jesus (p )”G.Aramaic” and his disciples it means “Servant of God”, both child & son can be traced back to the greek word “UIOV”.
    Now if we translate “UIOV” back to Galilean Aramaic we would of got Servant of God, but xtian scholars chose to translate it into Judean Aramaic.
    so when he says “I am the Talya Alaha” in his tongue it means “i am the Servant of God” and not “i am the son of God” John 10:36 and 19:7 proves there was confusion.
    “Talya Alaha” in J.Aramaic can also mean “Lamb of God”.

    So why does the Bible only focus on the Jewish Aramaic translation when jesus (pbuh) was a Galilean Aramaic speaker?

    Considering jesus was accepted in Galilee, i presume because they understood him to be a servant of God, and rejected in Judea i assume because he was regarded as making claims to be the Son of God, and he himself was confused at this (John 10:36)

    And accordance of first ever Christian Church Order “Didache” with the Koran

    “The Didache” or “Teaching of the Apostles” turns jesus out as Muslim and no Christian

    “…the world-deceiver {shall appear} as a son of God;” (Didache 16:8)


    Note: son of God refers to anti christ, why should muslims or christians believe that Jesus son of God while he is servant of God?

    The Didache or Teaching of the Apostles turns Jesus out as Muslim and no Christian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: