Here’s a very peculiar thing I do not usually notice..

A comment today on this blog by Followers is so frequently expressed by Christians I meet that I usually do not stop to think how very odd it is.

They all tend to use this kind of language about Jesus of Nazareth:

‘To give his life a ransom for many he put on flesh and was the perfect sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of the world for the last and final time.’

So it is claimed that Jesus was the “perfect sacrificial lamb”.

But was he?

Here is an outline of what typical man looks like


Note that he has two legs and two arms and he walks upright.  The suit tends to be optional.

Here is an outline of what a typical lamb looks like. The wooly coat is a natural feature (not usually optional)


Note that it has four legs, lots of wool and walks on all four legs.

I am told by experts that they are two quite different species. So the man is not a lamb – and visa versa. Tradition tells us that Jesus possessed two arms, two legs and walked upright. Jesus therefore was not a lamb. He was a man. This can be definitively proven.

According to the Jewish Scriptures a lamb could be offered in the temple. Exodus 29:38:

“These are the sacrifices you are to offer regularly on the altar. Each day, offer two lambs that are a year old”

Christians when challenged about this discrepancy tell me that of course Jesus was not literally a lamb, he was a “metaphorical lamb”. But did God authorise a human being to be sacrificed in the Temple? Where in the Torah is there explicit provision for a non-literal metaphorical sheep (in reality an actual two-legged man) to be sacrificed to God?

It gets worse. God it seems rules out human sacrifice, even if you call the man a sheep, goat or bull. God is not fooled. He can tell the difference between a man and a lamb even if Christians confuse the two.

See: Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31; 2 Kings 21:6; Deuteronomy 18:10;  Leviticus 20:2.

So the next time a Christian tells you that Jesus was a lamb you might want to show them the helpful illustrations above and ask them where did God permit in the Temple a man to be offered as a sacrifice to God?



Categories: Bible, Christianity, Silly

24 replies

  1. Let me repost excerpts from the very article by Jewish anti-Christian rabbi Tovia Singer that you reposted here for all to read. The following is taken from Singer’s article, “Who is God’s Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53” (


    In rabbinic thought, all of God’s faithful, gentiles included (Zechariah 13:8-9), endure suffering on behalf of God (Isaiah 40:2; Zechariah 1:15). Thus, Jewish leaders of the past, such as Moses12 and Jeremiah,13) Rabbi Akiva,14 as well as future eschatological figures, SUCH AS THE MESSIAH BEN JOSEPH AND THE MESSIAH BEN DAVID, are held up in rabbinic literature as individuals who exemplify the “servant” who willingly suffers on behalf of Heaven.

    Therefore, when the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) describes the predicament of the messiah as he is waiting to be summoned by God, the rabbis cast him as:

    “sitting among other paupers, all of them afflicted with disease. Yet, while all the rest of them tie and untie their bandages all at once, the messiah changes his bandages one at a time, lest he is summoned for the redemption at a moment’s notice.”

    While this story may be understood allegorically, its jarring message is clear: THE MESSIAH, like other afflicted members of Israel, ENDURES THE AGONY AND TRIALS ASSIGNED TO THE FAITHFUL. However, unlike the other suffering saints who completely remove all their bandages before patiently replacing them with a fresh dressing, the messiah must methodically replace each bandage, one at a time. In other words, the messiah does not suffer more or less than other servants of God. Rather, according to the Talmud, the messiah is different from other men of God because he must be ready at a moment’s notice to usher in the deliverance of his beleaguered people. Because he is prepared to be summoned for the redemption at all times, he is never in a predicament where his bandages are fully removed.

    When Isaiah speaks of the suffering remnant of Israel, THE MESSIANIC KING IS, THEREFORE, INCLUDED. THE FINAL HEIR OF DAVID’S THRONE IS AN INTEGRAL MEMBER OF THE PIOUS OF ISRAEL. This is, according to rabbinic interpretation, the pshat, or the plain meaning of the text in Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. Therefore, when both ancient and modern rabbinic commentators expound on the clear meaning of the text, they ascribe the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 to the nation of Israel.

    In order to shed much needed light on the famed Servant Songs, numerous rabbinic commentators hold up Jewish heroes as a paradigm of Isaiah 53’s “servant.” Accordingly, while on one hand the Talmud, Zohar, and other ancient rabbinic texts state explicitly that the “servant” of Isaiah 53 refers to the faithful of corporate Jewry,16 the same sources frequently point to renowned saints of Israel as an archetype of the Suffering Servant. These virtuous individuals include saints such as Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, THE MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH AND DAVID – each of them embodies perfect examples of God’s servant, the righteous remnant of Israel.

    Bear in mind that the rabbinic commentary on Isaiah 53 is not dualistic or multilateral. Meaning, the sages of old did not suggest that Isaiah 53 refers to either the righteous remnant of Israel, Moses, Jeremiah, or an anointed leader. Rather, the servant in all four Servant Songs are the faithful descendants of Abraham. Isaiah 53 attests to an unprecedented worldwide repentance of all of mankind – a redemptive achievement accomplished by no other saint in history. THEREFORE, RABBINIC COMMENTATORS TEND TO LIFT UP THE MESSIAH’S NAME MORE FREQUENTLY THAN THE NAMES OF OTHER FAITHFUL SERVANTS OF GOD…

    The Midrash, however, illuminates a most profound, yet often overlooked central theme of Isaiah 53; never before in history has any servant of God brought about the mass repentance of the gentiles. Whereas the patriarch Abraham redeemed only 70 souls in Haran, THE FUTURE SCION OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID WILL USHER IN AN UNPRECEDENTED EPOCH, where gentile kings of nations will repent, as vividly described in the fourth Servant Song. In other words, THE MESSIAH WILL BRING ABOUT AN AGE WHEN THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE OF ISAIAH 53 WILL MATERIALIZE – the worldwide repentance of the gentiles. Whereas Moses drew only a single nation from Egypt into the service of God, the messianic king will redeem the other nations as well…

    Consequently, although various rabbinic literature highlights numerous Biblical saints whose lives exemplify the Suffering Servant of Israel in Isaiah 53, THE FUTURE MESSIAH IS HELD UP MORE FREQUENTLY AND PROMINENTLY THAN ANY OTHER PIOUS JEW IN THIS STARTLING CONTEXT; for the future anointed Davidic king will usher in this dramatic epoch in which the gentiles will repent, as outlined in Isaiah 53. In other words, the stunning narrative of the fourth Servant Song WILL BE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE REIGN OF THE MESSIAH, THE FOREMOST MEMBER OF GOD’S SUFFERING SERVANT, Israel. ONLY THE MESSIAH WILL ACCOMPLISH THIS GLOBAL ACHIEVEMENT IN THE FINAL REDEMPTION, WHICH NEITHER ABRAHAM, MOSES, OR JEREMIAH WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH. Only the messianic age will spawn worldwide repentance of the nations. Therefore, the rabbis teach,
    “My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly – he will be higher than Abraham, more exalted than Moses, loftier than the angels.”17


    This puts you in a dilemma for a variety of reasons. First, seeing that you believe Jesus is the Messiah, and seeing that even anti-Christian Jewish rabbis have no choice but to admit that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy which necessarily includes the Messiah, you therefore have no choice but accept the fact that the NT documents are correct in describing the brutal death of Jesus the Messiah on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. Therefore, why are you still a Muslim seeing that you believe that Muhammad denied the vicarious death of the Messiah Jesus?

    Second, Isaiah likens the Messiah to a lamb that is taken to the slaughter:

    “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was brought AS A LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.” Isaiah 53:7

    Thus, the lamb is apt metaphor for the Messiah seeing that the inspired prophet himself described the vicarious nature of the Messiah’s sufferings and death to a sacrificial lamb.

    Third, how can you say that God seems to be against human sacrifices when Isaiah 53 clearly speaks of it being God’s express will for the Messiah to die as a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of the world?

    “Surely he has borne our grief and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way, BUT THE LORD HAS LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL… By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living; FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE HE WAS STRUCK. His grave was assigned with the wicked, yet with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. YET IT PLEASED THE LORD TO BRUISE HIM; HE HAS PUT HIM TO GRIEF. If he made himself AS AN OFFERING FOR SIN, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the good pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the anguish of his soul and be satisfied. By his knowledge My righteous servant shall justify the many, FOR HE SHALL BEAR THEIR INIQUITIES. Therefore, I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, THUS HE BORE THE SIN OF MANY.” Isaiah 53:4-6, 8-12


  2. But Jesus was not actually a lamb. Do you believe God sanctions human sacrifices to appease his wrath? I have provided many references where God condemns human sacrifice.

    OT scholars today reading Isaiah in its historical context understand the passage to be referring to the nation of Israel (not a messiah which is not mentioned anywhere in Isaiah 53).


    • Williams, it seems you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Let me explain by raising a series of questions.

      Did Isaiah describe the Messiah as a Lamb to be slaughtered? YES!

      Did Isaiah say that it was God’s will for the Messiah to die as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind? YES!

      Since the Messiah is a human being, does this therefore prove that God is not against ALL FORMS OF HUMAN SACRIFICE? UNDOUBTEDLY!

      Does this mean that you are misreading those references about human sacrifices? MOST DEFINITELY!

      Does Tovia Singer whose article you reposted ( confirm that the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 is the dominant view held by the rabbis? YES!

      So why are you now throwing Singer under the bus SEEING YOU WERE THE ONE WHO QUOTED HIM WITH APPROVAL?

      But now let me show you how the national Israel view doesn’t help your cause in the least, but also backfires against you.

      Is Jesus a part of the nation Israel? YES!

      Doesn’t this prove that Isaiah 53 must by necessity include a reference to Jesus if it in fact refers to the whole nation of israel? MOST DEFINITELY!

      Moreover, since you claim that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel, then doesn’t this prove that even per your interpretation God does in fact accept human beings dying as a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of others seeing that the nation of Israel consists of human beings whom Isaiah 53 plainly and emphatically claims suffer because of the sins of the nations? A RESOUNDING YES!

      So I really don’t see how anything you have written even comes close to refuting anything I have said.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Citing a number of Biblical verses that refer to Israel as the “servant”, many of them from the Book of Isaiah such as 49:3 He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will display My splendor.”[29] Jewish scholars, and several Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised Standard Version tell us that Isaiah 53 is about national Israel and the New English Bible echo this analysis. Judaism, teaches that the “servant” in question is actually the nation of Israel.[2] These scholars also argue that verse 10 cannot be describing Jesus. The verse states:

      10he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days

      Taken literally, this description, is inconsistent with the short, childless life of Jesus.[2] But there is interpretive room to argue that a resurrected Jesus has prolonged his days indefinitely and that his “seed” are those who become Christians.

      The reason that the Servant is referred to in the third person may be that these verses are written from the point of view of Gentile nations amazed at Israel’s restoration, or it may simply be a method of figurative description.[2][30] Supporters of this theory argue that the reason for the use of past tense is based on the differences between Proto-Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah. Chapters 40–55 of Isaiah are referred to as “Deutero-Isaiah” because the themes and language are different from the rest of the book, leading some scholars to believe it was written by another author. Deutero-Isaiah differs from Proto-Isaiah in that it refers to Israel as already restored, which could account for the past-tense of the passage.[2]

      The Servant passages in Isaiah, and especially Isaiah 53, may be compared with Psalm 44. Psalm 44 directly parallels the Servant Songs, making it, probably, the best defense for reading Isaiah 53 as applicable to the nation of Israel.

      from Wikipedia


    • Come on Williams, you can do better than, especially better than citing Wikipedia. I already refuted the gross distortion of the meaning of zerah here:

      Do I need to repost it here in its entirety? Besides, your exegesis makes nonsense of the passage since if v. 10 disqualifies Jesus from being the servant, THEN IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES ANY CELIBATE, IMPOTENT AND/OR BARREN ISRAELITE FROM BEING INCLUDED AS WELL. Therefore how can Isaiah 53 refer to the NATION of Israel when you just disqualified a great number of Israelites from this prophecy?

      Worse still for you, if this is referring to the WHOLE NATION then how can the passage speak of Israel seeing its own seed WHEN THEIR SEED ARE ALSO A PART OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL! Are you now contradicting yourself by admitting that isaiah 53 DOES NOT REFER TO ALL OF ISRAEL? Like I said you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

      And you still didn’t answer my question. Did you or did you not repost Singer’s article on Isaiah 53? Therefore, WHY ARE NOW THROWING SINGER UNDER THE BUS?

      Therefore, come clean and admit that Singer is wrong, and remove his article from your page. Or admit he is right, and therefore acknowledge that it is referring to the Messiah.

      Finally, Isaiah 49:3 backfires against you and proves that IT IS NOT ABOUT NATIONAL ISRAEL! Here is the context:

      “Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. He made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me away. And he said to me, ‘You are MY SERVANT, ISRAEL, in whom I will be glorified.’ But I said, “I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the LORD, and my recompense with my God.’ And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be HIS SERVANT, TO BRING JACOB BACK TO HIM, AND THAT ISRAEL MIGHT BE GATHERED TO HIM, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength—he says: ‘It is too light a thing that you should be MY SERVANT TO RAISE UP THE TRIBES OF JACOB AND TO RESTORE THE PRESERVED OF ISRAEL; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.'” Isaiah 49:1-6 RSV

      Here we see two Israels being spoken of, the servant whom God raises up and the nation of Israel whom the servant saves. So instead of helping your case this passage ends up backfiring against you since it distinguishes the servant from the nation, thereby proving the Christian exegesis that in these particular contexts the servant is referring to a specific individual, namely the Messiah, who is true Israel, being the kind of Israel that God intended the nation to be.


    • What I want to stress Sam is what your own Christian scholars (plus Ehrman) are saying about the identity of the Servant in Isaiah 53. Their academic analysis cannot just be ignored.

      Professor Bart Ehrman refers to

      “the widely held view among scholars that it was originally speaking of the suffering of the nation of Israel during the Babylonian captivity (but see Isaiah 49:3)”

      Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet p. 236

      The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (a Roman Catholic academic work) identifies the figure of 52:13-53:12 as the prophet Isaiah himself. See the detailed discussion on page 341 of the commentary.

      The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) says of 52:13-53:12

      ‘The fourth and final servant song portrays the suffering of the servant and his ultimate exaltation. Talmudic tradition identifies the servant with Moses, who suffered throughout the wilderness journey (b. Sotah 14a), and early Christian tradition identifies the servant with Jesus (Acts 8.32-35). Second Isaiah identifies the servant with Israel (49.3), although the servant’s mission is to restore Israel and Jacob to the Lord (49.5).’

      Please read the further comments on Isaiah 53 p. 1039.

      These comments are very typical of Old Testament scholarship’s analysis of the passage. So to say the passage is about Jesus is a Christian interpretation not based on a critical exegesis of the text itself.


  3. My reply:

    Did Isaiah describe the Messiah as a Lamb to be slaughtered? NO! (absolutely no mention of Messiah whatsoever).

    Sam wrote “Since the Messiah is a human being, does this therefore prove that God is not against ALL FORMS OF HUMAN SACRIFICE? UNDOUBTEDLY!”

    Er no. See: Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31; 2 Kings 21:6; Deuteronomy 18:10; Leviticus 20:2. God does not contradict himself. No provision in the Temple for human sacrifice. Isaiah 53 is about the “Servant” in captivity in Babylon as OT scholars will tell you.

    Sam you refuse to read Isaiah as a whole where we read of FOUR Servant songs. The “Servant” is clearly identified as Israel by Isaiah. The fourth Servant Song is found in chapter 53.

    So take of your Christian glasses, put away the bias, and read the passage in its historical context. Just like real scholars do.


    • It really gets frustrating dealing with your blatant inconsistencies and contradictions. Let me try this for a final time.

      First, did you or did you not repost Singer’s article on Isaiah 53, an article that confirms that Isaiah 53 DOES REFER TO AND INCLUDE THE MESSIAH AS ITS ULTIMATE FULFILLMENT? Therefore, WHY ARE NOW THROWING SINGER UNDER THE BUS? So come clean and either admit that Singer is wrong, and remove his article from your page. Or admit he is right, and therefore acknowledge that it is referring to the Messiah.

      Second, since Singer ADMITS that Isaiah 53 does refer to the Messiah, HOW CAN YOU ACCUSE ME OF READING ISAIAH 53 THROUGH MY CHRISTIAN GLASSES AND BIAS, WHEN EVEN ANTI-CHRISTIAN JEWISH RABBIS LIKE SINGER ADMIT THAT THIS SPEAKS OF THE MESSIAH? The fact is that IT IS YOU who needs to toss out your Muslim glasses and stop reading your Muslim bias into the OT when it forces you to butcher the plain reading of the texts.


      So you are correct, God doesn’t contradict himself, which is why your gross misreading of those particular OT texts are wrong and do not mean what you are twisting them to mean.

      I hope you finally get the point.


  4. Hey Williams,

    Love how you’re trying to work through these issues of faith. Never stop trying to resolve your doubts and struggles. More people would do well to question things as you are.

    When reading the Bible, it is imperative we put things into context. Now in the early days of ‘Christianity’, the sacrifice of a lamb without blemish was necessary to remove sin. It sounds weird, but that’s what they did. The passover involved the slaughtering of a lamb and spreading of it’s blood on the doorposts of houses. When people did this, it protected them from the angel of death. And for years afterwards people still followed this tradition, reminding them of how God delivered Israel from the clutches of Egypt and death.

    Now we know that the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23). And this separates us from God. We cannot ever be good enough in ourselves to make it to God. We all stuff up, do and think wrong things, sin. Only the offering of something perfect, without defect, would bring us back to God. So God offered his only son, Jesus.

    Understand that Jesus, and others, in the Bible used analogies and metaphors to tell stories and convey an idea/point. Many times in in scripture it mentions the coming messiah or ‘perfect lamb’ that would come to take away our sins (John 1:29, Isaiah 53:7). Significantly, Jesus’ death fell on the passover. The last supper was part of the celebration of the passover. Jesus death on the cross was likened to the sacrifice of the lamb without blemish or defect. The blood on the doorposts once signified to the Israelites saving from death. In the same way, we who believe in Christ’s sacrifice are saved by his blood. Death will now pass us by because of Jesus’ sacrifice (Ephesians 1:7; Matthew 26:27-28; Acts 20:28; Romans 5:9).

    I hope this helps Williams. None of us have to be flawless or do heaps of really good things to get to Christ. He’s already done the work for us. If you believe in his blood, all it takes is sincerely praying to God and accepting Jesus’ sacrifice for all of our wrongs. Death is on everybody’s doorsteps, and only the blood of Christ can save you and I from it.

    Again, appreciate you airing your questions and concerns Williams. I seriously love it when people don’t understand something and are willing to question it. Keep asking questions man🙂 I still do!

    Bless you mate,

    – Jonathan


    • What’s all this blood business about anyway. You forgot he was the high priest according the order of Melchizedek where no blood sacrifice is necessary.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Hey Burhanuddin, cheers for the reply. Not sure exactly what part you are talking about. Can you reference it please? Appreciate it🙂


    • According to the writer of Hebrews Jesus is considered high priest in the order of where no blood sacrifice is necessary.


    • Do you have a specific Bible reference I can look this part up? Just so I know what part you’re talking about?


    • Lol. Jesus was the lamb and the high priest both at the same time.

      He was not a levite high priest, he offered himself not according to the law of Moses.

      But the missionary like yourself ALWAYS refers back to the law of Moses how there is no remission of son without blood etc., the day of atonement, etc pp.

      Melchizedek’s manner of priestly sacrifice was bread and wine, no blood sacrifice is necessary.


    • Consider this, Burhanuddin. Jesus was also the good shepherd (John 10). He is called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16). He is referred to as the lamb of God (John 1:29), and Jesus also called himself the light of the world (John 8:12). Jesus is called the high priest (Hebrews 4:15), the Lord’s suffering servant (Isaiah 52), the Son of God (1 John 4:15).

      My point is this. Jesus was called many names. Lots of them were analogies, or similes – ways we can better understand who Jesus is.

      Burhanuddin, could you please put a bible verse or reference from the Bible where the bible says the Jesus, the high priests sacrifice is not necessary? You keep restating the same point, but you fail to provide evidence of where such a statement or accusation actually appears in the Bible.

      Bless you brother.


    • Could you please bring a bible verse or reference from the Bible where the bible says according to the order of Melchizedek a blood sacrifice is necessary?


    • Without trying to be too blunt, this rebuttal is highly irrelevant and ill-informed. I never claimed anything according to Melchizedek and his order. In fact I don’t even know who he is.

      You made the claim. If you make a claim, it is imperative you have sources to back up your point. You claim that the order of Melchizedek states a blood sacrifice is not necessary. Please find the reference where this is stated. I’m genuinely intrigued as to where you get your idea from.




    • Jesus = God = High Priest (according order of Melchizedek) = blood sacrifice for sin (according law of Moses) = not sacrificed according to law of Moses or order of Melchizedek (but executed according to pagan law) = passover lamb according law of Moses (no sin sacrifice according law of Moses) = human sacrifice prohibited by law of Moses.



    • Burhanuddin, but now I’m as confused as ever.

      I don’t understand what the order of Melchizedek is. Can you please state a reference, biblical or not, which explicitly explains the order or Melchizedek. I’m not asking for much. Emphasis on please.

      Thanks man. I won’t continue this discussion until you do so.


    • Great stuff “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 7:17

      Jonathan Camac says

      “Jesus was called many names. Lots of them were analogies, or similes – ways we can better UNDERSTAND WHO JESUS IS.”


      “Burhanuddin, but now I’m as confused as ever. I DONT UNDERSTAND what the order of Melchizedek is.”


    • Okay, thank you for posting a reference. But let me get this straight. You have claimed ‘According to the writer of Hebrews Jesus is considered high priest in the order of where no blood sacrifice is necessary’. You have backed this up in Hebrews 7:17, where is states ‘You [Jesus] are priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.’

      Unfortunately, this statement from Hebrews 7:17 is insufficient in backing up your claim. It fails to prove your claim that no blood sacrifice is necessary. In fact, if you read a little further down the page in Hebrews 7:27, it says ‘Jesus did this once for all when he offered himself as the sacrifice for the people’s sins.’ You claim blood sacrifice is not necessary according to Hebrews 7:17, and then 10 verses later it says Jesus’ sacrifice is necessary. So as is extremely clear, your claim is not consistent with the Bible’s teachings according to the evidence you provided.

      Furthermore, in your most recent message you also made a major flaw in taking my comments out of context. I am not confused about the person of Jesus. As I state, Jesus is called many names or titles to help us better understand who he is, or what he is like. When I suggested I was confused, it was not about the person of Jesus. I was confused by what you had written about the order of Melchizedek. Two separate issues, which simply cannot be paired and a lazy assumption made that because I don’t understand Melchizedek’s order, somehow I don’t understand Jesus. Please, let us keep this conversation intelligent and respectful.

      If you have any further points to discuss or compare, please continue. But let’s keep things in context, relevant and supportive to the conversation.

      God loves you so much man. I hope and pray so much that you would turn to him. I did – and it changed my life. Jesus died once and for all for our wrongs, he became our sacrifice. And because of that, we are right with God. How awesome that is brother.

      Appreciate your time Burhanuddin,



    • Jonathan keep your preaching to yourself. If and what changed your life is completely irrelevant. There are people out there who’s lives where changed because their “Jesus” is a space alien based on their BIBLICAL interpretation.

      Sacrifice in order of Melchizedek is based on bread and whine. That’s the only biblical evidence there is. No evidence for blood sacrifice (apart from Hebrews).

      That’s not the only blunder the unknown author of “Hebrews” presents in order to back up his creative theology.

      If you are confused about the order of Melchizedek, how do you know the author of Hebrews wasn’t?

      I hope and pray so much that you would turn to God and come to your senses that you can follow the most important commandment at last: to love God with your all your mind.

      How awesome that is brother.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You make a fair point – many people’s lives are completely changed by their made up space alien/made up God. You obviously dont like the fact that I brought up my personal faith walk – so I’ll leave that out of conversation from now on. I’ll respect you and your feelings towards that matter.

      You say that the only biblical evidence for the order of melchizedek is from Hebrews 7:17. Can you share any non-biblical references for the order of melchizedek for me? Again, I’m simply interested in reading some other sources about this over based only on the sacrifice on bread and wine.

      Just to clarify, what blunder do you think the writer of Hebrews made?

      Another lazy assumption. Just because I am confused about the order of Melchizedek, this has nothing to do with the knowledge of the writer. Obviously you and the writer of hebrews know the order of Melchizedek well – I obviously don’t. I simply ask that you show me some sort of reference, non biblical or biblical, where it states sacrifice isn’t necessary to be of blood from man. That’s all I ask.

      Appreciate the offer man. I would comment on that last bit, but it seems you don’t appreciate me talking about my own faith journey. So I’ll leave that be.

      Thanks for your feedback Burhanuddin🙂


    • “Just to clarify, what blunder do you think the writer of Hebrews made?”

      In Heb. 10:5-10 “Hebrews” quoted Psalm 40:6 which clearly says that God does not want sacrifices to him. And yet “Hebrews” quoted Jesus as alleging that one final sacrifice is needed.

      There are no bounds the NT writers’ ability to extract from the OT the sense they desire.

      “Hebrews” goes so far as to find a demonstration of the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ in a Psalm passage which clearly affirms that God does not desire sacrifice, but obedience to his will.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: