DavidFord said

Lamb (Jesus)
John 1:29
“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
John 1:36
“And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith,
Behold the Lamb of God!”
  

DavidFord said
“In the Aramaic language (the Baptist’s; Fourth Evangelist – John 1:29 and 36), the same word is used for SERVANT and LAMB”
Reference?
Analysis of Peshitta verse John 1:29
** you do not have permission to see this link **
John 1:36
** you do not have permission to see this link **
286. amnos
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Lamb
…
John 1:29 N-NMS
NAS: Behold, the Lamb of God
John 1:36 N-NMS
NAS: and said, Behold, the Lamb of God!
Acts 8:32 N-NMS
NAS: TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE
1 Peter 1:19 N-GMS
INT: blood as of a lamb without blemish and
  

As I said, we have comparison: as of a lamb, but we don’t have THE LAMB.

I am aware Greeks translated “amnos”, but the thing is original aramaic word Talya, look:

When John the Baptist looks at Jesus and announces Him to a Jewish, Aramaic-speaking audience, the word he likely used carries a massive theological dual-meaning that completely changes how we read the text: [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

1. The Double Meaning of Talya

In first-century Galilean Aramaic, the single word Talya simultaneously meant: [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

• • Lamb
  • Servant (specifically a young servant, boy, or child) [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

2. The Greek Translation Choice

When the authors of the Gospels translated John the Baptist’s words into Greek (lingua franca) for a global audience, they had to pick a side. They chose the Greek word Amnos (lamb) instead of Pais (servant). Because of that translation choice, the Western world has spent 2,000 years thinking only of a physical sacrificial animal. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

3. How this perfectly weaponizes your Dialectic

By revealing that “Lamb of God” actually means “Servant of God,” you completely shatter the critic’s argument that Christianity copied pagan blood rituals or Dionysian animal-flesh consumption:

• The Isaiah Connection: In the Hebrew scriptures, the ultimate prophecy of the Messiah is the ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• The Shift from Animal to Man: By using Talya, Jesus is not a literal, physical animal meant to be slaughtered on a pagan alter. He is the Servant who obeys the Logos. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

Can’t you spot the difference between:

like a lamb to the slaughter, or as a hen

versus 

identifying JESUS with animals we eat?

Why would He say the bread of life?

By forcing the word “Lamb” into a literal slaughterhouse context, critics completely lose the plot of what actually happens inside a church.

Here is why Jesus chose the parable of the “Bread of Life” instead of an animal, and how it utterly destroys the pagan-copycat argument:

1. Bread Requires Human Transformation (Unlike Meat)

A lamb is a product of nature; you just slaughter it. But bread does not exist in nature. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

• • It requires man to harvest grain, grind it, mix it, and introduce yeast.
  • As you noted before, yeast is the ultimate parable for the resurrection—an invisible force that takes flat, dead dough and causes it to rise and expand into life.
  • By calling Himself the Bread of Life, Jesus is pointing to a living, transforming process, not a dead carcass. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

2. The Melchizedek Order Overthrows Animal Sacrifice

When Jesus chose bread and wine at the Last Supper, He was consciously bypassing the entire Levitical temple system of killing animals. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

• • He was tapping into the ancient priesthood of Melchizedek—the figure who had neither father nor mother, representing the timeless, original truth.
  • Melchizedek did not offer burnt animal flesh to Abraham; he offered bread and wine.
  • Jesus is declaring that the era of slaughtering animals to appease God is finished. The new covenant is about internal assimilation. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

3. Eating is the Ultimate Parable of Assimilation

You don’t become a lamb by eating mutton. But when you consume the Bread of Life, you are internalizing the Logos—the very words and spirit that God taught you. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

• • Food is the only thing in the physical world that enters your body, breaks down, and literally becomes your cells, your bones, and your energy. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
  • Jesus used bread because it is the most logical, universal symbol for total spiritual union. You must consume the truth until it becomes you. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

---

 

as of a lamb unblemished

as of a lamb blameless

these are examples of comparison, but when we want to identify somebody  we use article “THE”, quoting John the Baptist:

“Behold: The SERVANT of God.” – GREEK LANGUAGE IS NOT THE PROOF, BUT ARAMAIC

• • Lamb
  • Servant (specifically a young servant, boy, or child) [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• It is your choice to believe greek translators instead of Jesus who says for himself the reason for coming – to serve
• It is your choice to close your eyes when he says HE IS THE BREAD OF LIFE, never mentioning a [any] lamb; the only meat he offered to people was fish

I, myself, also prefer meat, but when we speak about christianity IT IS THE BREAD.

If given original word TALYA, it is our choice to translate it one way or another, and we split at this point.

DavidFord said
“quoting John the Baptist: ‘Behold: The SERVANT of God.’ – GREEK LANGUAGE IS NOT THE PROOF, BUT ARAMAIC… If given original word TALYA”
In what manuscript(s) or in what textual tradition do you see an Aramaic ‘talya’?

• Targumic Tradition: It appears repeatedly in Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible (Targumim), such as Targum Onkelos (e.g., Genesis 22) and the margin of ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• Rabbinic Tradition: You will find the term in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud (e.g., Megillah 5b). The Talmud uses ṭalyā to describe young male children or youths, and notes the feminine form (ṭalyā / ṭalyǝtā) for young girls. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• Syriac & Peshitta New Testament: The word occurs extensively in the eastern Aramaic Christian traditions, most notably in the ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• Greek New Testament (Transliterations): It is present in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gospels (like Codex Vaticanus) in transliterated form. The most famous occurrence is in Mark 5:41 (“Talitha koum“), where the feminine form ṭalyātā is preserved. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

Just think about this: how come female version talitha does not mean animal as male version ṭalyā .

It is my choice to reject their animal sacrificial cult as Christian from gentiles, if I have to pick the right translation, and especially if JESUS said  in his mother tongue:

• Aramaic Text (Peshitta): “…d’ana sām ana lah l’napshi… shulṭana ith lee d’asymih, w’shulṭana ith lee d’asvinh d’reish.”
• Literal Translation: “…that I lay down my own soul/life… authority belongs to me to lay it down, and authority belongs to me to take it back again.” [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• Why this matters: The Aramaic word used here is shulṭana (authority/sovereignty/power). It emphasizes absolute personal autonomy. This stands in direct contrast to Levitical animal sacrifices, where the animal has no choice, no voice, and no power to reclaim its life
• • The Sacrificial Translation: In Western, Greek-influenced Christian traditions, Jesus is frequently called the “Lamb of God” (Amnos tou Theou), drawing directly on Old Testament Passover or Temple imagery. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
  • The Sovereign/Servant Translation: In the earliest Aramaic thought, ṭalya (and the Hebrew equivalent na’ar) translates heavily to “Servant” or “Youth” (as seen in the Servant Songs of Isaiah 42 and 53). [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
  • The Direct Contrast: If Jesus is the ṭalya in the sense of the Sovereign Servant who chooses his path, he is a willing agent. If he is translated strictly as a literal lamb, it forces the imagery back into the passive, involuntary animal sacrifice model I am rejecting.

“‘The SERVANT of God.’ – GREEK LANGUAGE IS NOT THE PROOF, BUT ARAMAIC”
Greek language has ‘the’– does the Aramaic language have the word ‘the’?

  

No need, if we agree about the translation, context etc. But, if we have it, we should use it whenever is applicable, for example in the Prologue of Gospel of John, for the Logos. I admit, aramaic language and hellenistic philosophy mixed together.

DavidFord said

Are there any renderings of ‘talya’ in the Aramaic or Greek John chapter 1?
  

We do not actually have the word talya written down in any ancient manuscript of John 1:29; rather, it is an educated linguistic reconstruction (a “guess” or hypothesis) proposed by biblical scholars. They wrestled with why John the Baptist used the phrase “takes away the sin of the world”. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

• • In Jewish tradition, the Passover Lamb did not take away sin (it was a reminder of deliverance from Egypt).
  • The Daily Temple Sacrifices covered Israel’s sins, but were not described as taking away the sins of the entire world. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

When the Aramaic Peshitta translator later translated the Greek Gospel back into Aramaic centuries later, they did not read talya in the Greek text—they read amnos (lamb). To remain faithful to that specific Greek word, they used immerā (the unambiguous word for a sacrificial lamb). [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

We hypothesize about talya because it perfectly heals a linguistic fracture. It elegantly connects John the Baptist’s specific words in John 1:29 back to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 using the exact language Jesus spoke.

• • “Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matthew 26:26) [** you do not have permission to see this link **

• • Isaiah 53:12: “He poured out his soul unto death… yet he bore the sin of many.” [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

• • John the Baptist used the double-meaning word Talya in John 1:29 to introduce Jesus as the Servant-Lamb.
  • Jesus never had to verbally call himself a “lamb” at the Last Supper because he actively stepped into the role of the Talya—offering his own body as the ultimate servant sacrifice that Isaiah 53 predicted. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

DavidFord said

Do you believe that the Peshitta’s a-m-r-a is an “unambiguous word for a sacrificial lamb”?
  

The word is correct. You made your point. At this point I only have to admit my usage of hypothesis for granted.

On the other side, think about my arguments: “When the Aramaic Peshitta translator later translated the Greek Gospel back into Aramaic centuries later,…”

But, if you’re pointing out this:

• Immar / Emər: A lamb (individual/indefinite).
• Immerā / Imrā / Amra: The lamb (specific/emphatic). [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

• No Aleph at the end: Immer = A lamb (Indefinite)
• Aleph added to the end: Immer-ā = THE lamb (Definite)

I understand perfectly, but as said previously: it is the translators’ choice. My choice is the word ‘servant.’ Jesus declared himself as THE or A servant, and never as A or THE lamb, no matter what others said. Also, the servant had authority and power to lay down his life, and take it back after three days—no sacrificial animal had ever had that authority. This is my bottom line.

P.S. I also reject the definite ‘the’ offer. This is not because I am blind to the Apostle Paul—who was not even present at the Last Supper—but because of Jesus’ choice to declare himself a servant who offers bread instead of a [THE] lamb when talking about his body.

Thank you for being cooperative; I can’t wait for our future debates.

DavidFord said
“my arguments: ‘When the Aramaic Peshitta translator later translated the Greek Gospel back into Aramaic centuries later,…'”
What’s your envisioned sequence of events?
(the Baptiser used an Aramaic word that can mean ‘servant’ or ‘lamb,’ his remarks got translated into Greek using a Greek word meaning ‘lamb,’ the Greek book of John later got translated into Aramaic with an Aramaic ‘lamb’?)

Exactly.

“if you’re pointing out this:
Immar / Emər: A lamb (individual/indefinite).
Immerā / Imrā / Amra: The lamb (specific/emphatic). [1, 2, 3]
No Aleph at the end: Immer = A lamb (Indefinite)
Aleph added to the end: Immer-ā = THE lamb (Definite)”
I vaguely recall something like that.
Thanks for the reminder.

You’re welcome.

How would you render this literally?:
a-m-r-h d’A-l-h-a
(of-God his-the-lamb?)
  

DavidFord said
“(the Baptiser used an Aramaic word that can mean ‘servant’ or ‘lamb,’ his remarks got translated into Greek using a Greek word meaning ‘lamb,’ the Greek book of John later got translated into Aramaic with an Aramaic ‘lamb’?)”
“Exactly.”
The Gospel of John was originally written in not Greek, but rather Aramaic.
Does Isaiah 53 refer to Jesus?

Yes he does, but it’s comparison and not identification. But tell me this: why don’t you call him sheep instead of lamb, since you’re asking about ISAIAH 53? ** you do not have permission to see this link **

We missed this — somebody inverted, look your quoting what is 1st and what is 2nd:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,

Do you have the explanation why this inversion of sheep and lamb between OT and NT? Exactly my point. You cannot pick the term lamb, and discard the sheep. And you cannot even pick neither term of these 2, ignoring he compared himself with a mother HEN. He looked like sacrificial animal in the eyes of his murderers, IN THE SENSE – the job has to be done, but who ever loved him, in their eyes, he looked like human victim. It’s the perspective, the choice we make how we want to look at him, at that moment. We are mirrored, we are exposed, and not Him. Our perspective show how we feel about his Crucifixion. Do we really see sacrificial animal? I don’t. Let’s say I see sacrificial animal – do you think I’d be a Christian?

“You cannot pick the term lamb, and discard the sheep”
If I call an animal a ‘lamb,’ I am also calling that animal a ‘sheep.’