The word was not in the form of Yeshua? The word was made flesh (according to Gods will) IN Yeshua. not the Body of Yeshua the essence of Yeshua is the word.
No they are not two? I don't follow what you mean... Do you think the physical being of Yeshua is like a god? How does that work? God is spirit with no substance as His Gods word the same. So maybe we need to think on is it possible for God to cause His divine word to be flesh to suit His purpose and do His will among men? Well, the Bible tells me that God is above all creation and there is nothing like unto Him. That with God anything is possible. So, for me I don't see why such a thing is not possible for God. Jews rejected Yeshua... Well not all, some. Even today some jews accept Yeshua was sent as their saviour.
Birth pains were a consequence of the first sin of disobedience to God as for man is to toil and be main breadwinner with responsibility on his shoulders on this world. It shows the holiness of God that all sin even when forgiven carries a consequence to ourselves. After we pass from this place such things are no more.
Sorry, I was having an off day. I took offence at your tone. I should not have, as I see you were only repeating Deedat.
English is not my first language, and I have other issues that at times I have difficulties making my point clear. I apologise for that... but not for by belief bound to my heart... God alone will judge me for that. I think you understand what I believe well enough.
I believe you are mistaken. In your belief that this concept is not in the Bible and also your belief that the Bible was interfered with and the message distorted. If I believed that was possible I would have to be an atheist.. For a God that chose not to protect ALL His revelations would not be a God I would trust. I don't think you have the answers, but you think you do
but that is fine it's a state found in mankind a great deal. I don't profess to have the answers either.. (In case you think me claiming to be like a super person or something akin) I do know what feels right in my heart and what makes logical,sense to me if God is as Holy as God says He is.
Peace.
Greetings @
Cariad
your question which you see unanswerable and detest muslims for not realising it is ;why does God Almighty protect Qur'an but not the previous scriptures? How could God Almighty fail to protect His books?...
Because, the previous scriptures; the gospel given to Jesus, Torah for Mosses etc were meant for a particular people and their laws and rulings applied only to those particular for a particular time period until another people and the coming of a new prophet while the message of the Qur'an is universal and the Prophet brought it is the last and final prophet and for that, since there is not another coming of a prophet, it is message must be preserved for all ages.
However, you do not agree with that. I have seen it be elaborated often... I don't know if it is arrogance(as in, my logic denies that) or lack of proof that the rulings of previous scriptures were actually not meant to be preserved... The proves that previous scriptures contained rulings that were not meant to be preserved and only for a particular people are numerous in the bible itself...
for instance, in the bible, marrying your biological sister was allowed as the case of Abraham and Sara, the case of children of Adam( as they were only Adam and Eve on earth and so there were the only biological parents to whoever human was there on earth) and in the case of (Oxedus 20:12) in the bible and other similar verses... but this,however, is over-ruled(say abrogated) as we come to know in (Deuteranomy 27:22) that marriage between a brother and his biological sister is forbidden and calls for a curse... only this example can make you realise the changing of rules/laws if you're genuinely looking for proves.
But,nevertheless, another example is that; the Sabbath day was a day set aside for God in the OT and therefore work was prohibited, so much so that one man was killed for collecting firewood in the sabbath day In (numbers 15:32-36) and clearly in (exodus 20:8-10) But in the NT, we see this Law is deliberately violated by Jesus or is simply abrogated in (mark 2:23:28)...
Another example is that; divorce was allowed in the OT, the Mozaic law as (mathew 5:31) suggests but it is immediately abrogated by Jesus in (mathew 5:32) following it.
As if that was not enough, another example is that; eating of camel meat was prohibited in the Mozaic law in (leviticus 11:1-4) but later is over ruled in (Romans 14: 1-6)...
So with the above examples in the bible,you clearly see change of rules. It's for this reason and because the previous scriptures were neither universal not meant for all ages and because they do not complete the continuity of the message,worship and rulings/laws that they were not fit or needed to be preserved. But the simple message of One True Almighty God is preserved because that's universal and for all ages, it's even preserved in the bible by the words of Jesus himself in (mark 12: 29-34)... I hope I'm clear and with evidence and logic why the previous scriptures were not preserved and protected by God...
I say that the current bible is distorted And you believe otherwise so the question is; do you believe that the bible is free of errors and contradictions?
Besides, I have questions about the description about your belief which I gave and you confirmed... firstly, what is the purpose of creation as tought in the bible(using bible reference)? Why did God create man? So they fall into sin, he comes to take that away, and they dwell in an ever blissful eternal heaven as soon as they believe that he died for them,loves them and accept him as his saviour?
secondly, where in the bible does Jesus/Yeshua himself claim that he is the word of God in essence and came to die for the sin of man in clear words? ( because the concept is the greatest in current christianity and most core such that it becomes unfair for only one educated group of theologians to pick it out from different ambigous verses and explain to the less educated masses)
I hope there is no offensive tone in this post so if you answer these three questions and agree or show clearly why you disagree with the above explanation then we can move to more questions and further into the discussion about the description I gave.