Renjun, I do believe in that passage (John 1:1ff). What I don't believe are interpretations of that passage that are inconsistent with the clear pronouncements of Christ and of the apostles that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, etc.).
Interpreting the passage as teaching a word that is also god in the true sense of the word god would require one to believe in two gods - the god who was in the beginning and the god who was with him.
The anarthrous theos in the Greek version of the clause "the word was god" reveals a lot about the true meaning of the passage. I would like to invite you to attend our bible studies should you be interested in an interpretation that doesn't contradict what Christ and the apostles taught.
By the way, I and many INC members read the bible. It is saddening that there are people who propagate wrong information about the INC. Please stop posting such kind of misinformation.
Sorry if you are not a Rizal fan. But I can't see any good reason for not considering his views, especially if his arguments are valid like the ones presented above. Do you find Rizal's arguments unsound? I hope you can explain why you think the arguments of the brilliant Rizal are invalid.
I do believe in that passage.
Renjun, I do believe in that passage (John 1:1ff). What I don't believe are interpretations of that passage that are inconsistent with the clear pronouncements of Christ and of the apostles that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, etc.).
Interpreting the passage as teaching a word that is also god in the true sense of the word god would require one to believe in two gods - the god who was in the beginning and the god who was with him.
The anarthrous theos in the Greek version of the clause "the word was god" reveals a lot about the true meaning of the passage. I would like to invite you to attend our bible studies should you be interested in an interpretation that doesn't contradict what Christ and the apostles taught.
By the way, I and many INC members read the bible. It is saddening that there are people who propagate wrong information about the INC. Please stop posting such kind of misinformation.
Sorry if you are not a Rizal fan. But I can't see any good reason for not considering his views, especially if his arguments are valid like the ones presented above. Do you find Rizal's arguments unsound? I hope you can explain why you think the arguments of the brilliant Rizal are invalid.