Bible Speaks

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe in Jesus? Yes!

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Micah Ong said:

Now if the Bible quotes from the Book of Enoch then this means the Book of Enoch is divinely inspired and should be included in the Bible.

Not logical. The choice of quote may be inspired and the point made, but inclusion of a quotation does not make the work quoted from inspired. Acts 17:28 is a case in point.

Share this post

Link to post

The Bible is a book that is true and worthy of belief. This is not to say that a literal interpretation makes it infallible.


The apparent contradictions found in the Bible arise from not interpreting the Bible in a spiritual manner. This implies that a literal interpretation can lead to problems.


By reading the Bible spiritually and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit can guide the reader into spiritual truth.

From these facts, another conclusion may be drawn. While there exists severe problems with a literal interpretation (as you will discover below), this does not mean the Bible is not worth studying. We mustn't throw out the "baby" with the "bath water." These problems of giving the Bible a literal interpretation only show that it is the men who wrote the Bible who are fallible, not the Spirit of God. It can then be assumed that having these severe problems of literal interpretation were meant to exist in the Bible - perhaps because there exists a spiritual and/or symbolic meaning behind the literal problems.

For example, the Book of Revelation has severe and catastrophic errors when interpreting it literally. However, when interpreted spiritually, this account may be spiritually true and not literally true. In fact, the same symbols in Revelation can be found in the dream symbolism of the Book of Daniel. This suggests the Book of Revelation is actually a dream or series of dreams which must be interpreted symbolically.

Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his day for taking a strictly literal, conservative view of the Hebrew Bible. They created an entire system of man-made rules and regulations around their literal interpretation of scriptures. Because they rejected Jesus' liberal interpretation of scripture, their theology was in question, so they had Jesus killed. Today, there are a large number of religious leaders and followers who are making the same mistake. For the last two thousand years of church history, literalism help fan the flames of Inquisitions, crusades, and all kinds of disputes over man-made dogma, such as: works versus faith, trinity versus oneness, eternal security versus no security, baptism versus tongues, and predestination versus free will, just to name a few.

My purpose in pointing out the serious flaws of Bible literalism is to show that the gospel of Christ is much simpler than many Christians believe. The simple message of Jesus doesn't involve any interpretation nor all the rules and traditions that go along with it. The message of Jesus is love - unconditional love (Luke 10:25-28). The teachings of Jesus is not about religious dogma. A close examination of the Sermon on the Mount shows that the centerpiece of Jesus' teachings was love for your neighbor and your enemy. His gospel message is as simple and as profound as love.


Share this post

Link to post
On 5/20/2017 at 2:31 AM, Micah Ong said:

Peter also references the Book of Enoch in 2 Peter 2:4 and 1 Peter 3:19-20. Now if the Bible quotes from the Book of Enoch then this means the Book of Enoch is divinely inspired and should be included in the Bible. The Book of Enoch existed centuries before the birth of Christ and is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It is very likely  that Jesus read the Book of Enoch and believed it to be scripture. It was considered scripture by many early Christians as well.

Hey bro, you aren't making sense here. "non-sequitr" - it does not follow. Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no (or at least very few) scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible contrary to your assertion here. Once again, it's time to check your "facts" - however well-intentioned they may be. There is no indication whatsoever that "It is very likely that Jesus read the Book of Enoch and believed it to be scripture. It was considered scripture by many early Christians as well." (?)  To quote Wikipedia:  "It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian groups."

On 5/20/2017 at 5:30 AM, Micah Ong said:

For example, the Book of Revelation has severe and catastrophic errors when interpreting it literally. However, when interpreted spiritually, this account may be spiritually true and not literally true.

Nobody is suggesting any of what you are writing about in this last post. Of course, giving a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible doesn't make sense. Is there anyone who actually believes literal monsters are going to crawl out of the see with a giant harlot drinking wine riding them? 

On 5/20/2017 at 5:30 AM, Micah Ong said:

The simple message of Jesus doesn't involve any interpretation nor all the rules and traditions that go along with it. The message of Jesus is love - unconditional love

Maybe the simple message of love Jesus taught doesn't need much to interpret it, even though many still seem to misunderstand it, and it is also fair to say that human "rules and traditions" shouldn't be come into play here, but that doesn't mean no interpretation of things pertaining to God's will and purposes hasn't played an important role in God's inspired word. The Bible is full of interpretations, many in the very book you often quote - the book of Daniel. Some interpretations were for immediate benefit, others for later. Now as for "unconditional love," it seems you have a romanticized ideal of what that should involve which has no basis in support either from the Bible or any other Holy Book. So you are on your own again on that one - a force of one. It is true, that Jehovah showed extraordinary love in offering the life of his son in behalf of mankind who were in effect enemies. But that didn't mean that "anything goes," or it didn't matter whether people accepted or rejected his son. It doesn't mean that God's love is so expansive that it doesn't matter how we use our freedom of choice as to good or bad, righteous or evil. With that freedom comes accountability, and even though God may show principled love to individuals even when they are imperfect, like every loving parent, there are boundaries that are for the benefit of all and are intrinsic to his standards and the outworking of his purposes. For, if, in extending "unconditional love," he tolerated wickedness without accountability, it wouldn't really be love - especially for those who may suffer because of the wickedness that this "unconditional love" might allow. "Unconditional love" is a myth that has no scriptural basis. It's not what real love is or should be. And the romantic notion that it doesn't matter what you believe or do is just that. A "pie-in-the sky" that has no solid support anywhere.

Matthew 12:31-33 "...but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be will not be forgiven him , no, not in this system of things nor in that to come."  1 John 5 "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments..." Deut. 30:19 "I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live..." Genesis 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of god and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die." (If God's love was "unconditional," Adam would not have been sentenced to death and in the process, it would have made God appear to be a liar for not holding Adam accountable for his actions as he said he would. Who could ever really trust Him after something like that? Who could ever put faith in what he says?) Similarly, are we to believe without any scriptural basis whatsoever that God's "unconditional love" absolves Satan of any accountability for all the pain and suffering he has caused and would continue to cause if he were not held accountable? Even in the so-called Book of Enoch, God pronounces doom and judgments against fallen angels and the coming judgment of the wicked.(The Book of Parables). Don't fool yourself. Unconditional love is not really love at all. It is the toleration of wickedness with a nice sounding label.

Share this post

Link to post

Our need to be right can overtake Jesus message of imitating his unconditional love and cause us to be self-righteous.  None of us are the Judges. 

The Word of God is bigger and more widespread than what is written down in the Bible. What we get in the New Testament is merely snapshots of Jesus.  Likewise what we get in the Old Testament is only a snapshot of the YHWH.  Likewise what is written in Genesis is only a snapshot of creation.

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." - John 21:25

If you feel the need to be right and Judge people using the Bible that is your prerogative.   Only the Father and Jesus Judge.

Jesus said, "The pure in heart shall see God."

The Pharisee's were Judges of the people using scriptures but did they see God?

4 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

It is the toleration of wickedness with a nice sounding label.

You don't have to agree with wickedness to have unconditional love.  What is intolerance going to achieve.  Didn't God say he would fix it all.  Isn't it God that decides what he is going to do.  Case in point of how unhealthy it is to become the Judge or Spokesperson for God using scriptures is the West Borough Church.  I'm not saying you are a Judge but when using these scriptures you can in effect cast judgements to other people playing the Judge.

Just keep it simple brother.  What did the Pharisee receive as an answer from Jesus when he asked what the greatest commandment is?

“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”

37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

I don't care if I'm wrong in other details as long as I'm am trying to do what Jesus said was the most important thing to do.  If you get to caught up in the mind you can become disconnect to the heart.  There is a balance as Jesus says in verse 37.

Jesus says to love your enemies and pray for them.  Would you feel the need to correct your enemies after Jesus lovingly spoke to you personally with that message?  Love has a greater positive influence than blunt correction.  Jesus was and still is the epitome of this.  All though we are all sinners he came to die for all of us.



Share this post

Link to post
4 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

like every loving parent, there are boundaries that are for the benefit of all and are intrinsic to his standards and the outworking of his purposes

Even though one is disciplined it doesn't mean they aren't loved unconditionally, it is the discipline that is an act of love after all. 

We are all facing the death because of sin, does that mean we aren't loved unconditionally.  We haven't earned salvation but it is a gift because of unconditional love (undeserved kindness).  Yes of course there a boundaries and people suffer the consequence of overstepping the boundaries but it doesn't mean we don't continue to grow in love and learn from our mistakes.  It is unfortunate for people who continue on a wrong path but that doesn't mean God doesn't continue to extend his unconditional love towards them hoping they learn and grow in love towards him. 

God's will is perfect and our knowledge of things is so limited.  Please do not play the judge.

Matthew 7:1,2 “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others.[a] The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.

This is why I am no longer going to be critical of Jehovah's Witnesses or any other religion.  Well try not too anyway lol :) I'm not saying I'm not judgmental because we can all be, and I started the thread lol :)

If you are going to counter-argument, I am not going to respond because this is wearisome.  You might count time for your witnessing but I feel like I am wasting my energies on this rather than engaging in helpful things that up-build.  This is not an attack on your character because I see you are sincere.  This is just my final resolve.

Kind regards


Share this post

Link to post

With respect and hoping the best for you I likewise will post no counter argument. At this point it is clear we can respectfully agree to disagree. We also both recognize that having the last word doesn't make someone right anyway, so I won't include any parting disagreements (even though we both know I have them ;) Just hope the best for both of us and that we will see a bright and happy future for each other as Gods promises are realized. 

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Welcome To Our Community

    The most intelligent people on planet Earth hang out on this forum. Be ready to have your points of view challenged and refined.

  • Similar Content

    • By Brother Rando
      Do you think it is . . .
      someone else?

    • By Brother Rando
      Who would reject the Baptism in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ? The Answer may surprise you.  In fulfillment of prophecy Jesus stated, “And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)
      The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
      “The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.
      The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 275:“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
      Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.
      How did the Hebrew Book of Matthew 28:18-20 read? “Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.  Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name,  teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Hebrew Matthew 28:18-20)
      To request a free home Bible Study click here.
    • By Brother Rando
      Many religions teach that the soul is immortal and that it never dies. What is your take? Can the soul really die?
    • By The Librarian
      Created in this subcategory:
    • By Bible Speaks
      How Is Jesus Christ a "Mighty God?"
      The Promise of a Prince of Peace
      At the time of his miraculous birth, the one born to be the Messiah received the name Jesus, meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.”
      But he has other names, prophetic names that outline his key role and his elevated position. One such name is Immanuel, meaning “With Us Is God.” (Isaiah 7:14, footnote) Isaiah now describes another prophetic name: “There has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
      Jesus is also “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father.” This does not mean that he usurps the authority and position of Jehovah, who is “God Our Father.” (2 Corinthians 1:2) “He [Jesus] . . . gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (Philippians 2:6) 
      He is called Mighty God, not Almighty God. Jesus never thought of himself as God Almighty, for he spoke of his Father as “the only true God,” that is, the only God who should be worshiped. (John 17:3; Revelation 4:11)
      In the Scriptures, the word “god” can mean “mighty one” or “strong one.” (Exodus 12:12; Psalm 8:5;2 Corinthians 4:4) 
      Before Jesus came to earth, he was “a god,” “existing in God’s form.” After his resurrection, he returned to an even higher position in the heavens. (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6-11) 
      Further, the designation “god” carries an additional implication. Judges in Israel were called “gods”—once by Jesus himself. (Psalm 82:6; John 10:35) 
      Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed Judge, “destined to judge the living and the dead.” (2 Timothy 4:1; John 5:30) 
      Clearly, he is well named Mighty God.

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Chief Operating Officer and SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell recently gave a revealing and fascinating interview with Marie Claire. A historically fashion-focused media outlet, Marie Claire has recently taken to exploring a much broader subset of topics, with a particular affinity towards content that might help empower women both young and old. Gwynne Shotwell may well be one of the best stories of success for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields over the last decade. Engineering, particularly aerospace engineering, has a rather shadowy history of diversity and inclusion, even to this day. Regardless, Elon Musk has demonstrated no discriminatory tendencies whatsoever throughout his storied history. According to Shotwell, Space and Tesla CEO Elon Musk called Shotwell and asked her to apply for a position as Vice President of Business Development after a conversation that lasted a few minutes, following a tour of SpaceX’s facilities. She was immediately hired and the rest is history. Musk and Shotwell have truly become a force to be reckoned with in the launch industry, and Shotwell has developed a reputation as an unbelievably effective salesperson, whom Musk regularly praises.

      Shotwell and Musk played critical roles in early talks with NASA that ultimately translated into a ~$2 billion commercial resupply services (CRS) contract awarded for delivery of cargo and supplies to the International Space Station, and helped bring SpaceX back from the brink of bankruptcy in 2008. Promoted to Chief Operating Officer and President soon after, Shotwell has since helped secure SpaceX’s backlog of more than $7 billion worth of launches. In light of SpaceX’s rapidly accelerating launch cadence, the most interesting information to come out of Marie Claire’s interview with the COO might be related to the workload its employees face. SpaceX has long been almost mythologized as a place where employees might be expected to regularly work 60-80 hour weeks if they expect to keep their jobs. While the company has fought to combat those rumors, it is undeniable that at least a minority in the company have been required to work extremely trying hours in certain periods of frenetic activity. However, Shotwell directly addressed those concerns, personally admitting that requiring 70-80 hour work weeks was unsustainable in the long run for SpaceX employees. Further, stepping well out of line with the traditional engineer work ethic, she stated that the company’s employees were encouraged to “focus on simplifying their jobs and making the task easier instead of putting their heads down and being a hero”. Encouraging a responsive, intelligent work ethic for all employees is truly exceptional throughout almost all engineering-focused companies. While she has always acted as a sort of temper to Musk’s extraordinary willingness to accept risks in the pursuit of non-traditional solutions or goals, she noted that, “I have learned over my 15 years of working with him to not bet against him and not question whether something can be done”. Sober voices will be necessary along SpaceX’s path to Mars, and the Musk-Shotwell duo encourage significant optimism that SpaceX will eventually succeed. Musk could not have found a more perfect person to help lead SpaceX, and Shotwell will almost certainly continue to work miracles as she works to ensure that SpaceX achieves its lofty ambitions. The post SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell talks space, life and Elon Musk appeared first on Via
    • OK, Arauna, walk me through this. How do you verify that it was indeed 539 BCE when Babylon fell to Persian armies? Do you agree with the Babylonian source that the battle of Opis occurred in Nabonidus' 17th year (although the year is actually broken off)? Assuming that the missing year is indeed '17' (and there is good reason to believe so from the tablet's format), how do we go about tying Nabonidus' 17th year to a modern calendar year? Do you have any suggestions on how we can do that? If you do not believe the Babylonian source about the Opis battle and the fall of Babylon, what alternatives do you propose for establishing 539 BCE as the correct year?
    • Thank you so much you are so helpful may Jehovah bless you
    • French government, employers and unions begin final discussions on labour reforms
    • Iraq: Civilians flee battle as Coalition forces close in on Tal Afar
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    Brenda Gameson