Not so simple

You may safely assume that I am the same person who originally posted. While I've used different "names" as the flow of discussion changed, I remain the same - from Skeptic Tank to Joan of Arc to Simple Simon's Pieman. I've mainly done this to either make a point or in response to something you've said, or to get a laugh, whichever seemed more important to me at the time. It was not my intention to deceive.

As to who I am and what my background is, I would prefer to keep that to myself for the time being. Not because I have anything to hide, but simply because I am convinced that you would tailor your responses to your intended audience. I say this not out of disrespect, but simply because 1) it's common to anyone who is trying to convince someone of something they aren't convinced of, and 2) I've seen you do it before.

I will say this much: I am not and never have been either a Bible Student or a Jehovah's Witness. I have a certain respect for their beliefs even though I don't share many of them. I realize that this alone will color your responses to me. C'est la vie.

Pastor Russell wrote a number of books and tracts and gave any number of sermons. Many others in the Bible Student movement (and later the Jehovah's Witnesses) have written and spoken along similar lines (more or less) in the many decades since he died. You of course know this. It is a topic of much debate on your main board. Bible Students are much divided amongst themselves over "who to ask" it would seem. And obviously, Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses are deeply divided against each other, in spite of the fact that to the rest of the world they would seem to be very similar.

There also seems to be much debate as to what Pastor Russell himself meant on various topics. Bible Students are divided over how to interpret various passages of Pastor Russell's writings and there are numerous schools of thought based on various interpretations that have been proposed by various individuals in the years since Pastor Russell died. Again, you of course know this. It's on regular public display on your board.

If I spent every waking moment of the rest of my life studying Pastor Russell's and all similar writings - to the exclusion of all else - I would be no closer to resolving these differences than you or any of the regulars on your main board are. In fact, the best I could hope to accomplish by such a herculean task would be to add yet another confused voice to the confused babble that already clearly exists.

Lest you think I am picking on Bible Students, rest assured I am quite well aware that this same situation (and worse) exists throughout the many boughs, branches and twigs that constitute Christianity (or "Churchianity" - a term that is not unique to Bible Students by the way). At least the various Bible Student and JW groups aren't burning each other at the stake as so many others have done (and may yet do again).

My point? Making a case for (or against) a particular doctrine based on the extensive writings of a particular group (or individual) is all too easy. It's very easy to intimidate one who disagrees by nuking them with quotes from various books, tracts, or sermon transcripts. The dissenter cannot fight this, except perhaps to return fire with still more quotes from other books, tracts, or sermon transcripts. In the end, no purpose is served. Nobody has really learned anything from such an exchange, especially when you consider that the adherents of the sources of those quotes often cannot agree amongst themselves as to what they really mean.

That is why I prefer to stay Sola Scriptura. A point made with scripture (with perhaps some history and logic thrown in to drive it home) will accomplish much more than a point made by quotes from some a non-biblical source, no matter how respectable (or controversial) it may be.

Try turning it around. If I were a JW, would you accept quotes from Rutherford? If I were a Mormon, would you accept quotes from Joseph Smith or the "Book of Mormon?" If I were an SDA, would you accept quotes from Ellen G. White? If I were a Protestant, would you accept quotes from Billy Graham? No doubt you would place Charles Russell in a different category, but from my perspective it's no different than a Catholic trying to prove a point by quoting some Pope or a communist quoting Marx or Lenin. A point is only as firm as the source from which it was derived.

I hope you are able to see what I mean. If there is to be any kind of meaningful discussion, it has to be based on common ground. In our case, I presume that common ground would be the word of God, as recorded in scripture. Anything less is pointless and unprofitable.

Want to start over with nothing but scripture, logic, and reasonably well established and verifiable facts from history or science? Can it be done using our own words and reasoning, and not someone else's? I don't know how much time I'll have to devote to it, but I'm willing if you are. Pick a doctrine, or we can stay with the question of "Did Jesus Christ return secretly to start His millennial rule in 1874?" If we do this, let's start a new thread (or battle) as this one is getting rather horizontal.