bishop liverpool paul bayes brexit
Democracy

Why is the Bishop of Liverpool fomenting Brexit discord?

As Parliament sets its face to debating the seismic European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, along with a plethora of nuanced amendments, many of which are designed to frustrate the process if not derail the whole endeavour, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, has announced (finally) that Parliament will get to vote on the final deal. That is to say, our elected representatives will either accept or reject the future UK/EU deal (or do deal) before (or at) the point of our departure (11.00pm, 29 March 2019), so we are not simply condemned to the Theresa-May/Tory-Right ‘Hard Brexit’ future, which, as we know, would be bad for jobs, bad for the economy, bad for the environment, bad for healthcare, and bad for Britain’s standing in the world.

For Remoaners, the only way to save British beef, builders, butchers, bankers, bats, badgers and bedridden is to reverse Brexit and thereby restore Britain’s badge of honour and global prestige.

While there is some doubt, if not a great deal of discontent, about the “verbal reassurance” offered by the Secretary of State regarding this final vote, the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev’d Paul Bayes, immediately took to Twitter to urge voters (ie his followers) to “think, lobby our MPs, advocate…” He didn’t say what we ought to be lobbying them to do (or what we are supposed to be advocating for): he simply seems content, if not relieved, that Parliament is now back in control, and not those nasty Tories/hateful Brexiteers, who, as we know, would consign the poor to starvation and the sick to a long and painful death, for that is what Tories leap out of their beds every morning to do – especially those nasty Brexiteer types who love to genuflect to the damnable goat of hate.

But let’s be honest: the Bishop of Liverpool is not urging his followers to lobby their MPs to vote for the final deal (or no deal); he is stirring them up to lobby their MPs to vote against whatever deal (or no deal) is agreed (or not agreed), and thereby reverse Brexit. That is his understanding of the way forward: the EU Referendum was a mistake; the vote for Brexit an egregious error; it was only ‘advisory’ in any case; Parliament must ‘take back control’ (from the people, who know not what they do); Brexit must be stopped; we must remain in the EU. And now that Parliament is to have a final vote on the matter, the Bishop believes that remaining in the EU has become a distinct possibility.

What he appears to forget (or conveniently ignore) is the fact that the EU Referendum decision was swiftly followed by Parliament (both Houses) voting overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. When Theresa May dispatched her letter to Brussels, she was not only obeying the will of the majority of those who voted in the Referendum; she was doing the bidding of Parliament (in accordance with the law). The Brexit timetable is fixed by Article 50, which says:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

And so, unless there is an extension agreed unanimously, the UK leaves the EU on 29th March 2019 (“two years after the notification”), with or without a deal. When David Davis was asked by Owen Paterson whether, in the event of Parliament rejecting the withdrawal Bill, the UK would still leave the EU, his answer was simple and unequivocal:

So it isn’t immediately clear what the Bishop of Liverpool is urging voters (ie his followers) to lobby or advocate for. Brexiteers are all for doing parliamentary democracy #BringBackRepresentativeDemocracy; and we’re all for the courts ensuring that the whole Brexit process proceeds in accordance with the rule of law. But the Bishop of Liverpool appears to believe that bringing back parliamentary democracy somehow involves subverting the will of the people, or if not that, being at the beck and call of lobby groups or Twitter advocacy campaigns for a particular cause – in this case, remaining in the EU – even if a national vote has already determined a particular outcome.

This is interesting because Article 50 makes it abundantly clear that the only way to #BringBackRepresentativeDemocracy is to leave the EU, because Parliament is manifestly not sovereign: MPs are impotent to enact the Bishop’s political objective to reverse Article 50 without the unanimous consent of the EU’s other 27 members.

So, yes, Bishop Paul, by all means encourage your followers (and, indeed, all Christians and true democrats) to think (which is always a good thing to do) and advocate to #BringBackRepresentativeDemocracy. But bringing back representative democracy is contingent on Brexit, if you think about it, which, with respect, you appear not to have done.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury has recognised and conceded, Brexit is happening, and far from heralding an apocalypse of confusion and chaos, it offers Britain “a wide and liberal future“. Those were his gracious and optimistic words. No one believes that this is going to be an easy adjustment in the national psyche, but the last thing the Church of England needs is “depressed” or “paranoid” Remoaner bishops fomenting further discord and division. Aren’t they supposed to be a focus of unity?

  • magnolia

    I have thought, long hard and deep about the EEC, then the EC, now the EU, as have many here.

    For me, as for most of us here the result is a very well-considered OUT, because we like democracy and accountability, not oligarchy, and we like to trade with third world countries so they can help themselves. Further we don’t understand why fishermen had to be punished, nor our farmers, nor the poor Greeks….

    The common good and God are best served the brexit way. We precisely HAVE thought, not just hoovered up and regurgitated the popular media view…

    • IanCad

      Not too enamoured with Democracy Mags: For sure, not with Oligarchy. Liberty and Sovereignty above all. Maybe we will need Monarchy and Aristocracy to get it.

    • Andy

      What finally turned me against the EU was the way it has treated Greece. It is perfectly happy to see the Greek people reduced to penury to pursue their (the EU elite) arid delusions.

      • IrishNeanderthal

        The way they treated Estonia, forcing the country to adopt the Euro on accession and thereby taking a nationwide 10% pay cut, was what tipped me.

      • Anton

        Greece did very well out of the EU for many years and a substantially higher proportion of the Greek population than of the German population own their properties. But the universal problem between debtor and creditor eventually arose: whether to throw good money after bad or not. That poisons the relationship.

        • Andy

          The Germans only have themselves to blame.

          • Anton

            Yes. But the Greeks have only themselves to blame too. They didn’t have to take all that money, did they?

          • Andy

            And the Germans shouldn’t have lent it in the first place.

          • Anton

            I don’t think we’re disagreeing.

    • Chris Bell

      Don’t reckon there is an ‘us’ any longer. Hysteria, gender dysphoria, a blame culture racked up by bored media and the Ch4 Gossip programme. Nope all we can do is whinge on about “he touched my botty…yes he did…24yrs ago”……….Everyman continues whistling into the night and he wonders…..do I have neighbours anymore….maybe I don’t…..am I in Britain….. wheeeeerrrrre am I…..echoes unheard. Too busy looking for hot allegations. Insanity looms.

  • Ray Sunshine

    I have looked for, but have not found, clear, unambiguous and definite answers to two questions.

    1. In the event that the government concludes what it accepts as the best possible deal with Brussels, but then loses the vote in the Commons, where would that leave us?

    2. In the event that the government is unable to conclude any acceptable deal with Brussels, what alternatives would then be open to the House of Commons? The Guardian report (link in the OP) says this:

    His Conservative colleague Anna Soubry confirmed that she and others were still ready to rebel, arguing that Davis’s announcement would not give politicians any say in a “no deal” scenario, under which the government failed to reach an agreement with the EU.

    But in practice, I suppose, it would mean a new general election.

    Without knowing the answers to these two questions, it’s hard to tell what specific aim the Archbishop of Liverpool is hoping to achieve.

    • Father David

      It’s the Anglican Bishop (not Archbishop) of Liverpool – all power to his elbow if he is seeking to assist in halting the imminent catastrophe which is Brexit.

      • Dodgy Geezer

        We have already had the catastrophe that was promised, have we not? An emergency budget, followed by a collapse of the pound, the end of Western Civilisation and the start of the 3rd World War…

        All these things were promised by the Remainers, who also had the backing of the President of the European Union, the President of America and the Pope. So they must have been true, mustn’t they?

        Alternatively, if they were not true, maybe your ‘imminent catastrophe’ may not be true either…

        • Father David

          Dear Dodgy, Only time will tell but Gove, Johnson, Fox and Davis are currently doing a splendid impersonation of headless chickens which doesn’t fill me with confidence and confirms my view that we are indeed heading towards an imminent catastrophe, Surely wiser heads are urging us to put the brakes on this oncoming Brexit disaster?

          • Martin

            David (not ‘Father’)

            All politicians are headless chickens.

          • Father David

            some more than others!

            I have 2 daughters to prove otherwise.

          • Martin

            David (not Father)

            I have two children and four grandchildren but I don’t precede my name with ‘Father’

          • Dodgy Geezer

            I know that this is a religious blog, but is it necessary to worship an undemocratic cabal of unelected dictators pushing German hegemony? Europe is collapsing from within, and the result is going to be messy – for the sake of our grandchildren we need to get out while we still can.

            Greece, for instance, no longer has that option….

          • Chris Bell

            Putin is laughing at us. Waiting.

          • Anton

            Russia is not the force it was in the Cold War, not remotely. But he knows how to play a hand, that man.

          • Father David

            Surely, for the sake of our Grandchildren and their future – we need to remain within the EU. As for “collapsing from within” we need look no further than Mrs. Dismay’s Cabinet of chaos and the Conservative Party. Fallon and Patel – gone – Johnson and Green going? It looks to to me that rather than the promised “strong and stable” we are being served “weak and wobbly” as SS. Great Britain continues full steam ahead towards the Brexit rocks.
            What’s that I hear? Why I do believe it is the band playing “Nearer my God to Thee”

          • Dodgy Geezer

            ..Surely, for the sake of our Grandchildren and their future – we need to remain within the EU…

            This is religious dogma? It’s certainly not an opinion based in reality. I want my grandchildren to be free and in charge of their own destiny – the experience of the Greeks, the Poles and the Hungarians should illustrate to you just how evil the EU can be when it wants….

          • Father David

            I hardly regard that as “religious dogma” for the definition of dogma is that which must be believed in order to be saved.

          • Dodgy Geezer

            This is a tongue in cheek comment, right?

            The EU has announced that it is the font of all grace, the sole defender of Western Civilisation, the bulwark against nationalism and the sole reason why Armageddon has not visited itself on Europe since WW2.

            Employees of this monstrous bureaucracy are required to take an oath not to go against the teachings of the Holy Mother Commission in word, thought or deed, and are required to sing its praises at regular services of worship. It is the Way, the Truth and the Life – and that was the basis for all the arguments for remaining inside the EU at the recent referendum.

            That seems like a clear requirement to believe in the EU in order to be save to me…

            In the meantime, apropos of wanting my grandchildren to remain in charge of their own destiny, I draw your attention to the recent ECJ finding, which overrules our Supreme Court, and informs us that European immigrants must be given more rights than native Britons…

          • Dodgy Geezer

            …What’s that I hear? Why I do believe it is the band playing “Nearer my God to Thee”…

            That’s funny. From where I’m standing it’s impossible to hear anything because of the EU playing a melange of the Ode to Joy and the Horst Wessel Lied…

      • Ray Sunshine

        Corrected. Thank you!

        • Father David

          My pleasure; thinking of Liverpool I reckon we can all recall with pleasure the outstanding co-operative ministries of Archbishop Derek Worlock and Bishop David Sheppard known affectionately as “fish and chips” because they were always seen together in the newspapers. As with the E U so with the diocese of Liverpool in former years we are “Better Together”.

          • Anton

            Let’s not forget that Sheppard played Test cricket too.

          • ardenjm

            Nope. Worlock, a notorious liberal churchman, oversaw the collapse of vocations and of religious practise in his Archdiocese. He was an egregiously awful pastor who valued photo-ops with Sheppard more than teaching the Faith to his flock.
            The very definition of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

          • Chefofsinners

            Wolf in Sheppard’s clothing, surely?

          • Russ Brown

            Wolf in Sheppard’s clothing, surely?
            >
            Yes, a Fabian no doubt?

      • Royinsouthwest

        Is Paul Bates a prophet or the son of a prophet?

        • Chris Bell

          Only Profit.

      • Martin

        David (not ‘Father’)

        This imminent catastrophe is an awful long time coming. Personally I think government should be close to the people, not remote and unelected as is the case with the EU. Supporters of the EU, like you, have consistently lied to us, I see no reason to take you seriously.

        • Russ Brown

          We have One Father in heaven David… and its not you.

          • Chris Bell

            How do you know…he might be.

          • Russ Brown

            His name is David, not Jesus. The Father, God Almighty, is the Lord Jesus. Father and Son are two different titles, not two different persons. The Father while God was incarnate as man is a symbol of Universal Love.

          • What religious group do you follow now?

          • Russ Brown

            I am non denom, but believe the Westminster confession and 39 articles are the closest any organised sect has come to the theological truth. I am more of a Modelist than Trinitarian.

          • “I am more of a Modelist than Trinitarian.”

            Modalism – a common heresy that denies the Triune nature of God. It means you’re not a Christian.

          • Anton

            Just ask him if he accepts the New Testament as the inerrant word of God and if he regards Jesus of Nazareth as divine in the same sense as the God whom Jesus called Father. A Yes means he’s a Christian, a No means he isn’t.

          • He’s already said he’s more of a Modalist than Trinitarian. You do know what Modalism is?

          • Anton

            As I understand it a modalist will affirm that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both divine in the same sense as the Creator. That is all you can infer from the Bible too. To set modalism against Trinitarianism is then a false dichotomy based on differing opinions of philosophers about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I’ll not go beyond God’s own word about such a mystery. But go ahead, ask him.

          • Russ Brown

            To set modalism against Trinitarianism is then a false dichotomy

            >
            The only difference between a Modalist and a Trinitarian is the latter do not understand how personification is used in the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is a personification of Gods angels, in the same way the Police is a personification of millions of policeman. Angels have HIs Name in them. The OT uses the same symbolism for Gods angels as the NT uses for the Holy Spirit. Every believer we are told in the book of Hebrews has a “ministering angel”. A minstering angel and the Holy Spirit are the same.We do not need two spirits teaching us. While in the NT we are told God is Love. That is a conceptual God. Because Jesus, God Almighty was incarnate as a man at the time He also had to have a God to humble Himself and show us the Way. So His God was Love, the Father.

            There is only One God Almighty – the Lord Jesus.

          • Anton

            As I understand it you are denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit in which case I disagree with your position about that.

          • Russ Brown

            No Anton, Angels are Holy Spirits, they are part of the God head which is the Father, Universal Love. They have His Name in them. In the Bible when an angel speaks to man it says God is speaking to man. It is very important Christians study their Bibles carefully and they will see the OT uses the same symbolism for Gods angels as the NT does for the Holy Spirit. But holy spirits worship Jesus, Anton. Please set your mind only on Jesus.

          • Anton

            If I read the Bible to a man then I too am speaking God’s word to him, yet I am not divine. Angels may do that too. But the Holy Spirit is not an angel. The Holy Spirit is divine, and divine In exactly the same way as Jesus.

          • Russ Brown

            You trinitarians are angel worshippers.

          • Anton

            I worship the creator of the angels.

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, are you prepared to let the Bible interpret itself?

            The Holy Spirit = Gods great company of ministering angels Hebrews 1:14, Psalms 104:4
            The Holy Spirit is“Gods Power”, which is a description of the effect, it is a bit like someone asking me what the word “army” means and replying “the States power”, that would be true but more precisely a better explanation or an additional explanation would be “lots of men”. So let us now look at “the Holy Spirit” and straight away we should be able to recognise that the actual wording “the Holy Spirit” is a description as well as a title. The word spirit means mind, so it is the Holy Mind and almost immediately we are reminded of the sons of God who all have one thing in common (the same holy mind). There is one son of God and many sons of God – they all have one holy mind/spirit as that is what qualifies them as being sons of God. As they are all of one mind, as are the angels and that mind is holy, that is to say Christlike then collectively you could say they are “the Holy Mind” or “the Holy Spirit”. So it is a title which is also a description. For example “the Police” is a title and a description, it is made up of many men and women who police society. Furthermore, if “the Police” come knocking on your door and you say, ‘who is it?’ they reply the “the Police”, yet it is not all 500.000 of them! So it is with “the Holy Spirit”.
            “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Heb 1:14
            If you were talking about “the Police Force” then you would say “are they not all men called police constables sent forth to police civil society”
            Likewise of “the Holy Spirit” it is said, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Heb 1:14,
            We do not have to guess at this as we will later see the Bible uses identical symbolism for the Holy Spirit (Gods power) as it does for the great company of Gods ministering angels (Gods power), yes the Bible reveals they both have identical roles (they minister to those who are to be saved) and represent Gods power in the world as they are just two ways of describing the same thing.
            Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” Psalms 104:4
            Flaming fire, all ministers to teach, that is Holy Spirit symbolism.

            “They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.” Acts 2.3

            In Acts 2.3 at Pentecost, the apostles were given a vision (which are all symbolic) of the Lords ministering angels symbolism of Pslam 104, “Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire”.
            “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house” Acts 2:1
            Regarding the angels, he says, “He sends his angels like the winds, his servants like flames of fire.” Hebrews 17
            “Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire” Acts 2:1-3
            It really could not be any clearer. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost using both OT symbolism for Gods ministering angels (wind) and (fire).
            The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of Gods “myriads and myraids” and innumerable “ministering angels” (Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 5:11). It is called an outpouring, not just to emphasise the vast number of ministering angels but because it is symbolic of what we learnt earlier (the waters from above), the understanding that comes from above, i.e they “will teach us” all things.

            We are told the Holy Spirit is sent to believers to “teach you all things” John 16:13, John 14:26 yet we are also told all those who are saved have a ministering angel that ministers to them (Hebrews 1:14). Now clearly we do not need two spirits, the Holy Spirit and our ministering Spirit to teach us the truth of Scripture, one would do.

          • Astonishing. Then you don’t accept Christian teaching on the Trinity or the Incarnation.
            This is where Protestantism and sola scriptura ultimately lead – the old heresies.

          • Chris Bell

            Bloody ‘ell!! If you reckon that all this is something to with Christ then He should have been a postgrad plus Professor emeritus of all theology from Alpha to Omega. Commanding that none shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven without an 11+ at the very minimum.
            Oh and by the way anything condemned by secularism as heresy is of course sanctioned as a possible truth. And lets face it The ‘Church’ is and has been for a very very long time rather ‘worldly’. Its confusions well documented. Its handling of heretics pretty well known in all their violent sanctimony.

          • Russ Brown

            I do not agree with them describing the triune nature of God as “all of one substance”. The Council of Nicea failed to understand how the Bible uses personification. As I say, the Father is a personification of Love, the Holy Spirit is a personification of millions of holy spirits/angels. There is only One God Almighty who sits as King and presides over the Divine Council – Lord Jesus.

          • Russ Brown

            Modalism is heresy.

            >
            We will let God decide that shall we Jack?

          • Russ Brown

            Anton has a better understanding of Modalism than you. Btw I am not a Modelist, I just said that is the closest to my interpretation of Scripture.

          • Anton

            I am happy to affirm the Nicene Creed and nothing I have said here contradicts that.

          • But you don’t understand/accept the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, do you?

            The original Nicene Creed:

            And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father ….

            Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man …..

            [But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

            The later Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed:

            And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

            How does either version square with your earlier assertion:

            “As I understand it a modalist will affirm that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both divine in the same sense as the Creator. That is all you can infer from the Bible too. To set modalism against Trinitarianism is then a false dichotomy based on differing opinions of philosophers about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

            The Modalist believes the says the Father, Son and Holy Sprit at one, not distinct Persons but different historical manifestations of God – and not all present as once. It’s not about “philosophy” but understanding scripture and accepting the revelation to the Apostolic Church.

          • Anton

            I refuse to have my thinking on the godhead circumscribed by the categories of Greek philosophy. The Trinity contains an almighty mystery. *Nobody* understands that mystery.

          • So then you don’t say the Nicene creed? The Trinity is understood sufficiently to accept there is One God and Three distinct Persons.

          • Anton

            I affirm the Nicene Creed and I believe it. My faith in regard to the godhead and Christology is similar to that of millions of people in centuries 4-10 (say) who said the Nicene Creed once a week and toiled in the fields but were wholly ignorant of the discussions about the Trinity at Nicaea and other councils. If you call me a heretic for my views on the Trinity and Christ then you call them heretics too.

          • Russ Brown

            That is correct Happy Jack, I believe in One God – Jesus.
            I read somewhere that most non denom born again Christians are Modelists. Must be the Holy Spirits doing.

          • Anton

            Yes, I affirm that without reservation, as in the Nicene Creed. I find it in my Bible. Whether I believe in the Trinity in the form that the philosopher-theologians worked out, and which you insist on, I neither know nor care.

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, please think about what I am telling you. The Father is a NT conceptual God for Love and the Holy Spirit is a personification of every believers ministering angel. There is only One God Almighty – Jesus.

          • Anton

            So when Jesus walked the earth God was not present in heaven or anywhere else but ancient Israel?

          • Russ Brown

            The Divine Council governed as normal, but their King was on earth leading by example as our Creator God would.

          • Russ Brown

            Modalism retains the divinity of Christ but denies the distinctiveness of the three Persons in the Trinity.

            >
            Jack, the other 2 persons in the trinity are personifications. Father – Love, Holy Spirit- myriads of angels. Like I say they did not understand how the Bible uses personification back in the days of the Nicea. There is no excuse now.
            So there is only One God – Jesus.

          • Russ Brown

            Yes

          • Russ Brown

            Just ask him if he accepts the New Testament as the inerrant word of God

            >
            From my research Constantine changed some key versus, he changed the words of Jesus for baptism in His Name to “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Everywhere else it is ALWAYS baptism in the Name of Jesus. This is important as the Bible tells us calling on His Name is the only thing we need to do to be saved.

          • “From my research Constantine changed some key versus, he changed the words of Jesus for baptism in His Name to “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”

            What research?

          • Russ Brown

            What research?

            >
            Studied theology 10 years full time.

          • Anton

            There are certainly discrepancies in ancient manuscripts at 1 John 5:7-8; some mention the Father Son and Holy Spirit in one breath and some don’t. And the mention of water in the next verse suggests baptism. But I am not aware of any dispute over the text of Matthew 28:19, “…make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”. Are you?

            Yet there are of course other verses commanding baptism in the name of Jesus. Were I to baptize somebody I would use the words “in the name of God the father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

          • Russ Brown

            I spent years cross referencing ancient manuscript. I feel confident I know all the Scripture that Constantine changed.

          • Anton

            Then please provide some references which specify any early manuscript not containing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19.

          • Russ Brown

            “Moreover, there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity.” (James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, page 241–1906 edition)

            “With the early disciples generally baptism was ‘in the name of Jesus Christ.'” (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, page 87–1957 edition)

            “In the name of Jesus Christ or of the Lord Jesus. The former expression is used in Acts 2:38 and 10:48. The latter is used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5. See also Acts 22:16… From these passages, and from Paul’s words in the 1st Corinthians 1:13 (‘Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?), it is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’, or that ‘of the Lord Jesus.’ This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single–not triple, as was the later creed.” (Encyclopaedia Biblica, Volume 1, page 473–1899 edition)

            Didache is a Constantine cut and paste job.

            “All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command (Matt. 28:19) was inserted later” (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 84)

            “The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism” (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).

            “It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ (or ‘Jesus Christ’ or Lord Jesus’: Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).

            Matthew 28:19, “the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words “baptizing… Spirit” we should probably read simply “into my name,” i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, “in my name,” i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).

            “It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus’ recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a “Sacrament of Baptism,” or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged” (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79).

            “The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized “into Christ Jesus,” or into the “name of the Lord Jesus.” (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was “filled with the Holy Ghost;” and he certainly was baptized simply “into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism “in the name of Christ Jesus,” (Acts 2:38) and not “in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats” (The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568).

            “It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading.” “It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance” (History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).

            “Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious. No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).

            Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing “in the name of Jesus”, Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same” (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).

            Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143). (online Source)

          • Anton

            So, of all the early copies we have of the ending of Matthew’s gospel, in all the libraries of the world, you cannot specify one that deviates from the command to baptise in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit?

          • Russ Brown

            “It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading.” “It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance” (History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).

          • Anton

            This is all inference. When someone says “it is clear, therefore…” over a contended matter, I do not take it for granted. What is clear is that you are not aware of a single early copy of the ending of Matthew that says anything other than “baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.

          • Russ Brown

            It is beyond doubt Anton, if you were baptised in the title of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit you must be baptized again in Jesus Name. Only His Name saves.

          • Anton

            I honestly don’t remember what was said. I did undergo an adult baptism at the hands of a friend, having decided that my sprinkling when a baby did not count. But let’s not be too formulaic; the thief on the adjacent cross didn’t get baptised, after all, and God knows who is meant when someone says “the Son”.

          • Russ Brown

            All you need to do is repent in the Name of Jesus and ask for the Holy Spirit in His Name (Luke 11:13), you can do it now alone, no water is required. Infact when the Israelites passed through the red sea and Jordan God forbade them from getting wet.

          • Anton

            I repent for my sins regularly before Jesus.

          • Russ Brown

            Then you are one of the elect. Please do not take this personally.

          • Russ Brown

            There is remission of sins in no other name but the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12)

          • Russ Brown

            The “son” is a title not a Name. Baptism in His Name shows Him we understand who God is…

            “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

          • Russ Brown

            Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

            The Samaritans: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 8:16).

            The Gentiles: “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48). (The earliest Greek manuscripts that we have say, “In the name of Jesus Christ,” as do most versions today.)

            The disciples of John (rebaptized): “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

            The Apostle Paul: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

            Moreover, the Epistles contain a number of references or allusions to baptism in Jesus’ name. See Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 2:12; James 2:7.

            The only verse of Scripture that anyone could appeal to in support of a threefold baptismal formula is Matthew 28:19, in which Jesus commanded baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The word name in this verse is singular, however, indicating that the phrase describes one supreme name by which the one God is revealed, not three names of three distinct persons.
            Jesus is the name by which the Father is revealed to us (John 5:43; 10:30; 14:9-11), and Jesus is the name in which the Holy Spirit comes (John 14:16-18, 26).

            Jesus is the only saving name, the name in which we receive remission of sins, the highest name made known to us, and the name which we are to say and do all things (Acts 4:12; 10:43; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 3:17).

          • Russ Brown

            CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
            p. 53: The Early Church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in the Second Century.
            HASTINGS’ ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
            Vol. 2, p. 377: Christian baptism was administered using the words, “In the Name of Jesus.”
            Vol. 2. p. 378: The use of a Trinitarian Formula of any sort was not suggested in the early church history.

            New International Version (NIV)
            17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
            HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Name was an ancient synonym for “person.” Payment was always made in name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property. “Ye are Christs.” Vol. 2, Page 377 on Acts 2:38.
            Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is a historical and Bibilical fact

            BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
            11 Edit., Vol. 3, pp. 365-366: The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the Second Century.

            BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
            Vol. 3., p. 82: Everywhere in the oldest sources it states the baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
            Vol. 2, p. 389: Baptism was always in the name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune Formula was used.
            What about the slightly different variations

            The Holy Spirit will not come unless you ae re-baptised in Jesus Name
            Lord Jesus, or Jesus or Jesus Christ, it is not magic based on the exact wording, the angels know what you mean if you use any of the above. I think I said “Lord Jesus” or just “Jesus”. Do this in private in your homes.
            Titus 3:5 “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.” It is the Holy Spirits work not a physical work of baptism that saves us.

          • Anton

            I’m well aware of that. Please do not presume to tell me that I do not have the Holy Spirit when you know nothing of me personally.

          • Russ Brown

            Sorry Anton, I am only trying to help

          • Russ Brown

            Everyone who is saved has a ministering angel/the Holy Spirit.

            “Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His ANGELS spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” Psalms 104:4
            Flaming fire, all ministers to teach, that is Holy Spirit symbolism.

            “They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.” Acts 2.3

            In Acts 2.3 at Pentecost, the apostles were given a vision (which are all symbolic) of the Lords ministering angels symbolism of Pslam 104, “Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire”.
            “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house” Acts 2:1
            Regarding the angels, he says, “He sends his angels like the winds, his servants like flames of fire.” Hebrews 17
            “Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire” Acts 2:1-3
            It really could not be any clearer. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost using both OT symbolism for Gods ministering angels (wind) and (fire).
            The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of Gods “myriads and myraids” and innumerable “ministering angels” (Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 5:11).

          • Russ Brown

            We now have absolute proof the Catholic Church fathers perverted the text in Matthew 28:19. We now have the Hebrew Matthew Gospel, a manuscript that was preserved by the Jews from the first century. In this Shem Tov MSS, the text at Matthew 28:19 does not contain the trinitarian statement.

          • Anton

            I’m looking at my copy right now and it does not refer to baptism at all there. It varies from the Greek Matthew in many places; do you also grant authority to all of its other variations? What is your evidence that it derives from a first century original rather than being a 14th century translation *into* Hebrew?

          • Anton

            Constantine is not the baddie in the sorry tale of the taming of the church by the world in the 4th century. In 312AD he was a semi-pagan with an empire to run who knew no better. Look rather to the bishops of Rome who took the deal.

          • Russ Brown

            They are all badies, the political class.

          • Anton

            But Constantine was not selling out. Bishop Sylvester was.

          • Russ Brown

            Matthew 28:19, “…make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”. Are you?

            >
            Yes this verse was definitely changed by Constantine. Early manuscripts and Church fathers reveal it was originally “in My Name”.

          • Anton

            I have my place in the church of Christ.

            Please provide some references which specify any early manuscript not containing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19.

          • Russ Brown

            “All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command (Matt. 28:19) was inserted later” (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 84)

            “The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism” (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).

            “It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ (or ‘Jesus Christ’ or Lord Jesus’: Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).

            Matthew 28:19, “the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words “baptizing… Spirit” we should probably read simply “into my name,” i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, “in my name,” i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).

            “It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus’ recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a “Sacrament of Baptism,” or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged” (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79).

            “The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized “into Christ Jesus,” or into the “name of the Lord Jesus.” (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was “filled with the Holy Ghost;” and he certainly was baptized simply “into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism “in the name of Christ Jesus,” (Acts 2:38) and not “in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats” (The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568).

            “It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading.” “It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance” (History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).

            “Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious. No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).

            Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing “in the name of Jesus”, Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same” (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).

            Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143). (online Source)

          • Russ Brown

            “All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command (Matt. 28:19) was inserted later” (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 84)

            “The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism” (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).

            “It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ (or ‘Jesus Christ’ or Lord Jesus’: Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).

            Matthew 28:19, “the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words “baptizing… Spirit” we should probably read simply “into my name,” i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, “in my name,” i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).

          • Ray Sunshine

            Isn’t biblical inerrancy a comparatively recent development?
            When was the doctrine first formulated?

          • Anton

            What was Jesus’ view of the Old Testament?

          • Ray Sunshine

            Allow me to rephrase my question in more precise terms. What is the date of the earliest known occurrence of the adjective “inerrant” or the noun “inerrancy” in a theological context, applied to Scripture, as part of a statement to the effect that belief in scriptural or biblical inerrancy is a necessary condition for membership of a (or the) Christian church?

          • Anton

            No idea. You are assuming that I believe anybody who denies biblical inerrancy is not a Christian, whereas I was affirming that anybody who accepts it (and Jesus) is a Christian. The two statements are not equivalent, as there can be people who know and love Christ but reject biblical inerrancy. I think they are on a slippery slope, however.

          • Ray Sunshine

            Yes, Anton, I did assume that. It seemed to be what you intended to convey by the last five words of your earlier comment above, “a No means he isn’t.”

          • Anton

            I had in mind only the affirmation of Jesus when I wrote that latter phrase, and I accept that that was not clear; thank you.

          • Ray Sunshine

            Thank you, Anton. I’m glad we’ve straightened that out.

          • Russ Brown

            Have you excommunicated me Happy Jack?
            No, I am not a “Christian”,I am a follower of The Way. And Jesus is myLord and Saviour.

          • Russ Brown

            denies the Triune nature of God

            >
            From my studies of Scripture I discovered “the Father” is conceptual of Love.And the “Holy Spirit” is a personification of Gods great company of angels, or holy spirits. There is only One God – Jesus.

          • Anton

            How did a “conceptual of love” create the universe and make a covenant with ancient Israel? For that is what Jesus took his Father’s actions to be.

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, Mighty Yahweh in the OT is Lord Jesus in the NT. You are making two Gods. We are told that Isaiah saw Jesus and Isaiah was given a vision of Yahweh sitting on His throne.

          • Anton

            Jesus spoke of his divine father in heaven as not an identical being to him.

          • Russ Brown

            No Anton, His Divine Father is a personification of the Divine Council of Universal Love, which Jesus presides over as King. Yaweh in the OT is Jesus. The Father in the NT is conceptual. There is only One God Almighty – Jesus. The Bible personifies the plural “let US make man”. That is the Divine Council, the Father. Like I say we know today the Bible uses personification, we did not know that at the time of Nicea.

          • Anton

            I regard that as eisegesis of Jesus’ words.

            If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I – John 14:28.

          • Russ Brown

            When Jesus was a man all the Universal Love in the entire universe (the Father) was greater than that of one man. That is what Jesus was saying. I am going to the Father/Divine Council, to regain His seat as King.

          • Ray Sunshine

            You’re a step ahead of the OUP lexicography department! Congratulations!

            https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter=dictionary&query=eisegesis

            (The online Merriam Webster has it, though.)

          • The Snail

            If God is singular, who did He love when there was nothing else in existence? You cannot be Love without loving someone or something? The noun Love is a reification of the act of loving.e.g. You cannot say I am full of love for my child withuot doing acts of love toward the child. God is a community of Love – Father, Son and Holy Spirit

        • Father David

          Dear Father Martin,

          Having informed us how many children and grandchildren you have elsewhere, may I congratulate you on your fecundity.

          As we approach Yuletide, may I enquire if you begin your letter to Santa with

          Dear Christmas (not “Father”)?

          • Martin

            David (Not Father)

            It’s not correct for you to address me as Father, since I have one Father in Heaven. You might call various people Father but then you disobey God in other things too.

            We didn’t teach our children that he existed so I’m hardly likely to write to him.

          • Father David

            I wonder what your children address you as?

          • Martin

            But you don’t call yourself ‘Father David’ because that’s what your children call you, you do so because you are part of a heretical religious group that gives all sorts of fancy titles and authorities to each other,

            Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
            (Matthew 23:1-12 [ESV])

            Clearly you are taking on yourself the mantle of the Pharisee. Is that what you want to be seen as, a hypocrite?

          • Father David

            So, my little ray of sunshine that so brightens each day – does our Lord forbid our children from calling us father, if so what should they refer to us as?

          • Martin

            David

            Are you seriously that bad at English comprehension that you cannot understand the passage?

            Here it is again with emphasis added:

            Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, The scribes and the
            Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they
            tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
            They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s
            shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their
            finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make
            their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the
            place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and
            greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you
            are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all
            brothers
            . And call no man your father on earth, for you have one
            Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have
            one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your
            servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles
            himself will be exalted.
            (Matthew 23:1-12 [ESV])

            It is about teaching authority, God teaches all His people by His Holy Spirit.

          • Father David

            Wot – No sisters? That’s Bad!

          • Martin

            David

            Complain to the author, not me.

      • Chris Bell

        The power of Bishops should be in their knees.

        • Father David

          But don’t let Michael Fallon, the former Secretary of State for Defence in on the secret!

    • Andy

      1. We would leave without an agreement. Article 50 cannot be stopped or extended without the agreement of all members of the EU. As a withdrawal agreement would technically be a Treaty, concluding such is a Prerogative of the Crown, not of Parliament.
      2. I do not think there is anything the Commons can do. They voted to set in train Article 50 as per the perverted judgement handed down from the Supreme Court, but concluding Treaties is still Prerogative and the Commons cannot instruct the Crown to do anything ! The Commons could table a no confidence motion, but under the Fixed Term Act three quarters need to vote in favour, and I doubt that would happen.

  • len

    Time is coming when’ a no deal’ on Brexit is going to be the best option. Of course there will eventually be a deal (even after a ‘ no deal’) because the EU needs British cash and British trade.
    Those who demand we MUST have a deal (any deal?)are just being stupid. Imagine buying a car which one is not allowed to examine and saying” I must have that car” , without even examining its condition?.But this is what many people are demanding.
    It is perhaps only by walking away from talks with the EU that a proper deal may be obtained.

    • James Bolivar DiGriz

      Rees-Mogg was asked about the idea of ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ and, IMO, the interviewer made it clear that he thought that idea was nonsense.

      Rees-Mogg replied by saying that if we had to pay a trillion pounds a year to have a trade agreement with the EU it would clearly be better to have no deal. With his legs cut away the interviewer moved on.

  • Simon Platt

    “The Secretary of State has announced (finally)…” Finally? I thought this was announced quite some time ago. Or, perhaps, it being obvious from the clear text of Article 50, I had just assumed this?

    • James Bolivar DiGriz

      I am not sure it was announced but it was obvious and it was pointed out when a vote on the terms of the deal was agreed.

      At that time people said that by that stage it would be far too late to do anything other than leave with no deal.

  • Anton

    I don’t think that anybody really cares what Paul Bayes thinks about Brexit. I am more concerned as a Christian about his support for certain antiscriptural viewpoints.

    • Martin

      Indeed, he does not seem the slightest in the gospel or in leading God’s people.

    • Russ Brown

      Being pro EU is an anti scriptural viewpoint. The Church of ROME is Mystery Babylon and the office of papacy is anti Christ. (As confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit in 1982).

      • Anton

        Whether or not the papacy is the antichrist, the phrase “Mystery Babylon” is a complete nonsense. Revelation 17:5 should be translated as: “On her forehead a name was written, a mystery: Babylon the Great, mother of harlots…”. I suspect that the first use of “Mystery Babylon” as a phrase is in recent decades and that it has no provenance in church history.

        • Russ Brown

          The apostles called Rome, Babylon as they had to speak in code words due to the political dangers of the time. Likewise they often referred to the Roman authorities as the devil or Satan.

          • Anton

            I expect they did, but I am pursuing a more modest goal, merely to insist that the word “mystery” in Rev 17:5 is not one of the words on the woman’s forehead but is rather a description of that inscription. Can you find any exegetical tradition more than a few years old for “mysterion” being part of the inscription?

          • Russ Brown

            Thankyou Anton, I do not disagree with you, using the phrase “Mystery Babylon” is quite lazy of me although in this case I do not think it does harm to the meaning intended. A literal Babylon had ceased to exist for approx 500 years at the time.

        • Russ Brown

          Whether or not the papacy is the antichrist

          >
          The office of papacy.

          • Anton

            Do you consider it possible that a future Pope will be the false prophet spoken of in Revelation? I regard that as possible (neither more nor less than ‘possible’, please note).

          • Russ Brown

            I believe the false prophet is Protestant American futurism and also the false Holy Spirit manifestation (bringing fire down from sky) which we see from Evangelicals, pretending to be speaking in tongues etc while adoring the pope and telling their flocks to do the same. I see prophecy as almost fulfilled. only really the Great Earthquake awaits, in which every mountain (powerful government) is removed. This due to us discovering their depths of their deception and corruption.

      • Well, that settles it then, especially if you have a direct line to the Holy Spirit. Rome is the antichrist and man of sin.

        • Russ Brown

          In 1982, when I was a Catholic I had a vision of the pope becoming Satan during the outdoor papal mass in Coventry. An angel then told me to tell my Catholic grandparents what I had just seen was Revelation 17-18:4-6. I have had no such experience before or since but I am not lying and I am not deluded.

          • Happy Jack was at that Papal Mass too along with over 100,000 others at Baginton Airport.

            What did your grandparents say?

          • Russ Brown

            Yes at Bagington airport. If you remember a young boy that day in the seated VIP section at the front fall to the floor during papal mass after shouting “oh no its the pope” – then that was me.
            My grandparents remained Catholic but took down all the images of the pope they had in their house. They died Catholics, years later it was revealed their priest, Father Christopher Clonan, was one of the worst pedophile priests in Catholic church history. Because of that angelic intervention that day he never got me. Despite inviting me to his boys club.

          • Jack was way back from the front row.

            Sounds like you had a disturbing experience. How do you know it was an angel of God talking to you?

          • Russ Brown

            Once in a lifetime experience, but it was only disturbing for a few minutes. The angel picked me up off the floor and as soon as he touched me I felt fine again. A conversation then followed about what I had just seen (been shown). I am now very grateful for the experience.
            I know it was an angel of God because at the end of the conversation he said “turn to Jesus with all of your heart and all of your mind”. And told me to help a small church I would later be associated with to do far more to help the poor and needy.

          • “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”
            (Galatians 1:8)

          • Russ Brown

            I am not preaching another gospel and pope worship (which is what you and I were doing that day at Bagington) is not a requirement of the Gospel.

          • Scripture teaches us that Jesus Christ, the Son, was sent by the Father and He sent the Holy Spirit.

          • Russ Brown

            The NT God the Father, we are told is Love. So it was Love that sent Jesus and after Jesus was glorified He commanded the angels, the personified Holy Spirit.

          • Terry Mushroom

            I was at Bagington too. And a very moving, happy day it was too. I remember the fond amusement watching an elderly priest “resting his eyelids” as the Pope spoke on that warm day.

            I recall older Coventrians round me starting to quietly cry when the Pope alluded to the bombing.

            I certainly wasn’t worshipping the Pope as you suggest. And I’d be astonished if my fellow parishioners were either. I can’t think why we would.

            I’ve batted away accusations about worshipping statues and Our Lady. And, of course discussed papal infallibility. But worshipping the Pope is a personal first.

            The appalling Fr Clonan caused much suffering and heart ache.

          • Russ Brown

            Hi yes it was a lovely sunny day, but what we saw on the papal stage that day was not what God saw, or showed me. The priests and cardinals appeared like foul and detestable birds, bats that turn darkness to light and raven and carrion that feed off the dead. When the pope held the golden cup in the air was it not full of the blood of the saints and the martyrs? God showed me that day it was.

          • Roger Sponge

            I am sure you are very sincere in your convictions. I did not see what you described.

          • Russ Brown

            I had this conversation with my grandmother that day in 1982. She was sitting next to me just before I had this vision and the angel spoke to me. I was a child but I was asking her some cutting questions. Both of us were excited to see the pope, so excited I can remember thinking this is better than Jesus as we see the pope but we dont see Jesus and both are/were Gods representatives on earth. I said to her, ‘why do we need Jesus when we have the pope to adore and you can see the pope but not Jesus’, like you, my grandmother rebuked me and claimed we were not worshipping the pope, but it was untrue. We were both so excited, it felt like Jesus was about to emerge. Indeed as he drove past the crowds thousands held out their hands just to touch his robe. He was procuring the adoration that only belongs to Jesus.

          • Sounds like you were a confused and troubled child, prone to being over excitable, to Happy Jack, uninformed about the Faith and wide open to unhealthy influences.

            How old were you?

          • The Snail

            Amen – What you say is a direct refutation of the ‘Angel Moroni – who supposedly dictated the book of Mormon, and the ‘Angel’ Jibril (gabriel) who supposedly dictated the Koran.

            Also with regrard to Satan, he may look like an angel of light
            2: Corinthians 11
            “13 For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.”

          • Russ Brown

            Yes the whole Mormon thing is a puzzle, it discredits my witness I agree. All I can say is does what I say accord with the Word? I am not trying to start a new religion or make money.

          • Russ Brown

            How do you know it was an angel of God talking to you?

            >
            The angel was trying to warn my grandparents the RCC was spoken off in Rev 17 and was using me, a child at the time, to give them this message. Plus of course the priest they adored was pedophile, they did not know that at the time.

          • But how do you know the angel was from God?

          • Russ Brown

            Would an angel of Satan tell me to turn to Jesus with all my heart and mind and that the churches today were doing nowhere near enough to help the poor etc? In anycase I do not believe in fallen angels, not in the spiritual realm, only fallen former men of God. Lucifer I believe is the King of Babylon, a prophetic type of pope. The angels that fell spoken of in Enoch are symbolic of men that left their first estate. I only believe in Gods angels as spirit beings, duality of good and evil is only necessary on earth, not in Heaven.

          • Anton

            Who was speaking to Jesus in Luke 4:1-13?

          • Russ Brown

            Hi Anton, I believe the devil is used as a symbol for the political class. So the devil in this case was someone with great political authority, possibly the high priest.

          • Russ Brown

            It is possible a supernatural angel, not a man, could play the role of accuser and tester. In Samuel we read that a good angel is sent by God to be a lying or testing spirit to the prophets. I did used to believe in a literal Satan but I realize now my vision was symbolic, Satan is real but only as a useful metaphor or cultural hook in which to transfer a meaning or message. God used cultural hooks from the time. Satan I believe was the god of Ekron? The devil was azazel the desert spirit.

          • Anton

            So you believe that Jesus sent an angel to test himself, Jesus?

          • Russ Brown

            The Father is a personification of the Divine Council, so they sent an angel or someone. You still have not understood the Ontology.

          • Anton

            But I think that of you!

          • Russ Brown

            Anton…
            1. The Father is a personification of the Divine Council “let US make man” and in the NT of Universal Love
            3. The Holy Spirit is a personification of myriads of angels/holy spirits.
            4. There is One God (Shema) who is Yaweh in the OT and Jesus in the NT, he sits as King over the Divine Council. When you read about the Father in the NT replace the word Father with “Divine Council” and it will all make sense. Jesus is God and there is none beside Him.

          • Anton

            But you do not believe that the council is divine if it is composed of angels, do you? And how can a council have a son?

            If “father” in Jesus’ mouth is just a personification, it is terribly confusing to the Jews he used it to, fishermen and such who knew exactly what a father was. This is no less convoluted than the philosophical waffle about the Trinity that you object to elsewhere on this thread.

          • Russ Brown

            Yes I believe the Sprit of God is the mind of Christ. Angels have the mind of Christ, and if you also Anton, then you are Divine and part of the Godhead. You are not however God Almighty, which is Jesus.

          • Anton

            Nothing of me is divine. I may by grace of God have the indwelling Holy Spirit, who is divine.

          • Russ Brown

            Typical Cramner…but we have the mind of Christ, God is Spirit, that is mind. I respect your humility but you are to be one day like the angels and the angels are the Jerusalam above, our mother. In love with our Father who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

          • Russ Brown

            It is a personification Anton, that is not in doubt. Satan is also a personification for the Roman Authorities. Look up the Tiqqun soferim, Amendment of the Scribes, they took it upon themselves to hide evidence of personification about 140 times. The Bible uses personification Anton, we need to be intellectually honest and deal with it. I am sorry if I have robbed you of two gods, but there is only one God – the Lord Jesus.

          • Anton

            Are you suggesting I am not intellectually honest? As you said below, let’s not get personal.

          • Russ Brown

            No I was not

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, I will leave you with this if I push too hard I will do more harm than good. Please think freely and pray about it.

          • Anton

            You seem to think that if you “push harder” then you would have the better of me but that I would resent you for it. I am convinced of neither of those things!

          • Russ Brown

            It would be a shame if you are shown new truths from Scripture and resent me for it. I woul much prefer we learn from each other and be brothers and friends. I do not mind strong debate and do not get personslly offended.

          • Anton

            I think you have said a few personal things without realising it and I would prefer it if you didn’t, but I do not resent you at all. I am happy to discuss theology, but I think we are already quite close to having to agree to disagree. Please use non-presumptive language; for instance, saying that you have shown me new truths implies that you are right and I am wrong. It is inevitably you believe that, but language that presumes it does not take dialogue forward.

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, it is self evident I have demonstrated from Scripture who the Holy Spirit is, one part of your Godhead. You have not challenging the undeniable symbolism.

            I call on you to stop worshiping angels an par with God Almighty, who is the Lord Jesus and accept the clear and undeniable words of Scripture that NT God is conceptual “God is Love”.

            Anton, now you know the Holy Spirit are angels we are told in the Revelation “I am a fellow servant”, you are calling on the Name of a fellow servant at baptism to be saved? But you may say, if the holy Spirit is just the angels and a fellow servant why is blasphemy against the holy spirit so severe? Because the holy spirit is proof, so you are denying God after witnessing Gods power that is why. It is the same as those who have been enlightened in Hebrews turning from the lord, there is no way back after you have been given proof, that is why in both examples it is the unforgivable sin. Remember what happened to the king of Babylon? He had been given proof and yet still praised the gods o f consumerism and so was condemned, that is the unforgivable sin, it is not because the Holy Spirit is more holy than God that it is the unforgivable sin, of course not, but because the holy Spirit gives us proof so we are denying God after proof is given. Remember on the testimony of two witnesses you shall be found guilty? The jews had proof (Gods power) while jesus was on earth and then proof again after Pentecost with the miracles and witnessing signs of the Holy spirit. Of course it does not mean all Jews have committed the unforgivable sin, but that generation that had two powerful manifestations of the Holy spirit did. Yet the holy Spirit is still just angels, who are a little above men, what on earth are you being baptized into servants of Jesus for, did they die that you should be baptised into their death? It is exactly what Paul said, “

          • Anton

            Anton, it is self evident…

            That’s not an argument that convinces others, sorry.

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, you will never believe me but I am a prophet. The angel in 1982 made me say something out loud for others to write down that came to pass years later. But you are not ready to hear it.

            Please stop trying to fight me and learn.

            The Holy Spirit was a mystery in all denominations of the Christianity and was left unidentified as “Gods power”. Trinitarians often put the Holy Spirit at the top in their ontological hierarchy when as a personification of the angels who bow down and worship Christ, in doing so Trinitarians make a big mistake (Revelation 22:9, Heb. 1:6).
            Furthermore, the Father was considered ontologically superior to the Lord Jesus by both Trinitarians and Unitarians but the Lord Jesus now is the Father, He was only the Son for 33 and a half years and only exists as the Son of God in the collective consciousness of mankind. As Lord God Almighty, in order to show us the Way as a man, He had to humble Himself before His own concept of the highest ideal (Love) and every mind of Love that sent Him (as represented by the Father) as will be seen (Heb 6:16, Psalm 8:5). This was our wonderful Creators plan right from the start! Yet as both Trinitarians and Unitarians have Him co-existing with the Father who they both see as Yahweh then they both put Jesus at the bottom ontologically.

            The Holy Spirit = Gods great company of ministering angels Hebrews 1:14, Psalms 104:4
            The Bible uses personification, Wisdom is personified as a “she”, Israel and the Church likewise. Satan is clearly used in several NT verses as a personification of the Roman Government, i.e “hand one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so the spirit may be saved”, Satans seat in Rev 2 was the seat of political power in Asia Minor.

            So let us now look at “the Holy Spirit” and straight away we should be able to recognise that the actual wording “the Holy Spirit” is a description as well as a title. The word spirit means mind, so it is the Holy Mind and almost immediately we are reminded of the sons of God who all have one thing in common (the same holy mind). There is one son of God and many sons of God – they all have one holy mind/spirit as that is what qualifies them as being sons of God. As they are all of one mind, as are the angels and that mind is holy, that is to say Christlike then collectively you could say they are “the Holy Mind” or “the Holy Spirit”. So it is a title which is also a description. For example “the Police” is a title and a description, it is made up of many men and women who police society. Furthermore, if “the Police” come knocking on your door and you say, ‘who is it?’ they reply the “the Police”, yet it is not all 500.000 of them! So it is with “the Holy Spirit”.
            “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Heb 1:14
            If you were talking about “the Police Force” then you would say “are they not all men called police constables sent forth to police civil society”
            Likewise of “the Holy Spirit” it is said, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Heb 1:14,
            We do not have to guess at this as we will later see the Bible uses identical symbolism for the Holy Spirit (Gods power) as it does for the great company of Gods ministering angels (Gods power), yes the Bible reveals they both have identical roles (they minister to those who are to be saved) and represent Gods power in the world as they are just two ways of describing the same thing.
            “Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” Psalms 104:4
            Flaming fire, all ministers to teach, that is Holy Spirit symbolism.

            “They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.” Acts 2.3

            In Acts 2.3 at Pentecost, the apostles were given a vision (which are all symbolic) of the Lords ministering angels symbolism of Pslam 104, “Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire”.
            “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house” Acts 2:1
            Regarding the angels, he says, “He sends his angels like the winds, his servants like flames of fire.” Hebrews 17
            “Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire” Acts 2:1-3
            It really could not be any clearer. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost using both OT symbolism for Gods ministering angels (wind) and (fire).
            The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of Gods “myriads and myraids” and innumerable “ministering angels” (Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 5:11). It is called an outpouring, not just to emphasise the vast number of ministering angels but because it is symbolic of what we learnt earlier (the waters from above), the understanding that comes from above, i.e they “will teach us” all things.

            We are told the Holy Spirit is sent to believers to “teach you all things” John 16:13, John 14:26 yet we are also told all those who are saved have a ministering angel that ministers to them (Hebrews 1:14). Now clearly we do not need two spirits, the Holy Spirit and our ministering Spirit to teach us the truth of Scripture, one would do. What the Bible is asking us to do here in the sense of an intentional pardox is to solve a simple riddle. How is it organised Christendom have failed to do so?
            In the book of Acts the apostle Pauls angel is used interchangeably for the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit, sometimes His angel is telling an apostle to go somewhere and sometimes it is the Spirit of Jesus or the Holy Spirit that is telling him where to go and what to do, (they are all different ways of expressing the same), Acts 12:15, Acts 23:9, Acts 8:26, Acts 10:22, Acts 11:13, Acts 23:9
            So Christians agree and say the Holy Spirit is “Gods power”, as already observed that is the explanation of an effect, it is a bit like someone asking me what the word “army” means and I reply “the States power”, a more accurate reply in context would be “lots of men”, so likewise a more accurate reply for what the Holy Spirit is would be is “the great company of Gods angels”, so it is not an unusual concept to have one word that expresses such a concept, especially not in the Bible.

            For example, no one is denying that Paul had the spirit of Jesus (the mind of Christ) but that is not what Acts 16:6-7 is taking about when we read, “Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas.”

            Notice how the Spirit of Jesus in verse 7 which is their angel instructing them where to go (as in Acts 8:26) is called the “Holy Spirit” in verse 6. Elsewhere we are told it is “Pauls angel” who is telling him where to go and who to preach to, so here and in many other places we see that the Holy Spirit is interchangeable with the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Pauls ministering angel Acts 12:15, Acts 23:9.

            So in Acts 16 the Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of Jesus who is telling the apostles where to go and preach, yet in Acts 8:26 it is an angel who is telling them where to go, as also in Acts 10:22 and Acts 11:13 and in Acts 23:9 an angel is a spirit as well, (obviously a holy spirit) and called a ministering/teaching spirit in Hebrews 1:14. Angels are the Holy Spirit (collective personification).

            Like I said, it is no different to how we may say in one context “the Police are at your door” or in another context may say “a police officer is at your door”, angels are holy ministering spirits also called the Holy Spirit. This is why Christendom talk about the Holy Spirit being a person without ever working out the Holy Spirit is a collective personification. If no one explained to me what the words “the Police” meant and I kept on reading that “the Police were upset” I would conclude it must mean “the Police” was a person if no one told me it was a word that described thousands of individual people. Infact the British system is a good example, because we have the Queen (a person) and then we have the army (a collective personficiation) and the police (a collective personification). If you tried to make a trinity out of them as representing the State without explaining only one was an actual person in the singular then we would be doing what Christendom does with its Trinity, because out of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, only one is a person in the singular and that is Lord Jesus!

            Here is another example, in Revelation 12:14 we have the same event as described in Isaiah 63-9-10. In both we read about the Israelites being lifted up on eagles wings. Symbolic eagles we are told represent angels, “As I watched, I heard an eagle that was flying in midair call out in a loud voice: “Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels!” Revelation 8:13. Likewise, when Jesus was led into the wilderness as a typological prophetic fulfilment of this event it was by the Holy Spirit, “then Jesus was led by the [Holy] Spirit into the wilderness” (Matt 4:1), yet we are later told that it was angels ministering to Him in the wilderness (see Mark 1:13) yet it is the Holy Spirit that teaches “all things” (see John 14:26). This is an intentional paradox designed to reveal a spiritual truth (Proverbs 25:2). Remember that the wilderness story that both Israel and Jesus partake in is a journey each one of us most go on in our walk with God, so the angel of His prescence leading the Israelites is our ministering angel going before us.

            So we see here and in many other places that the Holy Spirit and angels are interchangeable. In the OT we are also told both represent Gods power and in the NT we are told both minister/teach to those who are saved. The NT confirm this as the identical OT symbolism of Gods ministering angels as flames of fire are used to describe the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, this symbolism links both concepts (Psalms 104:4, Acts 2:1-3, Hebrews 1:14). While simple logic tells us that we do not need two spirits, a Holy Spirit and a ministering spirit/angel to teach us the truth of the Word (John 16:13, Heb 1:14, Matthew 4:11).

            We are now expected to work out that “the Holy Spirit” is describing one mind which can apply to many, the unity of which bonds us all together into one Church, but that one mind can be in many individuals but refered to by God as “the Holy Spirit/Mind” (as it is this that defines our bond of unity) in both men and angels and therefore when speaking of the power of God (as angels have been given powers above that of man) and the number of angels is “innumerable” (Heb 12:22), “myriads and myriads” (Revelation 5:11) we are talking about Gods power omnipresent and omnipotent (angels/spirits are everywhere observing all). This is why we see angels trying to influence earthly kings (Dan 10:12-14). Just as we are told we can “resist the Holy Spirit” so we are seeing here in Daniel 10 men resisting the will of angels, “Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days” Daniel 10:12-13.

            When we are told the Holy Spirit can be resisted (Acts 7:51) and when we read of angels being resisted (holy spirits) we are expected to make logical deductions that it is obviously two ways of referring to the same. Not least when we are also told that both teach us (Hebrews 1:14, Luke 12:12, Psalm 104:4, John 16:13), both represent the power of God (2 Kings 6:16, Psalm 34:7), both represent God omnipresent and omnipotent and as symbolic birds are used to represent angels, so it is said, “Don’t curse the king even in your thoughts, and don’t curse rich people even in your bedroom. A bird may carry your words, or some winged creature may repeat what you say.” Ecclesiastes 10:20, who defends Jerusalem? The angels/Gods power (Isaiah 31:5). Clearly neither is referring to literal birds being able to hear your thoughts and report them to the “King” and neither does literal birds defend Jerusalem, these are symbolic reference to angels (Revelation 8:13, Revelation 19:17). Angels keep records and execute judgments for God (Ezekiel 8-9). One such example of an angel being an “adovocate” and keeping a record is our own ministering angel called the Angel of his presence, because these angels report before the Lord, in other examples we learn that the “Holy Spirit” performs the exact same role as our “ministering angel” and just to completely confirm the obvious, we then have NT symbolism of tongues/flames of fire and wind matching OT symbolism for Gods ministering angels (Acts 2:1-3, Hebrews 1:7). So the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost we are told by use of idenitical symbolism represents the out pouring of ministering angels. The fact they are poured out along with about 4 other mentions expressing the fact we are talking about a vast number here, i.e “myriads and myriads” (Psalm 68:17), “tens thousands and thousands…” (Revelation 5:11), “innumeralbe” (Hebrews 12:22) is logical proof that this cannot just refer to the events of Pentecost alone because their were not millions of Christians in 34AD. The imagery of the angels being poured out to minister to those who are saved reminds us quite intentionally that this represents the waters from above, that we have seen earlier on represents understanding.

            In summary
            Gods power the Holy Spirit or the Angels?
            Christians correctly say the Holy Spirit is Gods power, but what is also undeniable is that the angels are Gods power. In 2 Chronicles 32:21 the angels “annihilated all the fighting men and the leaders and officers in the camp of the Assyrian king”, if the Holy Spirit is Gods power in the world why use the angels? In 2 Kings 19:35 the angel of the Lord “put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men”, in Daniel 10:12-13 it was the angel who was trying to influence the King of Persia, in the Gospels Jesus said He could command a legion of angels and in 2 Kings 6:16 the army of angel encamped around Elisha to protect them. When God returns to convict the ungodly we are told the medium of his power will be the army of mighty angels. Clearly it is the angels who are Gods power and clearly both represent two ways of expressing the same.
            Who teaches us the Holy Spirit or our ministering spirit/angel?

            According to the Bible it is both (John 16:13, Heb 1:14, Matthew 4:11) and both are required if we are saved.
            Does the Bible use different symbolism to identify the Holy Spirit and the angels?

            According to the Bible the symbolism for the Holy Spirit and Gods ministering angels is identical for both, revealing to us they are the same (Psalms 104:4, Acts 2:1-3, Hebrews 1:14).

            The main symbolism used for the Holy Spirit is as follows:
            Wind – “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting” (Acts 2:2-4).
            The Angels are called Gods winds – “He sends his angels like the winds” Hebrews 1:7
            Fire – “And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them” Acts 2:2-4
            The Angels are called Gods fire – “Regarding the angels, he says, “He sends his angels like the winds, his servants like flames of fire.” Hebrews 1:7

          • Anton

            Prophecy that is of God is always consistent with scripture.

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, the Bible uses identical symbolism for the Holy Spirit (Gods power) as it does for the great company of Gods ministering angels (Gods power), yes the Bible reveals they both have identical roles (they minister to those who are to be saved) and represent Gods power in the world as they are just two ways of describing the same thing.
            Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” Psalms 104:4
            Flaming fire, all ministers to teach, that is Holy Spirit symbolism.

            “They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.” Acts 2.3

            In Acts 2.3 at Pentecost, the apostles were given a vision (which are all symbolic) of the Lords ministering angels symbolism of Pslam 104, “Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire”.
            “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house” Acts 2:1
            Regarding the angels, he says, “He sends his angels like the winds, his servants like flames of fire.” Hebrews 17
            “Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire” Acts 2:1-3
            It really could not be any clearer. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost using both OT symbolism for Gods ministering angels (wind) and (fire).
            The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of Gods “myriads and myraids” and innumerable “ministering angels” (Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 5:11). It is called an outpouring, not just to emphasise the vast number of ministering angels but because it is symbolic of what we learnt earlier (the waters from above), the understanding that comes from above, i.e they “will teach us” all things.

            We are told the Holy Spirit is sent to believers to “teach you all things” John 16:13, John 14:26 yet we are also told all those who are saved have a ministering angel that ministers to them (Hebrews 1:14). Now clearly we do not need two spirits, the Holy Spirit and our ministering Spirit to teach us the truth of Scripture, one would do. What the Bible is asking us to do here in the sense of an intentional paradox is to solve a simple riddle. How is it organised Christendom have failed to do so?

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, does my teaching glorify Jesus alone?

          • Anton

            Who did Jesus glorify?

          • Russ Brown

            Anton, do you accept the only triune baptism formula is a political 2nd century forgery? If not I have many more proofs. Please grasp the magnitude of this. Baptism must be in His name, not 3 titles. You are not baptised into angels, but Christ.

          • Anton

            You have failed, when asked repeatedly, to name a single extant manuscript of the ending of Matthew’s gospel form the church’s early centuries that differs from the Trinitarian formula. That is not to dispute that elsewhere in scripture baptism is in the name of Jesus Christ, of course.

          • Russ Brown

            “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” John 14:26
            Who sends spirits to earth Anton?
            The Divine Council sends Holy Spirits to earth in this context (2 Chronicles 18:21, Isaiah 6:8). Therefore who is the Father here Anton? Come on, this is just simple logic. The Father is a personification of the Divine Council, hence “let US make man…”.

            Lord Jesus says that the Father “sent me” 40 times in the Gospels, no one says they have been sent to earth by the Father, this is not normal language but Jesus uses it 40 times. (Both the Divine Council and Love sent Him in to the world to die for us).

          • Anton

            Hold on! You say that a council of angels, who are created beings, “sent” Jesus, who is God and therefore their creator, to earth. But God tells his creation what to do, not vice-versa. Your authority structure is backwards.

          • Russ Brown

            No you misrepesent me.

          • Anton

            Not deliberately. What is wrong with my reasoning about authority?

          • A demon most would certainly lead you from the truth into the error you’ve fallen into, yes.

          • Russ Brown

            A demon would lead me out of the Roman Church? And the worst pedophile priest in Catholic church history? And tell me to turn to Jesus with all my heart and mind?
            Ok Jack, if you say so.

          • Russ Brown

            I should add, in my vision whoever was holding the golden cup of communion became Satan. The vision ended when the pope held the golden cup in the air, at which point the pope became Satan, that is when I fell to floor after shouting “oh no its the pope”. Does not the wine in the cup signify the works of that church?

          • Dominic Stockford

            No, you aren’t either. What a marvellous vision to be given, and a marvellous truth to have revealed to you. Thank God.

          • Read on and see the confusion and heresy this “angel” led him into.

          • Pubcrawler

            It’s quite extraordinary stuff, isn’t it?

          • It is all very odd, yes. Not something Jack has ever encountered before. A mixture of old Christological heresies with a sprinkling of Gnosticism for good measure. He and the Inspector should get along fine.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I have – but that part was spot on.

          • Sounds to Jack like it was, at best, a mental aberration triggered in a young child suffering from an over heated imagination. Interesting that you choose to assign it some spiritual content.

  • not a machine

    Your grace makes good points about those who having seen the referendum result think they would like to chew on the line by line offerings starting in the house of commons. He is a Bishop and a remainer, no problem with that bit, he can sit in the Lords so he can make his sorrows and laments to his peers and record , no need to pre tweet his desire to explain to every one who disagrees and wants to leave the European Union for good reason, he is fortunate enough to sit and make his views, if however he is wrong in time to come then I hope he can explain why he was wrong another thing you can do in the Lords!

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector’s considered opinion is that should our rotten parliament scupper brexit, widespread civil disorder will follow, and people will be killed. The outcome will be a UKIP government at the next election after.

    What say you, Bayes…

    • Anton

      Certainly if Brexit does not come about then I shall be on the streets, albeit peacefully.

      • Chefofsinners

        You could stay with me if you’re desperate.

        • Anton

          Not that desperate, but thank you.

          • Chris Bell

            Don’t knock it. Keep your options open.

      • Dominic Stockford

        See you there.

      • Russ Brown

        Brexit will not happen in any real way, TM is an Establishment plant to sound convincing and buy time.

    • Chris Bell

      No……….comrade Jesayovich Corbonov

  • Martin

    The bishop of Liverpool is more interested in politics than he is in doing his job. It’sa common enough problem, but one which should exclude him from the ministry.

    • Chris Bell

      Are they not all self-excluding? When did ministry count?

      • Martin

        Chris

        The ministry of the gospel is a holy calling, not one to be taken a lightly as the bishops of the CoE

  • John

    This is nothing to get hot under the collar about. Absolutely nobody is remotely interested in what the bishop of Liverpool thinks about anything, except the bishop of Liverpool. And perhaps his chaplain.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    In Brussels has run up vast debts on our behalf. If we want Brexit to be a success, we must pay them, William Hague writes:

    Gaining an understanding of this is not likely to make Britons keener to stay in the EU. Indeed, people around the rest of Europe perhaps need to notice that they, like us, owe something like £400 or £500 for every man, woman and child to Brussels – it is just that our share crystallises because we are leaving.

    But understanding it is very important to working out what the UK should do about it, along with a similar €100 billion run up in pension liabilities for which no money has been set aside. The EU might not be a good advertisement for how to run your finances, but it is understandable that when someone is leaving it wants a share of these accumulated debts.

    I don’t understand this. Is he being deliberately obscure, or can’t Hague help being vague? Or has a massive amount of wool been pulled over his eyes?

    Or has the EU really got us all deep into debt with Loan Sharks International?

    • Anton

      Sounds like these debts give us a very good hand in the negotiations. We should neither refuse to pay them nor state unconditionally that we shall. The point is to find things to set them off against in the negotiations

    • bluedog

      Agreed. Reading Hague’s comments you wonder how such a learned fool could rise to so high an office.

      • IanCad

        Cream rises to the top. So do turds.

      • Anton

        How could he possibly fail to realise that there is *some* truth in this bill being due and that it should therefore be used as leverage in the negotiations?

        • bluedog

          People like Hague may be terribly clever but he doesn’t seem very astute, in fact, incredibly naive. Without realising it, he is making the case for hard Brexit. If there’s a big bill to pay it might be a good idea to leave first, particularly if you have no plans to return. It’s a bit like the recent dinner date that Mrs May had with JC Juncker. Sure, he may have poured her one glass more of the wine than a gentleman should ever offer a lady. But the result was that May’s defences were breached and she seems to have ended the meal sobbing on Juncker’s shoulder. Hopeless.

          • Anna055

            Though of course we only have Junker’s word about this …… or have I missed something?

          • bluedog

            There was a degree of disbelief in Juncker’s ‘leak’ that adds to the authenticity of the story. Obviously the story is part of a plan to weaken the British position, but with Mrs May in charge that seems to be an open goal. A recent excellent article in the DT (by Dia Chakravarty?) suggested that Mrs May was a slave to ‘process’ and trapped by same in dealing with the EU. It certainly seems that Mrs May is uncomfortable in what are known as ‘unstructured situations’, where a gift for aggressive improvisation helps win the day. Flair is something she doesn’t have.

          • Anton

            Not officer material then?

          • bluedog

            Juncker or May?

  • bluedog

    The Bishop of Liverpool is not alone. It is quite remarkable how many of his generation think the way he does and have allowed themselves to be completely brainwashed into dependency on the EU. Earlier this month your communicant was sitting opposite a British politician at a dinner; Brexit was raised. One’s position as a Brexiteer was challenged. On asking for a justification of Remain, one was astonished to be told, ‘Oh well, the EU’s going to fail but we need to be members to make sure it fails on our terms’. Can anyone see the problems with this line of thinking? It defies credulity. One really fears that the current political elite is detached from reality on so many fronts that it’s hard to know where the re-education programme should begin.

    • Chefofsinners

      It will begin on 29th March 2019, the day we leave the EU.

      • Father David

        At 11.00 p.m or is that 23.00 Hours rather than Midnight?
        Seems like we are still in thrall to Europe.

        • Anton

          An hour earlier is OK with me.

          • Father David

            If it actually happens.

            EXIT BREXIT !

  • Don Benson

    On a very slight tangent, there is a lot of talk about ‘sovereignty being returned to the British parliament’ and therefore it is wrong for the government to attempt to ‘bypass’ parliament over Brexit. This is a very dangerous argument: it is an attempt to seize sovereignty from the people.

    Either sovereignty rests with the monarch or with the people. For better or worse it currently rests with the people who, for practical reasons, lend it to parliament for a maximum of 5 years. The people then have absolute power to decide who sits in parliament for the next maximum of 5 years etc. It is probably as good a compromise between dominance and chaos as we are likely to achieve.

    Brexit, being decided on a referendum, is a unique situation. In its wisdom the previous parliament suspended its temporary sovereignty on this one issue and unambiguously gave it back to the people. It may have been somewhat crude in its simple ‘yes / no’ form but the answer was clear: the British people wanted out. And that was an order which superseded parliament (for better or worse), and so it was an order direct to the government, irrespective of the views of parliamentarians. The terms of the debate and the government’s information leaflet (wholly one-sided) which was sent to every household were broadly clear that no guarantee of retained membership of the single market could be made if freedom of movement and ECJ jurisdiction were to end.

    So while our government may be sensible to negotiate the best possible trade deal available at this point, its overriding duty is to achieve full Brexit, and that means full sovereignty returned to the British people even if there is some unavoidable adjustment in our trading terms which has to be accepted. It’s entirely unrealistic for parliament to think it can have any meaningful input to the very complex negotiations which the government has been tasked to do at the present time.

    But there’s rarely any gain without some temporary pain. The gain (sovereignty) is huge; any possible pain will indeed depend very much on both government and parliament after March 2019. We shall see.

  • Chefofsinners

    No surprise to see Paul Bayes fomenting at the mouth. He holds, quite rightly, to the biblical view of governance: the right of the flock to think and do exactly as he tells them. His one slight misapprehension is to call this ‘democracy’.

    • Dominic Stockford

      He thinks he is God…?

  • The Snail

    It seems to me that many of the Bishops are more concerned with political opinions and in fighting, than ‘saving souls’. Jesus dealt with individuals, not with political systems. He knew that it was by changing hearts of individuals that one changes society. Political systems can only pass laws. Laws in themselves only limit evil they do not change the heart. Everyone seems to want to impose equality, in one form or another, by political means. Our equaliy lies in the fact that we are all sinners. There is none righteous no not one. Once we realise that, there is a chance of repentance and redemption. Politcal systems have no answer to the need to change heart, only Christ can do that.

  • Russ Brown

    Why would a Bishop of the Church of England wish to see this country back under Jesuit control?
    Van Rompuy spoke to the ‘Interreligious Dialogue’ in Florence. The ‘Katholiek Nieuwsblad’ from Den Bosch, Rome’s last resort in the Netherlands proudly quoted Van Rompuy as announcing: ‘We are all Jesuits’. He was referring to those prominent European leaders with whom he is developing the architecture for the future Europe. ‘It creates unbreakable ties’ he said.

    • What he actually said was: “Today, Mario Draghi, Mario Monti and myself are all three alumni from the Jesuits. Back to basics.” He was referring to the Christian roots of European civilisation and his desire to recapture these values.

      • Russ Brown
        • Link the original source and not misquotes floating around the internet.

          • Anton

            Sound advice, but you might take it yourself as, at the moment I type this, you give no link for *your* quote of what he said!

          • Read it years ago when this all started to float around the internet. It originated in 2011 or 2012. He made the claim. Let him substantiate it.

      • Merchantman

        From such ( alumni ) may The Lord deliver us. Democracy does not sit well with these three false kings does it, being a protestant construct?

        • Democracy without Christianity as its foundation and the values it teaches, is a recipe for disaster.

        • bluedog

          Splendid. Does this prove that Protestantism pre-dates Catholicism, given the ancient Greek origins of democracy? You may be on to something here.

    • Busy Mum

      I observed some years ago that all the leading EU figures were Jesuits. Bayes would be making better use of his time by reading what his predecessor, J C Ryle, had to say about the Papacy.

      • Ignorant and uninformed drivel.

        • bluedog

          Whoa!

          • The guy was a loon when it came to the Catholic Church.

          • bluedog

            Despite his lack of numeracy, one likes the cut of his jib, based on the quote that you offer.

          • As Jack said, ignorant and uninformed drivel from the 19th century reaction to the emancipation of Catholics when the Anglican Church itself was feeling threatened by growth of Anglo-Catholicism.

            By the mid 19th century Liverpool’s Irish born population stood at 83,000, 22% of the city’s total and there was tension with the Protestant Orange Lodges. In the early 20th century, Liverpool was known as ‘The Belfast of England’ because of the sectarianism fuelled by the likes of Ryle.

            In 1880, Lyle became bishop of Liverpool. The situation between Catholics and Protestants deteriorated with the arrival of a Protestant campaigner, George Wise, around 1888. Wise began a campaign against High Church practice in the Church of England but soon turned to anti-Catholicism.

            [Btw, Lyle really wanted to enter parliament but his father’s bankruptcy prevented him doing so. Ministry was his second choice.]

          • Rhoda

            But God’s first choice for Ryle was…?

          • The chap was set on a career in politics but his merchant banker of a father went bankrupt. It seems the church was a career for him, not a calling.

          • Anton

            So you were able to eavesdrop on his prayer life and interactions with God?

          • Rhoda

            From his autobiography (written in 1873)

            “. . . Nothing I can remember to this day appeared to me so clear and distinct, as my own sinfulness, Christ’s preciousness, the value of the Bible, the absolute necessity of coming out of the world, the need of being born again, and the enormous folly of the whole doctrine of baptismal regeneration. All these things, I repeat, seemed to flash upon me like a sunbeam in the winter of 1837 and have stuck in my mind from that time down to this. People may account for such a change as they like, my own belief is that no rational explanation of it can be given but that of the Bible; it was what the Bible calls “conversion” or “regeneration.” Before that time I was dead in sins and on the high road to hell, and from that time I have become alive and had a hope of heaven. And nothing to my mind can account for it, but the free sovereign grace of God. And it was the greatest change and event in my life, and has been an influence over the whole of my subsequent history.”

          • bluedog

            Powerful stuff; well-written and sounding as fresh and authentic today as it must have done at the time it was written.

          • carl jacobs

            Seems about right to me.

          • Well, yeah, it would.

        • Busy Mum

          My observations or Ryle’s writings?

          • Ryle’s opinions on the Catholic Church.

          • Busy Mum

            Maybe your opinion about this is ignorant?

          • Jack can assure you he is well informed about Ryle’s opinions on the Catholic Church and the sectarian violence he stirred up.

          • Busy Mum

            Well, you could say that the apostle Paul himself stirred up violence. If wicked men do even more wicked things because they hate hearing the truth, that just adds to their condemnation.

          • But Ryle lied about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church. That’s not telling the truth.

          • Busy Mum

            Your dissembling is worthy of a Jesuit.

      • Russ Brown

        Well spotted Busy Mum. The Jesuits also run the CIA.

      • Anton

        Jesuit-educated, you presumably mean?

        • Busy Mum

          I am willing to be corrected, but wasn’t it the Jesuits who coined the ‘Give me a child until he is seven….’

    • Anton

      Rompuy was on the wrong end of this glorious piece of rhetoric from Nigel Farage:

      • Russ Brown

        Yes I enjoyed that

  • DespiteBrexit

    But the not-so-good bishop is not a true democrat. I seriously doubt that he is a true Christian, but I shall leave that judgement to someOne else.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Why is the Bishop of Liverpool fomenting Brexit discord?

    Possible answers:

    1. He cannot think of anything better to do with his time.
    2. He likes to see his name in the newspapers.

    I am sure other people could add to the list.

    • dannybhoy

      I believe Christians should be involved in politics, but as individuals – not as clergy.
      The role of clergy is teaching, preaching, proclaiming, praying and overseeing the building up of the Body of Christ.

  • TropicalAnglican

    I can almost hear President Trump hollerin’ across the pond: “HEY, MAY, WHEN IS MY STATE VISIT? Before or after Brexit?” [Starts rambling]: Mutter, mutter, that tardy woman … only Melania is allowed to keep me waiting … I’ve already visited half of Asia, and sorted out the South China Sea spat (“I am a very good mediator and a very good arbitrator” — yessir, he really did say that. Fortunately or unfortunately, the cameras were not quick enough to register the reactions of the ASEAN leaders, although presumably all 10 managed to keep a perfectly straight face. However, to put things into perspective, the journalists and academics/analysts who still do their homework instead of spending their waking and sleeping hours trying to trip Trump up did point out that the ASEAN nations are quite heavily reliant on the US Navy conducting regular “freedom of navigation” exercises as a counter to China. Under Obama, and for all his supposed “pivoting” towards Asia, the US Navy showed up at most once per quarter, whereas under Trump, the US Navy has already conducted four freedom of navigation exercises in the past five months alone. It is known that the ASEAN countries, including Vietnam, are grateful to Trump on this particular matter) … Aide, issue another reminder to that slowcoach woman, willya? … Oh, Venezuela has gone bust — and also issue a gentle reminder to the press about what I said in my UN speech — yeah, that’s the one — “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented”.

    • Anton

      Given that his mother was Scottish and he is friendly to ward us, this is folly. The problem is that grandstander who as Speaker refuses to let him address parliament.

      • dannybhoy

        President Trump has many faults; self opinonated, ignorant, narcissistic etc. etc.
        But I think his greatest failing as far as the US political mafia is concerned is that he refuses to join their club.
        ..And that’s why many ordinary Americans like him.

        • bluedog

          One thing Trump does very well when required is ‘swagger’. Dealing with the bombastic rhetoric about global domination coming out of China is Trump’s forte, and seems to be much appreciated by China’s increasingly fearful neighbours.

        • Russ Brown

          Trumps son law, Mr Kushner, an Israeli American who is heralded for getting him in to power paid 3 times the previous selling price for 666 Park Ave for his office, he really really wanted that property for some strange reason. It is from there the Trump presidency is controlled. Right next to the Vaticans archbishops residence in New York, for convenience.

          • Busted!
            Busted!

          • Russ Brown

            Sorry?

          • Russ Brown

            666 Fifth Ave not Park Ave. I think the political elite like playing a hegel dialectic.

  • Anton

    Pope Francis, having sacked everybody at the Pontifical Academy for Life last year, reformed it without the requirement that its members promise “to defend life in accordance with Church teaching”, and parachuted his own men in, is now having it convene a conference on “end of life questions” in which one session is titled: “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Balancing autonomy and compassion.”

    Conference:

    https://onepeterfive.com/vatican-conference-invites-promoters-euthanasia/

    About the changes to the Academy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_for_Life#New_statutes_and_members.2C_2016

    This is bad news.

    • Why is it “bad news”? Given you view the Catholic Church as a false church why should it trouble you?

      Pope Francis wants these issued dealt with up front and any differences placed out in the open. He wants Catholics to understand the issues, not simply receive the teachings as rules imposed by Rome. He has spoken a lot about the need of the Church to form consciences and prepare people to receive grace from the Holy Spirit and not simply obey the Church. Surely all this is a good thing? He has also repeatedly and unambiguously spoken against both abortion and euthanasia.

      • Anton

        Time was when the only thing a papal academy would have to say about euthanasia was “NO!” What next, “good disagreement” about it? I know you won’t appreciate hearing this news from a protestant but don’t let that catapult you into denial; it’s very obvious what is going on, in view of the shake-up of that Academy. You may be assured that this latest encroachment of evil into the Roman Catholic church brings me no pleasure, and I support all efforts against it.

        • Except the Catholic Church will resist all heresies and false moralities. Catholics have the Deposit of Faith to reference and the can be sure of this. These are testing times but they will pass. It’s no bad thing exposing the enemies of Christ within the fold.

          • Anton

            I’ll put my faith in Christ to be inerrant rather than Rome, but I gladly affirm that I support Catholic efforts against this muck.

          • The Catholic Church is inerrant because she has the authority of Christ and is guided by the Holy Sprit.

          • Anton

            I’ll put my faith in Christ to be inerrant rather than Rome, but I gladly affirm that I support Catholic efforts against this muck.

          • Well obviously. If you believed the Catholic Church was inerrant on matters of faith and morals then you’d be a Catholic, wouldn’t you? How do you know your faith in Jesus Christ is correctly understood and expressed?

            On what basis did you decide which church teachings to follow after your conversation from atheism?

          • Anton

            Good questions…

            If you believed the Catholic Church was inerrant on matters of faith and morals then you’d be a Catholic, wouldn’t you?

            Yes, obviously.

            On what basis did you decide which church teachings to follow after your conversation from atheism?

            A fair measure of ignorance plus words from friends who were longstanding Christians, one Anglican and one Catholic. The former told me of the sorry degeneration of the apostolic church over the centuries as compared against the scriptures. I was always aware that the Bible was the unchanging thing but I did not know how to read it. When I did, I quit the CoE too.

            How do you know your faith in Jesus Christ is correctly understood and expressed?

            How do you?

          • Jack knows because scripture tells him so.

          • Anton

            Me too.

      • Anton

        Your addition clearly hints that I got it from Ann Barnhardt’s blog. I did, but I use such an ultratraditionalist Catholic site simply for information, which I then verify (as in this case). Am I likely to be influenced by views such as hers?

        • Jack always reads around and follows an ultra-traditionalist site with a liberal one and then a more conservative one. It’s all become so politicised these days and with social media one has to exercise caution before forming a view.

          • Anton

            I don’t use Ann Barnhardt’s blog to form any view of Rome. I use it as a heads-up service and any information claimed to be factual there I check up on and then make my own opinion. I have learnt a fair amount thereby.

          • This being the Anne Barnhardt who writes:

            “Jorge Bergoglio is NOT the Pope. He is an antipope. Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is the one and only living pope. This whole situation with Antipope Bergoglio is a result of Pope Ratzinger’s failed attempt to “partially abdicate”. Since his attempted abdication was made in substantial error, per Canon 188, his resignation was invalid, whether he likes it or not, and he is, and has been all along the one and only living Pope.”

            For her Pope Francis is the “False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist”.

            You’ll get nothing but feverish imagination bordering on the paranoid from Anne B.

          • Anton

            I don’t use Ann Barnhardt’s blog to form any view of Rome. I use it as a heads-up service and any information claimed to be factual there I check up on and then make my own opinion. I have learnt a fair amount thereby.

            Are you *really* totally unconcerned about this euthanasia conference?

          • Of course Jack is concerned by the level of expression of heterodoxy being released by Pope Francis and his willingness to permit discussion on issues which were settled long ago. However, there are Catholic bishops around the Western world who have been surreptitiously encouraging these ideas since before Francis and at least now they’re coming out into the open. That said, Jack has faith that the Church will eventually weather this storm.

      • carl jacobs

        not simply receive the teachings as rules imposed by Rome.

        Since when?

        • Did you not notice the “as rules” clause?
          The teachings on the moral life and the authority of the Church should be accepted in faith but also need to be understood, otherwise there’s a danger they will be ignored, as is happening over artificial contraception. There’s so many liberal influences around today affecting the minds of believers and leading sous the into error.

          • carl jacobs

            You are responsible to obey the Magisterium whether you agree or not. In practice, they have always been rules imposed from the top. Understanding is optional.

          • True, we have to follow in faith, submitting our mind and will to the Church, just as we would if Christ commanded us. However, this doesn’t enable one to meet difficulties in life where we have to follow our consciences. Nor does it mean Catholics actually understand the God given authority of the Church.

            This means understanding the reasoning for the “rules” so they can be applied. It’s no good just saying to people, for example, “homosexuality is wrong” or “abortion is wrong”. Modern man’s mind and will is infected by our godless culture and obstructs the reception of these truths. There are also too many heretics offering easy solutions to the moral dilemmas we face urging people to follow the paramountcy of their individual consciences. People need to be led out of delusion and error – not simply instructed out of it.

          • Russ Brown

            The Church is not God, Jack. We submit only to Jesus.

          • “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

            This brief passage contains several critical points about Church authority:
            – Jesus tells the Apostles that the authority he is giving them derives from his own, divine authority. (“All authority…” / “Go therefore”);
            – The Apostles’ authority and mission comes directly from Christ himself;
            – The nature of this mission is to lead or govern (“make disciples”), sanctify (“baptizing them”), and teach (“teaching them to observe”) and
            – Christ promises to remain present with them always in support of this mission (“I am with you always”).

            “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.” (Jn 20:21)

            In this passage, Jesus commissions the Apostles with continuing his own mission. Again, this mission has its source in the divine authority of the Father.

          • Russ Brown

            Mt 28:18-20 is a proven forgery, we are saved in the Name of Jesus alone. You must call on His Name to be saved, not a 2nd century Constantine forgery.

            This is what the text originaly said
            All power is given unto me…go therefore…make disciples in my name, teaching them…whatsoever I have commanded …I am with you… (Matthew 28:18-20)

            Matthew 28:19, “the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words “baptizing… Spirit” we should probably read simply “into my name,” i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, “in my name,” i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).

            “Let me clearly state to all of you and to all the people of Israel that he was healed by the powerful name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene” Acts 4:10

          • Is everything that you disagree with in scripture a forgery?

          • Russ Brown

            The Word is our lamp to guide our feet, Jack.

          • “Your word is a lamp to my feet
            And a light to my path.
            I have sworn and I will confirm it,
            That I will keep Your righteous ordinances.”

            (Psalm 11: 105-107)

            And I tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
            (Mathew 16: 18-19)

          • Russ Brown

            Happy Jack, the Roman Church has long since had her candlestick removed as to enlightenment. Interpretation of Scripture is from the Holy Spirit alone. I urge you to come out of Babylon and rid your mind of all her errors, then repent and pray to Jesus that He enlighten you in the truth of the Scriptures. DO NOT lean on inherited dogma or horses (the priestcraft) for protection. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and all your mind.

          • And who removed the “candlestick” and by what authority?

          • carl jacobs

            And if the Magisterium should lead people into error – like (say) when it leads them to worship venerate corpses and cadaverous body parts? Oh that’s right. It can’t lead them into error. So if I think worshiping venerating corpses and cadaverous body parts is repulsive and pagan and idolatrous, well then, I’m just not listening. I need more instruction and I should just submit.

            Yeah.

          • No Catholic worships relics, and you know it. As for your our revulsion, this is simply symptomatic of protestant disbelief in the sanctification of the natural order.

            The Catholic faithful esteem the bodies of the saints. As the Council of Trent taught: The holy bodies of the holy martyrs and of the others who dwell with Christ . . . are to be honoured by the faithful.

            There are several scriptural passages that support the veneration of relics. For example, the Israelites took Josephs bones when they departed Egypt (Ex. 13:19). The bones of Elisha came in contact with a dead person who then was raised to life (2 Kings 13:21). The same Elisha took the mantle of Elijah and fashioned a miracle with it (2 Kings 2:13). The Christians of Ephesus, by using handkerchiefs and cloths touched to St. Pauls skin, effected the healing of the sick (Acts 19:12).

            To venerate the relics of the saints is a profession of belief in several doctrines of the Catholic faith: the belief in everlasting life for those who have obediently witnessed to Christ and His Holy Gospel here on earth; the truth of the resurrection of the body for all persons on the last day; the doctrine of the splendour of the human body and the respect which all should show toward the bodies of both the living and the deceased; the belief in the special intercessory power which the saints enjoy in heaven because of their intimate relationship with Christ the King; and the truth of our closeness to the saints because of our connection in the communion of saints we as members of the Church militant with them as members of the Church triumphant.

          • carl jacobs

            All of which is beside the point. I’m not going to be persuaded by that. I am sure there are many RCs who won’t be persuaded by that either. So what then remains?

            1. A rule from the top based upon authority without appeal.
            2. A explanation that may or may not be accepted but who really cares one way or the other? See point 1 above.

            The RCC doesn’t actually require anything more than assent to its dictates. If you agree, well and good. If you don’t, then you must obey anyways. Rome by definition is right. It might condescend to explain to you. But there is no requirement that it do so and even less that it respond to your conplaints. The Imperious Bull is sufficient.

            This is the fundamental error of Rome from which all other Roman errors proceed. It has arrogated to itself the office of “Norm that norms all norms”. Once having done so, it placed itself beyond correction. And so it wanders in the dark telling itself that only it can see.

          • All very prosaic but simply wrong. All you do is ignorantly attack and criticise that which you do not understand.
            Jack will repeat again, in following the Church Catholics are following Christ Himself. We have a richer comprehension of the natural order and appreciate that through the Incarnation God has restored the fallen world to Himself and that death and physical decay is no longer to be feared. We also have an understanding of the “communion of saints” and intercessionary prayer, which you patently and stubbornly dismiss without consideration.

            What Catholic rejects the requirement of Trent to honour the relics of Saints and dismisses their age old veneration?

            The practice of venerating the relics of the saints is found in the early Church. A letter written by the faithful of the Church in Smyrna in the year 156 provides an account of the death of St. Polycarp, their bishop, who was burned at the stake. The letter reads, “We took up the bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together as we are able, in gladness and joy, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom.”

            In his Letter to Riparius, St. Jerome (d. 420) wrote in defence of relics: “We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.”

            The Council of Trent defended invoking the prayers of the saints and venerating their relics and burial places: “The sacred bodies of the holy martyrs and of the other saints living with Christ, which have been living members of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit and which are destined to be raised and glorified by Him unto life eternal, should also be venerated by the faithful. Through them, many benefits are granted to men by God.”

            Relics remind us of the holiness of a saint and his cooperation in God’s work. At the same time, relics inspire us to ask for the prayers of that saint and to beg the grace of God to live the same kind of faith-filled live.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack, I’m over here. I’m not arguing about whether veneration is worship. I am arguing about whether Rome actually has to explain anything to the satisfaction of its adherents. It doesn’t. You have already admitted this. Hence Rome is at its essence a rule-giving organization. Hence my comment “Since when?”

            I chose veneration of corpses because I was reasonably sure 99% of the readership would find it repulsive and therefore be naturally sympathetic to my point.

          • Jesus, being God, didn’t have to explain His teachings. However, He explained His parables and teachings to His disciples when they sought clarity. Would they have taken His word, regardless? Well, eleven did.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack, the RCC is not God. Neither does it speak with the voice of God. Therefore, what God can do and expect from man in return is utterly irrelevant to what Rome can do and expect from Catholics in return.

          • Jack, the RCC is not God.”

            Jack never claimed it was.

            “Neither does it speak with the voice of God.”

            Scripture clearly teaches that It speaks with the authority of Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

            “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

            This passage contains several critical points about Church authority: Jesus tells the Apostles that the authority He is giving them derives from His own, divine authority. The Apostles’ authority and mission comes directly from Christ himself. The nature of this mission is to lead or govern, sanctify, and teach. Christ promises to remain present with them always in support of this mission.

            “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)

            This is a key passage for understanding the Catholic doctrine of Church authority: Christ’s deliberate intent to establish a new Church. His choice of Peter as the foundation, or leader, of this Church. Christ confers on Peter his own divine authority for ruling the Church. This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors in union with Peter.

            A striking passage in Acts tells how the Apostles describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28). This passage shows the Apostles knew that they had the governing power necessary to decide this question; and they are conscious of the presence of the Holy Spirit who is guiding their decision, so ultimately it is God who has decided the matter. This passage in Acts would be meaningless if the Apostles did not in fact possess the authority of Christ, supported and guided by the presence of the Holy Spirit.

  • Ray Sunshine

    Latest from Zimbabwe: Mugabe is under house arrest, according to South African president Jacob Zuma who spoke to him on the phone earlier today. “Confined to his home” were Zuma’s words.

    https://www.reuters.com/video/2017/11/15/zuma-sends-envoy-to-zimbabwe-amid-politi?videoId=372978974&videoChannel=117760

    • carl jacobs

      So the father of terror and man-made famine has been consumed by his own machinery. I’m sure it will soon be announced the Robert Mugabe died from a sudden illness – where the infectious agent looks suspiciously like a 9mm bullet.

      The tyrant is dead. Long live the tyrant. But does anyone in the West actually care about Zimbabwe? No, not since guilt-ridden western liberals used it to vicariously atone for colonialism. It’s been safely ignored since then.

      • CliveM

        Yes and his replacement seems to be a very nice chap!

        • Ray Sunshine

          I’m sure it will soon be announced the Robert Mugabe died from a sudden illness – where the infectious agent looks suspiciously like a 9mm bullet.

          That reminds me of an old Mexican joke.

          “Juan died today. I just heard the news. He died of a broken heart.”
          “No, I hadn’t heard. How did that happen?”
          “You know he had a long-standing quarrel with José. The two came face to face quite unexpectedly this morning, outside the church. José emptied all six chambers into him before he had a chance to get his own gun out of its holster. The disappointment was too much for him. He was so humiliated he died of a broken heart.”

      • China does.

      • Russ Brown

        Military coups worry me.

      • Inspector General

        “Keel heem”

      • Anton

        I believe that lead poisoning is the euphemism.

    • Father David

      Does this mean that the Archbishop of York can now replace his dog collar and regain his clerical sartorial elegance or does he have to wait President Crocodile goes on to a greater glory?

  • Chefofsinners

    Latest from Zimbabwe:
    Bishop Paul Mugabayes, well known champion of democracy, is under house arrest. However he has completely denied being under the influence of Grace.
    Military chief General Synod has tweeted “A confused old man has been taken into custody for his own safety.”