Codex Fuldensis Gospel

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Friends,
As I said previously, I will only post on this subject when there is a difference, no matter how small, between the Sunday Gospel and the equivalent text in the Codex Fuldensis gospel.
In this case, the difference is mainly due to the in-weaving of a large slice of Luke, but also, I insist on using context to translate ‘Iudæorum’ as ‘of the Judeans’ rather than ‘of the Jews’, as it is Judeans as opposed to Gallileans or Samaritans here, rather than Jews as opposed to Gentiles.
Here then is the link to my posting:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=601431#601431

 

[buffalo]

Victor of Capua

His best known work is the “Codex fuldensis”, one of the most ancient manuscripts of the Vulgate, prepared under his direction, and which he himself revised and corrected. In this codex the place of the Four Gospels is taken by a harmony of the Gospels, or as he himself terms it in the preface, a single Gospel composed from the four. Victor was not certain that the harmony he used was identical with the “Diatesseron” of Tatian. The discovery of the text of the latter work and recent investigation have made it clear that this Latin harmony used by Victor was drawn up about A.D. 500. The anonymous author of this work simply substituted the Latin of St. Jerome’s Vulgate for the Greek of Tatian, and at times changed the order or inserted additional passages. Many of the discrepancies may be due however to subsequent changes.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hi Buffalo,
Are you prepared to suspend your disbelief while I explain…

Victor of Capua

His best known work is the “Codex fuldensis”, one of the most ancient manuscripts of the Vulgate, prepared under his direction, and which he himself revised and corrected. In this codex the place of the Four Gospels is taken by a harmony of the Gospels, or as he himself terms it in the preface, a single Gospel composed from the four. Victor was not certain that the harmony he used was identical with the “Diatesseron” of Tatian.

St Victor started with the evidence of Eusebius, that the author might have been Ammonius, but later became convinced that Tatian was more likely. There has been conjecture that Tatian and Ammonius are one and the same. Extreme longevity of c. 120 years makes this improbable, but not impossible. Tatian dissappears into obscurity about the same time that Ammonius appears, in the same place, with the same skills and interest, as a man with no past.

The discovery of the text of the latter work and recent investigation have made it clear that this Latin harmony used by Victor was drawn up about A.D. 500. The anonymous author of this work simply substituted the Latin of St. Jerome’s Vulgate for the Greek of Tatian,

Here is the nub. I know all about this process, it is this very process I used, using a synchronized Gospel set of the Clementine Vulgate, and the Challoner Douay Rheims translation.
(Actually, I mistakenly used the Stuttgart Vulgate, but have subsequently corrected that error.) The process is referred to as ‘Fragment Substitution, and has the inherrant effect that deviations between the source text and the Template Latin tend to be lost. I know, I spent many months restoring the differences, and still many lost differences are surfacing. The real killer for the theory that this harmony that St. Victor found is a translation is the fact that these diferences seem to average out at about 10%, whether you take Stuttgart as master or Clementine. This is contrary to expectation, for some of the differences, indeed, the majority, have no significant effect on the sense of the text.
If you look at the Arabic Diatessaron, the you will clearly see the effects of Fragment Substitution, If though you look at the Fuldensis Gospel, you will find from its internal integrity, even after my poor translation, a document which has clearly been assembled in Latin, from Latin Gospels.
It is commonly thought that St. Jerome translated the Gospels de novo from the Greek, however, from his preface to the Gospels, it is clear that he used as a template, the Vetus Latina Gospels, possibly those of Victorius Africanus’ commission, ca AD200 in his work. cf:
tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_gospels.htm

and at times changed the order or inserted additional passages. Many of the discrepancies may be due however to subsequent changes.

The difference between the CF Gospel and the Lati Diatessaron are more than a re-edition, they ammount to a new compilation, albeit, using the old Diatessaron as a guide.
The similarity between the two works falls apart after the first dozen pages, not only is the coarse weave different, but also the fine weave. Where the author of the Syriac might have finely woven one verse from all four Gospels, in the Latin, we find a complete verse from only one Gospel, and vice versa.
If I am wrong, well no harm is done, but If I am right, then we have in the CF Gospel, an ancient witness indeed, to Gospels which were put down in Latin, as early as AD 200. I can extract up to 85% of both Matthew and John, intact, from this Gospel. Mark and Luke are only witnessed incidentally.
Stay with me, this could be interesting…

 

[Nicene]

Thus the Codex Fuldensis, otherwise known as the Victor Codex contains a Harmonized Gospel which dates back to the 2nd century AD, and is based on the Vetus Latina Gospels which St Jerome edited into his masterpiece.
I say again, this is not new.

So far correct in as much as it is an attempt to harmonize the gospels.

I say that at one time it was used, and blessed, as a vehicle of evangelism.

Yep, much as a tract might be produced today for the same purpose. Yet that tract would not be added as a gospel and not in itself considered sacred scripture.

I say also, that I can find no record of that blessing being recinded.

Sounds good, evangelize away.

THEREFORE, this is still SACRED SCRIPTURE.
That is, IT IS ROMAN CATHOLIC SACRED SCRIPTURE.

This is where you go off track and get derailed. I could compose today the same type of manuscript using Tatian manuscript as a model (or even The Poem of the God-Man) but neither would be considered sacred scripture in it’s own right as a fifth gospel. It is still a compilation and attempt at harmonization for purposes of evangelization.

You are projecting something which you wish to believe onto something not in evidence.

However it does bring up another interesting point, one perhaps not thought out. It demonstrates the equality of tradition. Evangelizing with this “pocket version” of the gospels, how was it that people were able to practice and worship in their new faith?

Tradition.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Nicene,
Thankyou for your response. I will try to answer such points as I see needing.

So far correct in as much as it is an attempt to harmonize the gospels.

Yep, much as a tract might be produced today for the same purpose. Yet that tract would not be added as a gospel and not in itself considered sacred scripture.

The Victor Codex is actually a complete vulgate, though only a New Testament vulgate. It was, as far as I can see, intended to be a man-portable document. Bear in mind that St. Jerome’s work was a physical monstrocity, occupying a couple or so cubic feet, and weighing over 100lb. It required a team of at least four men, and a modified sedan chair to carry it. It was an ideal reference tool, but as an instrument of evangelization, a non-starter. The victor Codex, on the other hand was very compact, being 12" x 6’" covers and about 2" thick, weighing about 12lb. As such it was easily man-portable. It was the ideal vehicle for the itinerant preacher, and served this purpose for at least 200 years. It was never intended to replace St. Jerome’s work, any more than your ‘Pocket Oxford Dictionary’ is intended to replace the shelf full of books that comprize the ‘Reference Edition’. In its day, it was treated with the same respect as St. Jerome’s work, and thus was ‘Sacred Text’, even though it was in a highly abbridged form. Actually, the abbridgement, in the case of extracts from Matthew and John, amounts to less than 15%. The OT, however, was entirely omitted, except for references found in the Gospel.

Sounds good, evangelize away.

This is where you go off track and get derailed. I could compose today the same type of manuscript using Tatian manuscript as a model (or even The Poem of the God-Man) but neither would be considered sacred scripture in it’s own right as a fifth gospel.

No, this was never seen as a fifth Gospel. St Victor himself described it as the Gospel of St Matthew, augmented with passages from the other three. Actually, it is more accurately described as a twin thread of St Matthew and St. John, each augmented from the other three, then intertwined, using the repetitions as synchronizing references, eliminating them in the process.

It is still a compilation and attempt at harmonization for purposes of evangelization.

Absolutely!

You are projecting something which you wish to believe onto something not in evidence.

Your comment is very fair, but I have to plead that in the lack of direct evidence, I have to rely on inspired deductions from the form of the text.

However it does bring up another interesting point, one perhaps not thought out. It demonstrates the equality of tradition. Evangelizing with this “pocket version” of the gospels, how was it that people were able to practice and worship in their new faith?

Tradition.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Ah, here is the blessing: In my work, translating the harmonized Gospel, I was forced to make a scholarly study of the separate Gospels, even to learn a basic amount of Latin. Likewise, I expect that the harmonized Gospel, presented in DR English, will inspire readers to at least look at the original Gospels.
So it will serve as an introduction and taster.

 

[Nicene]

Ah, here is the blessing: In my work, translating the harmonized Gospel, I was forced to make a scholarly study of the separate Gospels, even to learn a basic amount of Latin. Likewise, I expect that the harmonized Gospel, presented in DR English, will inspire readers to at least look at the original Gospels.
So it will serve as an introduction and taster.

Ah, but this isn’t what we are discussing, a 21th century ability to go out and buy a bible to study. As you said this was an evangelizing tool of the time, circa 200. As Tatian traveled around with his “pocket version” he did not carry around an entire testament for anyone to study by, and they certainly didn’t go running to the nearest “shoppe” to buy one. Nor did they run off to other parts of the world in search of these other books.

Joe peasant could hardly be accused of either being the case. Unless you are trying to make a case for gnosticism.

They in fact practiced their faith and worshiped in like manner as everyone else. How is this possible? Tradition.

Again you are projecting a 21st century ideal on the ancient world. Unfortunately it doesn’t work out in the real world (ancient world).

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Ah, but this isn’t what we are discussing, a 21th century ability to go out and buy a bible to study.

Yes, you can now easily buy a complete Bible, of whatever complexion you require, which will fit in your vest pocket. But the writing is miniscule, and the pages so thin that you can see through them. The RSVCE, which I use, is A5 size and about 1" thick, but I need strong glasses to read it. It would not last long as a pocket book. A modern-day version of the Victor Codex, would come about A6 size, and, using robust paper, and clear type of 10pt minimum, would still be less than 1" thick, and would well survive the abuse of the pocket.

As you said this was an evangelizing tool of the time, circa 200. As Tatian travelled around with his “pocket version” he did not carry around an entire testament for anyone to study by, and they certainly didn’t go running to the nearest “shoppe” to buy one. Nor did they run off to other parts of the world in search of these other books.

No, but they would return daily to hear the story teller, and some would be inspired, or called to follow him. from the evangelizer would grow a church, with a deacon, then a priest, then if the church grew into a cathedral with a bible.

Joe peasant could hardly be accused of either being the case. Unless you are trying to make a case for gnosticism.

It is unfair to brand Tatian as a gnostic, or even an Encratite. These were traditions of the time and geography, and were no more extreme than some of the ascetic teachings of St. Paul. This was mainly a tar-brush to discredit the Diatessaron/version#1.

They in fact practiced their faith and worshiped in like manner as everyone else. How is this possible? Tradition.

I have no problem with tradition in its place. I am only uneasy with tradition where it does, or seems to, fly in the face of the words of Our Lord, as reported accurately in the Gospel(s).

Again you are projecting a 21st century ideal on the ancient world. Unfortunately it doesn’t work out in the real world (ancient world).

Actually, the exact opposite!
I am proposing that the evangelizing tool designed by Tatian/Ammonius and St. Victor is still an effective tool. The English translation does need tuning, but the integrity of the harmonized message, without the confusing complexity of the OT, and apparent discrepancies due to the different source traditions, makes it a far more digestable meal than is the complete text, whatever the complexion.
You might think of it as a ‘Readers’ Digest’ of the Gospel(s). Now, possibly more than any time in the past is an evangelizing tool of this quality needed, one which concentrates on the message of Our Lord, without the un-necessary baggage of the history of Judaism, and confusing commentary.
For scholars though, we have here a witness to Matthew and John, which might go all the way back to AD 200!

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Would you care to see a version of the Gospel only? I have a few of the first editions left.
I would gladly exchange a copy for your comments.

 

[Nicene]

Yes, you can now easily buy a complete Bible, of whatever complexion you require, which will fit in your vest pocket. But the writing is miniscule, and the pages so thin that you can see through them. The RSVCE, which I use, is A5 size and about 1" thick, but I need strong glasses to read it. It would not last long as a pocket book. A modern-day version of the Victor Codex, would come about A6 size, and, using robust paper, and clear type of 10pt minimum, would still be less than 1" thick, and would well survive the abuse of the pocket.

No, but they would return daily to hear the story teller, and some would be inspired, or called to follow him. from the evangelizer would grow a church, with a deacon, then a priest, then if the church grew into a cathedral with a bible.
It is unfair to brand Tatian as a gnostic, or even an Encratite. These were traditions of the time and geography, and were no more extreme than some of the ascetic teachings of St. Paul. This was mainly a tar-brush to discredit the Diatessaron/version#1.
I have no problem with tradition in its place. I am only uneasy with tradition where it does, or seems to, fly in the face of the words of Our Lord, as reported accurately in the Gospel(s).
Actually, the exact opposite!
I am proposing that the evangelizing tool designed by Tatian/Ammonius and St. Victor is still an effective tool. The English translation does need tuning, but the integrity of the harmonized message, without the confusing complexity of the OT, and apparent discrepancies due to the different source traditions, makes it a far more digestable meal than is the complete text, whatever the complexion.
You might think of it as a ‘Readers’ Digest’ of the Gospel(s). Now, possibly more than any time in the past is an evangelizing tool of this quality needed, one which concentrates on the message of Our Lord, without the un-necessary baggage of the history of Judaism, and confusing commentary.
For scholars though, we have here a witness to Matthew and John, which might go all the way back to AD 200!
Would you care to see a version of the Gospel only? I have a few of the first editions left.
I would gladly exchange a copy for your comments.

You completely missed the point, projecting a 21st century mentality into the first centuries. We weren’t talking about history etc, but of worship, structure, and activization of the apocalypse.

How did this occur?

Tradition.

To say that an evangelization tool is sacred scripture is fairly ludicrous.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You completely missed the point, projecting a 21st century mentality into the first centuries. We weren’t talking about history etc, but of worship, structure, and activization of the apocalypse.

Dear Friend,
you are absolutely right, I do not follow you at all.
I am not trying to apply 21st century mentality into the first couple of centuries, but rather to see if a tool designed in that era, which was still completely effective some 500 years later, is still potentially effective now.
As for the apocalypse, and the ending of days, that is purely the concern of G_d. For us to strive for that end is equivalent to suicide, and is thereby a mortal sin.
As I understand Our Lord’s commands during the ministry, we were to love one-another, and to work towards the establishment of the Kingdom on Earth, as it is in Heaven. This being the task of the Church as the Body of Christ.

How did this occur?

How does what occur?
I don’t understand the question. It does not engage my conceptuality. You will need to be more descriptive of your concepts.
Bear in mind though, I do not see it as part of my work to build the Kindom of Heaven in Heaven, but on Earth.
Spirituality may be of some importance, but without a bent back, and dirty hands, nothing will be achieved. G_d helps those who help themselves.

Tradition.

Again, Tradition, again, yes, tradition is fine, so long as it is sturdily based upon the Gospel. If not, then forget not what Our Lord said about tradition. He did not mince His words. He was very blunt on the matter.

To say that an evangelization tool is sacred scripture is fairly ludicrous.

Now, why cannot an evangelizing tool become sacred scripture?
How do you think the Gospels and Epistles started out?

This work was given Papal blessing for use by St Boniface, for the evangelization of Germany. Does not such a blessing make the tool sacred scripture?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Dear Friend,
you are absolutely right, I do not follow you at all.
I am not trying to apply 21st century mentality into the first couple of centuries, but rather to see if a tool designed in that era, which was still completely effective some 500 years later, is still potentially effective now.

It has the potential to be as effective as any other tool. But to promote it as sacred scripture and one of the gospels is a big error.

As for the apocalypse, and the ending of days, that is purely the concern of G_d.

That’s not what the apocalypse is. The word apocalypse means unveiling, something new. When Christ died on the cross the curtain was torn. We now:

Heb 12:22: But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
23: and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24: and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.
25: See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.

and Christ speaks through the gospel (the 4 living creatures - Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn,) Notice particularly v13, especially with regard to Heb 12.

Rev 5:8: And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
9: and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10: and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.”
11: Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,
12: saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”
13: And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!”
14: And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

This is the Apocalypse. You have approached Gods throne, Christ is present in 4 forms during the Mass; The indwelling of the people, The word spoken, the priest, and especially the eucharist. This has all been unveiled.

For us to strive for that end is equivalent to suicide, and is thereby a mortal sin.

This is a modernism and has no place in the world, However I agree with you, as far as trying to force Gods hand, so dispensationalists (Rapturists) are in a very bad way. (You may wish to speak to them.) However it is a complete non understanding of the Apocalypse which you are projecting.

As I understand Our Lord’s commands during the ministry, we were to love one-another, and to work towards the establishment of the Kingdom on Earth, as it is in Heaven. This being the task of the Church as the Body of Christ.

Christ is the one doing the work through his body, the church. The Kingdom is upon you. :

Lk 17:20: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. It’s fulfilment is the end of time.

How does what occur?
I don’t understand the question. It does not engage my conceptuality. You will need to be more descriptive of your concepts.
Bear in mind though, I do not see it as part of my work to build the Kindom of Heaven in Heaven, but on Earth.
Spirituality may be of some importance, but without a bent back, and dirty hands, nothing will be achieved.

Because you haven’t understood what the Apocalypse and Tradition are (which we will get to in a moment). So far you have projected and injected modern protestantisms which have nothing to do with actualization of the faith.

G_d helps those who help themselves.

Can you show me that in scripture? In fact I’ll guarantee it is the opposite of not only the gospel but both OT and NT. It is a modern corruption.

…cont…

 

[Nicene]

Again, Tradition, again, yes, tradition is fine, so long as it is sturdily based upon the Gospel. If not, then forget not what Our Lord said about tradition. He did not mince His words. He was very blunt on the matter.

Living tradition is the activization of the faith. Prayer, the Mass, baptism, the eucharist - basically the 7 sacraments. Morning prayer, night prayer, evening prayer, the 40 day lenten fast. the liturgical calendar etc. Bottom line the actual living of the faith. While I appreciate that protestants think this is secondary to scripture I just don’t see how entering into the bride/bridegroom intimacy with God can be relegated to secondary to scripture. Christ actually commanded the actualization of the faith in every word he said, and most in particular in the great commission:

Mt 28:19: 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,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Now, why cannot an evangelizing tool become sacred scripture?
How do you think the Gospels and Epistles started out?

As liturgical, the activization of the faith. In fact when you can learn greek Paul wrote liturgically (Greek: leitergos). The command of Christ for example in the apocalypse is to “read it in the churches” The gospels and epistles didn’t and weren’t used as evangelization tools. They were written to christians, people already converted. You’re projecting a falsehood and modernism again onto scripture.

This work was given Papal blessing for use by St Boniface, for the evangelization of Germany. Does not such a blessing make the tool sacred scripture?

In fact it would fall under the heading of tradition (small “t”), not scripture. Tradition is a means of transmission of the deposit of faith. This would fall under one of them. However much you wish to make this tool scripture it never has been and never will be.

Protestants have a very different definition of tradition - whispered word of mouth - which is fairly ignorant. Tradition for catholics is One bishop teaching another the faith, the actualization and doctrines, the deposit of faith. Who then goes forth and evangelizes. There are big "T’"s for example confession, and it’s mode of small “t” So for example in the first century, christians stood in the congregation and confessed, the presiding bishop gave absolution with the same words as today, as it is Christ who is actually the one forgiving. The mode changed eventually to a confessional, then to a one on one face to face and will probably change mode again. But not transmission.

Some catholics have bought into and try to defend the whispered word of mouth idea. But that’s an absurdity. What was taught was actualized in the practice of faith, through feasts, in feasts of saints, prayers etc. They didn’t go around with a dead letter. They were taught HOW to practice the faith. This is tradition, the deposit of faith.

Tradition also includes ecclesial tradition, laying on of hands, ordination, succession and so on. Other traditions: facing east, baptismal practices, eucharistic practices, sign of the cross, prayers for the dead, feasts and rites etc. I would recommend finding out what tradition is first before utilizing modern protestantism’s false projection.

Certainly the activization of the faith is equally important as scripture, as even one soul God converts and becomes and acts as a Son of God (filial adoption) is no less important to him than sacred scripture. Now that person is responsible for living the faith, actualizing it, and protecting the deposit of faith. That’s where we separate from protestantism.

As an Anglican, do you ever remember saying the words in Mass :“Thanks be to God”, and “Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ?” and “The Word of God” after the readings and the gospel? Who did you think you were praying to? It is the Apocalypse.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

To drive home where this “Harmonic gospel” would fall under, it would be a small “t” within the great “T”. Small traditions are those (t)raditions which come and go with time, and are part of the big (T)radition. They can resurface as needed.

It was and can, if you so wish, be used again as an evangelization tool (personally I don’t see the need with the advent of the printing press) but make no mistake, a tool is only part of (t)radition, it isn’t part of sacred scripture any more than a mass produced track is today.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Nicene,
Many thanks for your explanations. I have to say that as put, none of them trouble me.
However, my dictionary defines Apocalypse thus:
n 1 end of the world. 2 event of great destruction.
The Apocalypse, it defines:
book of revelation, the last book of the New Testament.
It would seem that you mean the Latter, but even so, the Revelation does describe the end of time.
It is like the opening of Schroedinger’s box to reveal whether the cat is alive or dead. For the Universe is very like Schroedingers box. G_d only knows what the state of the Universe is when the box is opened. Opening the box however does not save the cat, it only reveals whether the cat is alive or dead. While the box was shut, the condition of the cat was unknown. It was neither alive nor dead.
When G_d looks at the Universe, that will collapse the uncertainties likewise of the Universe, and when the uncertainties collapse, so will the Universe. That will be the end of time.
Before G_d said: ‘Let there be light’, G_d must have said: ‘Let there be uncertainty’.

 

[Nicene]

Dear Nicene,
Many thanks for your explanations. I have to say that as put, none of them trouble me.
However, my dictionary defines Apocalypse thus:
n 1 end of the world. 2 event of great destruction.
The Apocalypse, it defines:
book of revelation, the last book of the New Testament.

Yep, a modernism. Any guess when that definition came into existance? I’ll give you a hint, don’t go back very far in history. You won’t have to look farther than 100 years.

It would seem that you mean the Latter, but even so, the Revelation does describe the end of time.

Nope it describes a here and now as well as the last event. What three things were conquered on the cross? Second, what is Anamesis/Mnemosynon mean. If you look up the modern meaning in english (remembrance, memory, commemoration etc) you are going to lose to another modernism.

It is like the opening of Schroedinger’s box to reveal whether the cat is alive or dead. For the Universe is very like Schroedingers box. G_d only knows what the state of the Universe is when the box is opened. Opening the box however does not save the cat, it only reveals whether the cat is alive or dead. While the box was shut, the condition of the cat was unknown. It was neither alive nor dead.
When G_d looks at the Universe, that will collapse the uncertainties likewise of the Universe, and when the uncertainties collapse, so will the Universe. That will be the end of time.

Waxing poetic about a modernism isn’t going to make it less a modernism. However since you seem to be stuck in a modernism and the curtain really hasn’t been torn, and we really don’t enter into the sanctuary…thanks for disproving the book of Hebrews and Revelation, and in fact much of what Christ said during his ministry. The curtain is still in place and God is still far off and unapproachable, according to this modernism. As smart as you think you are you have a lot to learn. Even the anglican church knows this stuff.

Before G_d said: ‘Let there be light’, G_d must have said: ‘Let there be uncertainty’.

He did? Got scripture to back that up?

Lastly I notice you skipped answering a lot of the post, particularly the “God who helps themselves…” stuff. Any reason for that?

What I am relaying isn’t something. What is new is the bastardization of attempting to modernize and reinvent the wheel. God already made a pretty good wheel, we don’t mess with it.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Yep, a modernism. Any guess when that definition came into existance? I’ll give you a hint, don’t go back very far in history. You won’t have to look farther than 100 years.

Yes, I am aware of linguistic drift. How many KJV only people have thought that the darkness did not understand the light?
However, my comments on the Book of Revelations hold true. It does purport to describe the culmination of the era.
A lot of it is a description of a nightmare vision of what was expected to follow the destruction of Judea, and the battle of Massada. The Roman way of dealing with insurrection was well known, and often witnessed. It is clear that the ‘Beast’, (666), is Rome, and Caesar. 666 is the numological code for Nero, based on the Hebrew script.

Nope it describes a here and now as well as the last event. What three things were conquered on the cross? Second, what is Anamesis/Mnemosynon mean. If you look up the modern meaning in english (remembrance, memory, commemoration etc) you are going to lose to another modernism.

I have to confess that I do not find the Book of Revelation very enlightening. It also has to be accepted that the Church of Rome was very dubious about accepting that book into the Canon.
It is a complex book, written in code to get past the Roman censor, by a prisoner under house arrest.

Waxing poetic about a modernism isn’t going to make it less a modernism. However since you seem to be stuck in a modernism and the curtain really hasn’t been torn, and we really don’t enter into the sanctuary…thanks for disproving the book of Hebrews and Revelation, and in fact much of what Christ said during his ministry.

Sorry, I don’t understand. I have to confess though, that my Bible study is strictly limited to the Gospel(s).

The curtain is still in place and God is still far off and unapproachable, according to this modernism.

G_d created the Universe, and the time therein, so G_d is outside of this Universe and its time frame. G_d therefore cannot be a part of the creation, and so cannot communicate directly with it. That does not mean that G_d cannot set up a portal through which to communicate, indeed, that is clearly what is. We mortals though, perceive the portal, and like people in a darkenned room, seeing a chink of light, argue amongst ourselves, which is the brightest and best chink of light, being unaware, that all light comes from the sun, directly, or indirectly, think that the perceived portal is actually G_d. We fail to understand that G_d is behind the portal. We think of the portal a G_d, not as it actually is, an emmanation of G_d.

As smart as you think you are you have a lot to learn. Even the anglican church knows this stuff.

The Anglican church remembers much of what it leaned when it was part of Rome.

He did? Got scripture to back that up?

It is not written in ink on paper, but is written in the very fabric of the Universe.

Lastly I notice you skipped answering a lot of the post, particularly the “God who helps themselves…” stuff.

Actually it is from the Greek tradition. It comes from the fables of Aesop.

Any reason for that?

Sorry, I did not think you were expecting the points to be answered.

What I am relaying isn’t something. What is new is the bastardization of attempting to modernize and reinvent the wheel. God already made a pretty good wheel, we don’t mess with it.

Yes, I agree. The Universe is pretty much as G_d intended it, warts and all!

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Friends,
As I said previously, I will only post on this subject when there is a difference, no matter how small, between the Sunday Gospel and the equivalent text in the Codex Fuldensis gospel.
In this case, the difference is the complex and sensitive weaving of all four Gospels together, while still following the thread of Luke, into a nicely rounded tale.
Here then is the link to my posting:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=603932#603932

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This Week’s Gospel: Luke 7:36-50, the three verses of the longer reading are specificly not witnessed.
In the Latin Diatessaron, the three verses forming the beginning of this reading is richly interwoven from all four Gospels, the rest follows purely from Luke.
Here then is the link to my posting:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=604856#604856

Sorry about the copying error, I cannot edit to correct on that board.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This week’s Gospel, for the Birth of John the Baptist, is taken entirely from Luke and in sequence, so why am I posting the link?
Well, in the conclusion address of the Song of Zachary, there is in Douay, a phrase: ‘go before the face of’. In RSVCE, this is rendered: ‘go before’. In my view, the Latin means: ‘go prior to the appearance of’, and so I translate.
Here is the link:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=605965#605965

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

In the Latin Diatessaron, this reading is split into two halves, which the compiler sees as not only greatly separated in time, but also reversed on order. The first half, Capitum CXXXVI, is straight from Luke 9: 51 – 56, while the second half, Capitum LI, is lightly interwoven with verses taken from Matthew.
Here is the link to my posting on another site:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=607286#607286

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

In the Latin Diatessaron, this reading is taken mainly from Matthew, hence the historical order in places is quite different.
To view my posting on the other site, goto:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=608165#608165