Stigmata, the Negro Version

[vooke]

vooke is a hater, kadame is a lover....happy?
Now with that behind us I will tackle your copy+paste nonsense one at a time

But before that, does your Encyclopaedia tell us that there was no tithing in the early church?

The moment words like obtuse comes out, the real hater soon reveals himself

And in the Aquinas article on tithes, he quotes st. Augustine who says not tithing is a form of theft.

http://www.antiochian.org/node/16719

And in the Aquinas article on tithes, he quotes st. Augustine who says not tithing is a form of theft. Augustine did not live in the 6th Century.

Exactly, Those "laws" are canons. It don't mean the fathers never taught Christians that they had an obligation to pay tithes, it only means that the church never made it a law of the church. You claimed on nipate that those laws were the first time tithes were taught in Christianity.

[vooke]

Didascalia Apostolorum
You can read all of it here.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html
Note it pretends to have been written out of the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem but was

[ii. 35] If then the Lord, by the gift of His grace, has set you loose and given you rest, and brought you out into refreshment [Ps 66.12 (65.12 LXX)], that you should no more be bound with sacrifices and oblations, and with sin offerings, and purifications, and vows, and gifts, and holocausts, and burnt offerings, and (Sabbath) idlings, and shewbread, and the observing of purifications; nor yet with tithes and firstfruits, and part-offerings, and gifts and oblations, -- for it was laid upon them to give all these things as of necessity, but you are not bound by these things, -- it behoves you to know the word of the Lord, who said:? Except your righteousness abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shalt not enter into the kingdom of heaven [Mt 5.20].? Now thus shall your righteousness abound more than their tithes and firstfruits and part-offerings, when you shall do as it is written:? Sell all thou hast, and give to the poor [Mt 19.21; cf. Lk 12.33].?

Point of the document is kadame is not bound to offer turtle doves for her purification after coming out of maternity ward NOR tithes unlike mary the Mother of Jesus
The document appeals to the FREEDOM in Christ

[Kababe]

"Early writers refer to it as an obligation in conscience" That is what the encyclopedia says. And it matches what sts Chrysostom and Augustine taught. There was no law in the church but there were fathers who taught it was an obligation in conscience. Just as there's no obligation to give alms except in conscience, but the church can make a law today saying All Catholics who have an income should give alms every week in some form, feed a poor person or whatever. Wont mean that this is the first time alms is entering the teaching of the church. A positive legislation only means the church made it a law, a DISCIPLINE for Christians, that the church could reverse at any time. Not that it was unknown before that point. In Acts 15 (funny you should mention that), you see the church imposing a legislation for gentile Christians to avoid strangled animals, etc etc. That is what a "positive legislation" or discipline is. Your confusion comes from mixing up canons with teachings.

By the way, you seem to think the encyclopedia is some sort of teaching authority for catholics in itself, its just a good reference book.

[vooke]

The BEST way to resolve the tithing origins is to look at the Primitive Church giving for any trace of the doctrine. If they gave under a different regime other than tithing, then they NEVER tithed. This is much smarter than arguing from silence something vooke and Catholic Encyclopaedia is guilty of.

So, what was giving like say in 110 AD?
http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2006/03/tithing-in-ante-nicene-period-second.html

[vooke]

Am no Catholic so Catholicism jargon is foreign to me..be your brother's keeper

vooke's position is tithing is not a commandment for Christians, never has been and it stands in stark contradiction to Paul's 2 Cor 9:7 statement that we should NOT give under compulsion.

Another obvious fact is tithing as practiced today is completely different from the Old Testament tithing. This is the Galatian Error of feeling obliged to keep parts of the Torah...Christ came precisely because the Law was impossible to keep. Trying to keep parts of Torah makes you guilty of the parts you skip & worse, even those parts you pretend to keep, you break them every so often. They was called bewitched and foolish and I think Paul was way too kind

"Early writers refer to it as an obligation in conscience" That is what the encyclopedia says. And it matches what sts Chrysostom and Augustine taught. There was no law in the church but there were fathers who taught it was an obligation in conscience. Just as there's no obligation to give alms except in conscience, but the church can make a law today saying All Catholics who have an income should give alms every week in some form, feed a poor person or whatever. Wont mean that this is the first time alms is entering the teaching of the church. A positive legislation only means the church made it a law, a DISCIPLINE for Christians, that the church could reverse at any time. Not that it was unknown before that point. In Acts 15 (funny you should mention that), you see the church imposing a legislation for gentile Christians to avoid strangled animals, etc etc. That is what a "positive legislation" or discipline is. Your confusion comes from mixing up canons with teachings.

By the way, you seem to think the encyclopedia is some sort of teaching authority for catholics in itself, its just a good reference book.

[Kababe]

Am no Catholic so Catholicism jargon is foreign to me..be your brother's keeper

vooke's position is tithing is not a commandment for Christians, never has been and it stands in stark contradiction to Paul's 2 Cor 9:7 statement that we should NOT give under compulsion.

Another obvious fact is tithing as practiced today is completely different from the Old Testament tithing. This is the Galatian Error of feeling obliged to keep parts of the Torah...Christ came precisely because the Law was impossible to keep. Trying to keep parts of Torah makes you guilty of the parts you skip & worse, even those parts you pretend to keep, you break them every so often. They was called bewitched and foolish and I think Paul was way too kind

"Early writers refer to it as an obligation in conscience" That is what the encyclopedia says. And it matches what sts Chrysostom and Augustine taught. There was no law in the church but there were fathers who taught it was an obligation in conscience. Just as there's no obligation to give alms except in conscience, but the church can make a law today saying All Catholics who have an income should give alms every week in some form, feed a poor person or whatever. Wont mean that this is the first time alms is entering the teaching of the church. A positive legislation only means the church made it a law, a DISCIPLINE for Christians, that the church could reverse at any time. Not that it was unknown before that point. In Acts 15 (funny you should mention that), you see the church imposing a legislation for gentile Christians to avoid strangled animals, etc etc. That is what a "positive legislation" or discipline is. Your confusion comes from mixing up canons with teachings.

By the way, you seem to think the encyclopedia is some sort of teaching authority for catholics in itself, its just a good reference book.

vooke, I think perhaps the difference is that you and I use these terms differently.

1) Obligation
2) Tithes.

For example, Christians have an obligation to support the church and give alms to the poor a true obligation. But what does this mean? Does it mean if I never directly give money to a poor person/charity, that I sin? Should I help the poor...how often? Etc. The fact that the apostles don't demand this be done does not mean that we have NO obligation--IN CONSCIENCE--to do it.

The second thing is tithes. For me, as I understand it, the obligation in tithes is the obligation to support those who minister to us because they make sacrifices both for us and for the Gospel, hence it is a TRUE obligation, its not just "optional". The amount does not have to be 10% but the church can ask for a particular amount when there is need for it, including 10%. What happened in the 6th century was that when they made this law in that local council that was then copied by churches in other regions, they simply decided to go with the 10% because that's what was known from the Jews, but it could've been 5% or 15%. However, the idea is that this money indeed is a matter of obligation even when the church does not ask for amounts which is 99% of the time. Its not ok to just decide it was "spontaneous", as if there's no obligation from God to support the church and the poor. The apostles may have waived that right for themselves, yet they acknowledge it is a right. Hence we MUST support the church. its a duty. You cant just decide you have no obligation to support ministers and the church's ministry and only give when you feel like. When you are able to give you give to the church and the poor with generosity, and this is a duty of Christian conscience even when there's no specific legislation to do it or to give particular amounts.

By the way, I do apologize for the liberal hits I've taken at you on this thread, it was unnecessary, I should've taken a time out and a breather first.

[vooke]

kadame,
you can't tithe anything other than 10%. Tithing 10% is tautology since tithe is 10%.

Let me be very clear that there is EVERY scriptural justification for supporting ministry, the church and the poor. vooke is all for that. Where we differ is when an ill-applied Old Testament regime  is made the basis for supporting the church. The ends are good but the means are UNBIBLICAL. When you study the Early church, they had ministers,apostles who required support. They also had the poor among them. Since supporting the poor and the ministers/Priests/Levites was the MAIN OT basis of tithing, I would have expected at least the OT tithing principles to be applied to these NT conditions. They never did. Instead, paul appealed to 'free-will' giving-without-compulsion.

Supposing kadame is an evangelist and she is witnessing to this stubborn negro. She goes like 'you will be dead in the NEXT 15 minutes and you will burn in hell for your sins. This is the ONLY chance you gat'. The negro mighty scared repents, is baptized and born-again. You was dishonest but a soul came to the Lord. That is the thrust of my argument.

I have pointed out the misapplied scriptures on the subject. History too is on my side. I mean the Church Fathers closely followed Paul's give-without-compulsion principle. The Catholic Encyclopaedia agrees with vooke that tithing is a latter teaching/doctrine

I also apologize for being hateful. Am so sorry

vooke, I think perhaps the difference is that you and I use these terms differently.

1) Obligation
2) Tithes.

For example, Christians have an obligation to support the church and give alms to the poor a true obligation. But what does this mean? Does it mean if I never directly give money to a poor person/charity, that I sin? Should I help the poor...how often? Etc. The fact that the apostles don't demand this be done does not mean that we have NO obligation--IN CONSCIENCE--to do it.

The second thing is tithes. For me, as I understand it, the obligation in tithes is the obligation to support those who minister to us because they make sacrifices both for us and for the Gospel, hence it is a TRUE obligation, its not just "optional". The amount does not have to be 10% but the church can ask for a particular amount when there is need for it, including 10%. What happened in the 6th century was that when they made this law in that local council that was then copied by churches in other regions, they simply decided to go with the 10% because that's what was known from the Jews, but it could've been 5% or 15%. However, the idea is that this money indeed is a matter of obligation even when the church does not ask for amounts which is 99% of the time. Its not ok to just decide it was "spontaneous", as if there's no obligation from God to support the church and the poor. The apostles may have waived that right for themselves, yet they acknowledge it is a right. Hence we MUST support the church. its a duty. You cant just decide you have no obligation to support ministers and the church's ministry and only give when you feel like. When you are able to give you give to the church and the poor with generosity, and this is a duty of Christian conscience even when there's no specific legislation to do it or to give particular amounts.

By the way, I do apologize for the liberal hits I've taken at you on this thread, it was unnecessary, I should've taken a time out and a breather first.

[Kababe]

vooke, so you saying what we catholics do is not tithe? Yes, we dont pay 10% but we always give to the church sadaka (those who go to church). When I was in campo, I always gave about a fifth of my pocket money for the sadaka on Sunday, and I know shopkeepers who give unga, sugar, mafuta etc on sunday, or farmers who bring the produce of their fields. I feel as a single person, you give more than a person who has a family to look after and even today when I go to mass on Sunday and don't put anything in the collection box, it doesn't feel OK to me. Why? Because even in preparing that mass, my parish has used certain expenses: electricity/water/the weekly needs of the priest like food.

I've heard the youth in my church who make no money told to give to the church in the form of time and talent. So they volunteer for choir, visiting the sick, work around the church etc. I have always considered that this was tithe/duty, in the sense that it was an obligation. Sure, the priest will never ever reprimand those who dont do it, but we all know its not optional before God to have treasure (money), time and talents, and to set no part of it for God's designated receivers (the needy & the church). Adults mostly give in terms of cash...not all of them course! I would say about only half actually give regularly to the church.

In my parish, we were building a dispensary and then a new church building to replace the one we were using which was old and run down, so we would collect money for the project after mass every Sunday. There was a committee appointed that was in charge of the building fund. At one point, our parish priest requested us to give particular amounts (5,000/-) and for me I felt it was an act of obedience when the church says "We need this amount" and it's within my ability, then to do my part. I dont feel it is optional, that I can decide, "I have the money, but I dont want to contribute, and I have no obligation". Before Jesus, you certainly have an obligation if you have the ability.

So my question then is, the "spontaneous" giving, what does it mean? We both appear to agree there's no divine law to give specifically 10% or any fixed percentage of our income, but does it mean the freedom (not to give) is absolute? I only give when I feel like, not where there's a need in the church or poor, and ability (on my part)? That's the issue, do you consider there's an obligation not simply a permission but an obligation, to support the church whenever you are able and there's a need? If your answer to this is yes, then for me there's no debate, we agree. My position is that we do have a true obligation to give according to our means, the only excuse is when we don't have the ability. Regarding 10% as a divine institution, of course the old law does not bind Christians. 

[vooke]

kadame, you raise many issues.

FIrst, this is slightly more serious that our Catholicism spats. Tithing cuts across denominations and sects. When I was researching on the historicity of the practice in Christendom, I ran into the Catholic Encyclopaedia FIRST and that's the ONLY reason I quoted it. Since then, I have discovered other more detailed articles into this including the link I shared.

Second, giving is not tithing. Even Malachi says bring tithes and offerings. So there is a clear distinction in these. Not to disparage what you do/did for your church, but that si not tithing. Tithing as understood in 2014 is giving to church a fixed 10% of your income to church OVER and above any other giving. Tithing is taught as distinct from other giving even presently.

Since there is no Law requiring/demanding as in the Torah a fixed 10% of our income, this is not to mean that we are not obligated to give. It simply means whatever we do is down to us.

Paul in I thing 1/2 Corinthians 9 makes a spirited case for supporting ministers including himself. I believe Jesus alluded to this when he aksd the apostles to travel light during missions. What is clearly unbiblical is ALL attempts to quantify that obligation especially pegging it to a FIXED portion of our income. Worse, is to present the same quantification as a commandment/divine Law. And worst of all is appealing to Moses.

Jews tithed twice each year and once every three years, ALL out of their agricultural produce. First tithe is 10%, second annual tithe is 10% of the remainder 90% or 9%. Finally divide the triennial 10% by 3 and you get an average of 3.33% per year. So in total, Jews tithed 10%+9% + 3.33% or 22.33% p.a. All this tells us that the late invention of 'modern tithing' which is almost always monetary and pegged at 10% is way off the Torah.

Once again, vooke is not against supporting ministries and ministers and the gospel nor the poor, just the unbiblical means of doing the same. You need to listen to the vehemence with which tithes are preached among the evangelicals. Tithing is presented as a command with grim consequences if breached. It is also taught as a tool to financial freedom/prosperity and even healing....these among other myths are what provoked me to write my book