Posted on 06/29/2009 6:42:19 AM PDT by NYer
“Catholics seem to really love old bones and relics.”
I get more excited about an empty tomb.
Will Wallace
Forgive me, but this debate is ridiculous my evangelical friends. If this was a rock some secular archaeologist said was from the first temple it would be nothing but hurrahs from you. However, since the Roman Catholic church has something to do with this it’s nothing but harumph harumph! If unbelievers want to poo poo the relevence of this then that’s fine, but don’t call yourselves christians then act like the man never existed or his gravesite is unimportant to christians.
“It is evidence consistant with the tradition that Paul’s remains have been interred in the tomb since the first century. That’s not a small thing.
Sure. It narrows it down to someone alive at the time
Paul was alive. That is a small thing, but at least we
know it wasn’t someone from the 1800s...
As a Christian, I really don’t care about someone’s
bones - whether the person was the Apostle Paul or
whoever.
Neither did Paul care about his bones!
“We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.”
2 Corinthians 5:8
Paul isn’t in Rome! He is with Christ in heaven.
Bone fondlers, kissers, worshippers, adorers, etc.
all miss the meaning of the resurrection, of salvation
and of what it means to be with the Lord.
It is meaningless for Christians.
EXCELLENT. Me, too.
Whats the big deal? The debates on FR in the past
have been whether or not Peter lived in Rome.
Matter of fact have the Pope proclaim they are Peters’ bones and then ya’ll can have a party and say I told ya so.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
“Veneration” isn’t idol worship - it’s simply ascribing someone special with appropriate respect because of the generally accepted importance of their life. They were special. Like Billy Graham, Like Abraham Lincoln. Like William Wilberforce. Like John Wesley. Like John Calvin. Like Martin Luther. Like the Venerable Bede. Like Augustine of Hippo. Like Paul of Tarsus. Although human and flawed, we thank God they were special and we remind ourselves why they were special that we might model ourselves on their example.
As Christians we can pride ourselves that we don’t need to go looking for bones. But if the remains of Paul do turn up, we shouldn’t be so keen to send them to land-fill but should give them the respect our Christian hero deserves.
Go on....venerate someone really holy. Someone really set apart by the Lord. Someone really special. Someone really ‘sanctified’ (made righteous as an effect of receiving unmerited grace) as well as ‘justified’.
Really,That would be cool.
Have you ever watched the Antiques Roadshow on PBS? A team of professional appraisers travel from one state to another where locals may bring in old "stuff" to see if its worth anything. It's always fascinating to watch someone bring up an old spoon passed down through the family and relate its 'oral' history. The appraiser then examines the spoon to demonstrate, by its markings or design, the actual history of this particular item. Most of the time, when the appraiser announces that the spoon is worth $$$$$$, the owner is amazed but then quickly states that its value is personal and they could never part with this family treasure.
It's the same with relics. Their value is strictly personal in the Church. We evaluate relics the same way we evaluate the bona fides of anything else. Did George Washington really sleep in a particular bed? We have to do some detective work to find out. We may never know for sure. We may have to rely on probabilities. On the other hand, we might have incontrovertible proof, that could be disbelieved only by the skeptic who insists George Washington never existed at all.
The veneration of relics is seen explicitly as early as the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom written by the Smyrnaeans in A.D. 156. In it, the Christians describe the events following his burning at the stake: "We took up his 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 to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom."
Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.
The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).
If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.
“The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture. The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life”
1. This wasn’t written about the church. It was written to Jews.
2. The Bible never encourages, commands or exhorts us to kiss, worship, venerate, fondle, pray to, etc any so called “relics”.
3. In the NT, we are not told to venerate shadows or hemorrages either... shadows and hemorrages are not even relics... unless you can show me the encased shadow of Peter?
“There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice.”
Ancient practice, sure. New Testament practice or Biblical teaching, no.
“If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.”
What a Christian must reject is turning the miracles of Christ into an idol, turning a story into a doctrine, turning from the whole point of salvation to false religious practice.
Catholics and their “relics” don’t do much for me. Stories of Constantine’s mother Helen traveling to Jerusalem
and claiming to find splinters of wood from the cross 300 years later make a person look upon such things with a weary eye.
What you are describing are human emotions, which come from natural law. Have you never seen someone kiss the photograph of a loved one? Following the death of Michael Jackson, music stores were packed with people purchasing "anything" Michael.
Ancient practice, sure. New Testament practice or Biblical teaching, no.
The Bible does not exhort anyone not to touch a tassel or bone. It relates actual events of just such occurrences. When the hemorrhaging woman touched the tassel of Jesus' garment, did he turn to her and admonish her for doing so? No, he acknowledged that he felt power drain from himself and assured her that her faith had cured her.
The New Testament provides examples of people being cured by touching a relic or walking in the shadow of an apostle. In Acts 19:11-12, Paul's handkerchiefs healed the sick and those with unclean spirits. This is another example of physical things effecting physical and spiritual cures.
And again in Acts 5:15, Peter's shadow healed the sick. This proves that relics of the saints have supernatural healing power, and this belief has been a part of Catholic tradition for 2,000 years.
The importance lies only in Paul’s story told in Acts, and the content of his letters. I don’t need any kind of science to validate the importance of those, nor do I much care about his final resting place. Interesting that you insist upon capitalizing roman catholic church, but not Christian.
So, in your world, a SHADOW is a relic?
Could you point to the verse that exhorts
Christians to seek out handkerchiefs, bones
shadows, etc? I’ll accept commands, exhortations,
or clear statements that a believer should do this.
Taking doctrine from Michael Jackson fans kissing
his picture is fine for music idols.
thanks
That’s like saying the importance of your mother is only in her recipe book, and nitpicking the details of how I type is actually of no interest at all.
Bump! Well said.
Yo Poser. Catholics can be excused. They're only hyper literalists when it comes to John Chapter 6. All the rest of it cometh and goeth. lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.