1) Your gospel quotes are out of context, as the young man had just declined Jesus' invitation to follow him: "Let me first go and bury my father." The "let the dead bury their own dead" was not a general proscription as "do not commit adultery" but to *him*; the principle involved is, follow God *first*.
(Incidentally, you know, if you wanted to engage in sophistry, your line could argue FOR the veneration of relics: "Let the dead _bury_ *their* own dead, but as for you, follow me" (hence, rather than bury the dead, venerate them.) <-- just yanking your chain, I don't really think this is what it meant. :-P
2) Luke 13:4-5
4Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Jesus is cautioning not to draw too immediate a conclusion from individual instances. (cf His instructions to Peter, "if it is My will if that man remain alive until I come [again], what is that to you? Follow Me.")
Against the sin of idolatry (less likely) there is the added feature of humility. It rubs our nose in our helplessness, and interdependence, and all under Christ...
Peace be with you.
2) Luke 13:4-5
4Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Jesus is cautioning not to draw too immediate a conclusion from individual instances.
In this passage, as the context makes clear, Jesus is very specifically warning against observing a disaster and playing the Holier Than Thou game. I.e.: if Pilot killed some Galileans, or a tower collapsed and killed 18 men, the lesson is NOT that these were particularly vile sinners who deserved it. The lesson is that we’re all in the same boat, sin-wise, and no one is in a position to judge the victims of calamity.
While the passage I cited does have a specific context, it is also revealing of Jesus’ attitude toward the dead. I.e.: let the dead be buried, while the living prioritize following Jesus and living for Him.
I have a question for you. Here’s the setup. There’s been some discussion of an incident recorded in 2 Kings. The body of a man about to be interred was thrown into the grave of Elisha. Upon touching the prophet’s bones, the man revived.
An amazing story! Yet in context there is no further comment on it. The Scripture records that the man (who was about to be buried) “stood on his feet.” Yet the very next verse speaks not of this astonishing event, but of the oppression to which Israel had been subjected by Hazael, king of Aram.
Reading this event in context, here’s what is remarkable. God reveals to us circumstances that appear almost to demand some recognition of the effect these bones had on the dead man. Yet the Holy Spirit, directing the Scriptural writer, ***deliberately*** omits any reference to subsequent veneration of these bones. Rather, the amazing ‘revival,’ happened, and the bones were forgotten (so far as the Holy, inspired Word of God is concerned).
My question is this: how is this not an ***anti*** veneration passage? A man about to be interred revived after touching the prophet’s bones...and nothing. Zero mention of collecting and honoring the bones. Zero mention of veneration. It appears the incident was only included to demonstrate that even following a miracle, no special consideration is to be given to bones.
How can you argue otherwise?