Posted on 04/26/2013 1:28:31 PM PDT by NYer
LOL, quite true.
(Insects are permanently off the screen in this house-—I’m phobic!)
But I was asking about the purported grave sites of the Apostles. Should I take your raising other issues as a concession that there is nothing backing up the claim beyond the church’s say-so? I always wonder what is behind absolute statements in matters of religious sites and relics. Is it fact or is it faith that it is fact? As for the others...Grant is probably pretty easy to verify given the short time period involved (might even be photographic evidence of the burial). Tut? There is certainly a significant amount of archaeological evidence regarding his existence and rule, but it could be anybody inside the sarcophagus. It seems odd they would mummify the wrong guy when the pharaoh was seen as a god. Not sure who would benefit from the fraud either then or millennia later, but it’s possible.
In retrospect what really surprises me is that so few ministers teach the gospels in the context of how and why the apostles died. Indeed, I came to see the historical value of the apstles’ martyrdom entirely on my own. It would have been nice for at least one of my Sunday school teachers or the minister of my parents’ church to have explained the significance of those martyrdoms as proof of then historicity of the gospels. Indeed, those martyrdoms and the historical proof they provide ought to be at the core of any teaching of Christianity.
Often, this kind of language is a code word for "old wives' tale". However, the Church is, among other things, the oldest continually surviving historical institution today. It was vital for the Church to preserve an accurate historical record, especially of the relics and the martyrdom sites, because they were venerated as holy places and objects. Where the record is uncertain, the Church would be the first to say so. Consider, for example, the Catholic Encyclopedia reference to the martyrdom of St. Baltholomew that I quoted in #38. Would you dismiss that balanced and sober account as say-so?
Wow. Only one natural death out of 14.
Wait. 14?
Let us go over the two evangelists who were not apostles:
Considered by early Christians as a saint, he is believed to have died a martyr, although accounts of the events do vary.Despot George of Serbia bought the relics from the Ottoman sultan Murad II for 30,000 gold coins.[24][25][not in citation given] After the Ottoman conquest of Bosnia, the kingdom's last queen, George's granddaughter Mary, who had brought the relics with her from Serbia as her dowry, sold them to the Venetian Republic.[26] In 1992, the then Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Ieronymos of Thebes and Levathia (the current Archbishop of Athens and All Greece) requested from Bishop Antonio Mattiazzo of Padua the return of a a significant fragment of the relics of St. Luke to be placed on the site where the holy tomb of the Evangelist is located and venerated today. This prompted a scientific investigation of the relics in Padua, and by numerous lines of empirical evidence (archeological analyses of the Tomb in Thebes and the Reliquary of Padua, anatomical analyses of the remains, Carbon-14 dating, comparison with the purported skull of the Evangelist located in Prague) confirmed that these were the remains of an individual of Syrian descent who died between 72 and 416 A.D. The Bishop of Padua then delivered to Metropolitan Ieronymos the rib of St. Luke that was closest to his heart to be kept at his tomb in Thebes, Greece.[24][25] Thus, nowadays, the relics of St. Luke are so divided: the body, in the Abbey of Santa Giustina in Padua; the head, in the St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague; a rib, at his tomb in Thebes.
1.The Martyrdom of Saint Luke the Evangelist
On this day, St. Luke the Evangelist and physician, was martyred. He was one of the 70 disciples mentioned in the tenth chapter of his gospel. He accompanied the Apostles Peter and Paul and wrote their account.
After the martyrdom of these two Apostles, he went through Rome preaching. Those who worshipped idols and the Jews in Rome agreed among themselves and went to Nero the Emperor accusing St. Luke of attracting many men to his teaching with his sorcery. Nero commanded that St. Luke be brought before him. When St. Luke knew that, he gave all the books he had to a fisherman and told him, "Take these and keep them for they will be useful to you and will show you God's way."
When St. Luke came before Nero the Emperor, the Emperor asked him, "How long will you lead the people astray?" St. Luke replied, "I am not a magician, but I am an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God." The Emperor commanded his men to cut off his right hand saying, "Cut off this hand which wrote the books." The saint replied to him, "We do not fear death, nor the departure from this world, and to realize the power of my Master." He took up his severed hand and made it reattach to its proper place, then he separated it. Those who were present marvelled and the head of the Emperor's cabinet and his wife believed as well as many others and it was said that they numbered 276. The Emperor wrote their decree and ordered that their heads be cut off together with that of the Apostle St. Luke; thus their martyrdom was completed.
They placed the body of the saint in a hair sack and cast it in the sea. By God's will, the waves of the sea brought it to an island. A believer found it, took it and buried it with great honor. This saint wrote the Gospel bearing his name and the "Acts of the Apostles" addressing his words to his disciple Theophilus who was a gentile.
The Martyrdom of Saint Luke the Evangelist (Coptic Orthodox Church)
The date of Mark's death is uncertain. St. Jerome ("De Vir. Illustr.", viii) assigns it to the eighth year of Nero (62-63) (Mortuus est octavo Neronis anno et sepultus Alexandriæ), but this is probably only an inference from the statement of Eusebius (Church History II.24), that in that year Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the See of Alexandria. Certainly, if St. Mark was alive when II Timothy was written (2 Timothy 4:11), he cannot have died in 61-62. Nor does Eusebius say he did; the historian may merely mean that St. Mark then resigned his see, and left Alexandria to join Peter and Paul at Rome. As to the manner of his death, the "Acts" of Mark give the saint the glory of martyrdom, and say that he died while being dragged through the streets of Alexandria; so too the Paschal Chronicle. But we have no evidence earlier than the fourth century that the saint was martyred. This earlier silence, however, is not at all decisive against the truth of the later traditions. For the saint's alleged connection with Aquileia, see "Acta SS.", XI, pp. 346-7, and for the removal of his body from Alexandria to Venice and his cultus there, ibid., pp. 352-8. In Christian literature and art St. Mark is symbolically represented by a lion. The Latin and Greek Churches celebrate his feast on 25 April, but the Greek Church keeps also the feast of John Mark on 27 September.
Ephesus
This last week our pastor said that St. Mark’s relics were stolen from Alexandria where he was a bishop and talken to Vienna. (I think that was the V word.)
I am planning a trip to hike the Camino Way to Compostela, where James in buried.
Its testimony is immediately suspect, because it still exists and maintains its teaching 1900 years after the original skeptics said it was supposed to go away.
I guess that should have been Venice.
My bani - auto correct.......
I think the answer is "tradition", like you said. It's a little creepy to me, but some of these "remains" were not complete - meaning not all the body parts could be accounted for. Some bones may be where they are said to be - though after all this time, there will be nothing but ashes left - but there was a lucrative market for relics and the more prestigious and wealthy a church was, the better chance they got to get "dibs" on the important relics. Some small insignificant church may only have been able to get Saint So-and-so's baby toe. It's no surprise that Rome laid claim to most of the "biggies". It borders on the macabre, to me, because people come to venerate these remains and relics as if they had supernatural powers. At the resurrection, it's a good thing God knows who is where, that's all I can say. ;o)
He had been arrested multiple times, imprisoned, was often beaten, boiled in oil - yet survived, faced great persecution and was exiled to the island of Patmos and, at the end of his life, died at the age of 94 around 100 A.D. in Ephesus. Not sure I would call him "lucky", but he, along with the rest who saw the risen Lord, certainly were willing to die for what they KNEW was true. People will die for a lie, but no one will die for what they know is a lie. The lives and deaths of the disciples of Jesus are a strong testimony to the truth of Christ's resurrection.
Sorry annalex. That post was supposed to be a response to TU and cc’d to you, but it was sent only to you.
Aha; I figured something like that. Good post.
I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held (Apocalypse/Revelation 6:9)
Several years ago I venerated the relics of Virgin Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, in Rocklin, CA. They were fragments of bones. Provenance of some relics cannot be ascertained; so there is an index finger of St. John the Baptist in Nelson-Atkins museum in Kansas City. No one knows if it ended up in a museum rather than in a church because some Protestant vandals stole it and destroyed the records, or the Muslim vandals did the same, or it is not genuine. The same can be said of the head of St. John the Baptist in a mosque in Damascus, and his right hand venerated in Russia. When a Protestant sneers at the Holy Relics, there is a special revulsion in the Christian soul as often it is the very horror of the Reformation that destroyed the proofs of authenticity. It will be a glorious day when the demons of both the Islam and the Reformation run off and we forget of the evils they did to the Christendom.
Seriously??? Having Saint So-and-so's pinky toe buried under an altar was necessary? It wasn't until the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 which decreed that every altar should contain a relic. Like I said, superstition, gruesome, macabre and creepy. Big money was to be made in duping people into thinking they had "real" body parts of saints and the Catholic Church was often the duper and dupee in the marketing of relics. Later canon law forbid the selling of relics. It was not a practice that God decreed. Though the marking of burial places of the patriarchs was customary to the Jews for the purpose of memorials, desecration of their bodies by dividing them into separate parts to be used as talismans or for protection was something God forbid them to do. It was Almighty God, alone, who protected His people.
Use of relics was not solely a "Christian" thing, though. Numerous religions have the same kind of customs in their history including Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Even Marxism and Communism do so to a degree with their veneration of their founders' remains.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic:
In ancient Greece, a city or sanctuary might claim to possess, without necessarily displaying, the remains of a venerated hero as a part of hero cult. Other venerable objects associated with the hero were more likely to be on display in sanctuaries, such as spears, shields, or other weaponry; chariots, ships or figureheads; furniture such as chairs or tripods; and clothing. The sanctuary of the Leucippides at Sparta claimed to display the egg of Leda.
Amphora depicting Greek hero cult in honor of Oedipus (Apulian red-figure, 380–370 BC)In contrast to the relics of Christian saints, the bones were not regarded as holding a particular power derived from the hero, with some exceptions, such as the divine shoulder of Pelops held at Olympia. Miracles and healing were not regularly attributed to them; rather, their presence was meant to serve a tutelary function, as the tomb of Oedipus was said to protect Athens.
The bones of Orestes and Theseus were supposed to have been stolen or removed from their original resting place and reburied. On the advice of the Delphic Oracle, the Spartans searched for the bones of Orestes and brought them home, without which they had been told they could not expect victory in their war against the neighboring Tegeans. Plutarch says that the Athenians were likewise instructed by the oracle to locate and steal the relics of Theseus from the Dolopians:
The body of the legendary Eurystheus was also supposed to protect Athens from enemy attack, and in Thebes, that of the prophet Amphiaraus, whose cult was oracular and healing. Plutarch narrates transferrals similar to that of Theseus for the bodies of the historical Demetrius I of Macedon and Phocion the Good which in many details anticipate Christian practice. The bones or ashes of Aesculapius at Epidaurus, and of Perdiccas I at Macedon, were treated with the deepest veneration.
As with the relics of Theseus, the bones are sometimes described in literary sources as gigantic, an indication of the hero's "larger than life" status. On the basis of their reported size, it has been conjectured that such bones were those of prehistoric creatures, the startling discovery of which may have prompted the sanctifying of the site.
The head of the poet-prophet Orpheus was supposed to have been transported to Lesbos, where it was enshrined and visited as an oracle. The 2nd-century geographer Pausanias reported that the bones of Orpheus were kept in a stone vase displayed on a pillar near Dion, his place of death and a major religious center. These too were regarded as having oracular power, which might be accessed through dreaming in a ritual of incubation. The accidental exposure of the bones brought a disaster upon the town of Libretha, whence the people of Dion had transferred the relics to their own keeping.
According to the Chronicon Paschale, the bones of the Persian Zoroaster were venerated, but the tradition of Zoroastrianism and its scriptures offer no support of this.
In religion, a relic is a part of the body of a saint or a venerated person, or else another type of ancient religious object, carefully preserved for purposes of veneration or as a touchable or tangible memorial. Relics are an important aspect of some forms of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Shamanism, and many other religions. The word relic comes from the Latin reliquiae, meaning "remains" or "something left behind" (the same root as relinquish). A reliquary is a shrine that houses one or more religious relics.
Since the beginning of Christianity, individuals have seen relics as a way to come closer to the saints and thus form a closer bond with God. Since Christians during the Middle Ages often took pilgrimages to shrines of holy people, relics became a large business. The pilgrims saw the purchasing of a relic as a means, in a small way, to bring the shrine back with him or her on returning home, since during the Middle Ages the concept of physical proximity to the "holy" (tombs of saints or their personal objects) was considered extremely important. Instead of having to travel hundreds of miles to become near to a venerated saint, one could venerate the relics of the saint within one's own home.
You answered your own question. After the Second Council of Nicaea it became a legal obligation; doesn't mean it was not a custom all the time before that. As your lengthy quote form Wikipedia shows, veneration of relics is a custom that predates Christianity.
More relevant to us is what the Early Church taught.
Few points of faith can be more satisfactorily traced back to the earliest ages of Christianity than the veneration of relics. The classical instance is to be found in the letter written by the inhabitants of Smyrna, about 156, describing the death of St. Polycarp. After he had been burnt at the stake, we are told that his faithful disciples wished to carry off his remains, but the Jews urged the Roman officer to refuse his consent for fear that the Christians "would only abandon the Crucified One and begin to worship this man". Eventually, however, as the Smyrnaeans say, "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." This is the keynote which is echoed in a multitude of similar passages...
Curiously, in the Apostolic constitutions (ca AD 400) we find admonition against girly squeamishness such as yours:
Section 6 [Conclusion] of the WorkThat It is the Custom of Jews and Gentiles to Observe Natural Purgations, and to Abominate the Remains of the Dead; But that All This is Contrary to Christianity.
XXX . Do not therefore keep any such observances about legal and natural purgations, as thinking you are defiled by them. Neither do you seek after Jewish separations, or perpetual washings, or purifications upon the touch of a dead body. But without such observations assemble in the dormitories, reading the holy books, and singing for the martyrs which are fallen asleep, and for all the saints from the beginning of the world, and for your brethren that are asleep in the Lord, and offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ, both in your churches and in the dormitories; and in the funerals of the departed, accompany them with singing, if they were faithful in Christ. For precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. And again: O my soul, return unto your rest, for the Lord has done you good. And elsewhere: The memory of the just is with encomiums (Proverbs 10:7). And, The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God (Wisdom 3:1). For those that have believed in God, although they are asleep, are not dead. For our Saviour says to the Sadducees: But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which is written, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God, therefore, is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to Him (Exodus 3:6; Luke 20:38). Wherefore, of those that live with God, even their very relics are not without honour. For even Elisha the prophet, after he was fallen asleep, raised up a dead man who was slain by the pirates of Syria. For his body touched the bones of Elisha, and he arose and revived. Now this would not have happened unless the body of Elisha were holy. And chaste Joseph embraced Jacob after he was dead upon his bed; and Moses and Joshua the son of Nun carried away the relics of Joseph, and did not esteem it a defilement. Whence you also, O bishops, and the rest, who without such observances touch the departed, ought not to think yourselves defiled. Nor abhor the relics of such persons, but avoid such observances, for they are foolish. And adorn yourselves with holiness and chastity, that you may become partakers of immortality, and partners of the kingdom of God, and may receive the promise of God, and may rest for ever, through Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Use of relics was not solely a "Christian" thing, though
Indeed. It is normal element of veneration of anyone held holy. So perhaps, the world should pay less attention to what Protestant vandals find "macabre" and "creepy" and instead worship God properly?
**I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held (Apocalypse/Revelation 6:9)**
Picking a scripture out like that to justify the gathering of bones? That’s about as harmonious as the Mormans using a scripture to literally baptise people in place of others that have died. Your organization is using Rev. 6:9 for a guideline? That same passage starts at the beginning of chapter 4. Much spiritual symbolism throughout (for example: Jesus Christ described as a Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes. 5:6)
Yes, what you folks are doing with these ‘relics’ is really kinda morbid. Was it not God that commanded, in the OT, that anyone that touched a dead body was unclean for a time? Wasn’t it the Christ that said let the dead bury the dead?
**Several years ago I venerated the relics of Virgin Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, in Rocklin, CA. They were fragments of bones.......there is an index finger of St. John the Baptist in Nelson-Atkins museum in Kansas City.**
So, you bowed humbly before some bones, that you rely on ‘tradition’ to be whose bones they say they are? That does not sound very Christ-like to me. Did the Christ visit the graves of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob and any of his twelve sons? Did he instruct his disciples to remove their bones and place them near to the temple? Not from what I’ve read. An index finger in KC? Words escape me.
This is really just another man-made practice to help people feel religious, imo.
oh well,..Lord bless
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.