Are relics Biblical?

[MarcoPolo]

Taken from another thread where it was getting off topic.

Lets look at these verses and do some good exegesis and see if they support the idea of relics.
Acts 9:39
9 So Peter arose and went with them. When he arrived, they brought him into the upper room; and all the widows stood beside him, weeping and showing all the tunics and garments that Dorcas used to make while she was with them.
NASU
Remember Acts is history and with this it just says what happened most of the time not if what happened is to be followed today.
How does this passage support the idea of relics? It just says what happened not if what happened has a meaning to it.

Acts 19:12
12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.
NASU
Same thing goes for this passage. It just tells us what happened and not if we are to do the same thing with handkerchiefs today. This miracle was an Apostolic one showing the power of god through His apostles. Miracles here confirm the work of the apostles. Today we do not have apostles and don’t need them because we have the word of God, 2 Peter 1:16-21. Is there another passage that says we can use the approach to miracles today?

2 Kings 13:21
1 As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.
NASU

**History just tells what happens. It does not always say if what happens is right or wrong. **We must look to other passages in order to know if the historical passage is something that we can hold on to as a practice for today. First, is there any other passage in the Bible that supports this idea as a good and helps us understand what is going on here? The answer is no not unless you know of one. the passage does not says if this the norm or that it supports the idea of relics. For that matter no passage in the bible tells us use relics today. This sign that happened here was for Jehoash. It showed the power of God working even through His prophet’s corps and was used to encourage the king as he anticipated his battles with the Armenians. No other IOT or NT passage ays that this event proves the usage of relics for today. In fact thee is a NT passage that says we don’t need relics today because we have the Word of God, 2 Peter 2 Peter 1:16-21.

John Mac Arthur is correct in views on relics. We do not need them today because we have the bible and no passage of Scripture tells us that we are to use relics of keep them. t Keeping or using relics is a non-biblical idea and is pagan idea not found in the Bible.

The above poster defended John MacArthur’s condemnation of relics by arguing that the passages above do not confirm or deny the goodness of relics. Neither MacArthur nor the above poster provided Scripture condemning this concept. The above poster argued that we are not told if the action of bringing these relics to the sick were “right or wrong.” But what does Acts 19:12 say? It says that the delivery of Paul’s relics defeated “evil spirits.” The above poster is arguing that evil was used to defeat evil, a concept specifically condemned by Christ.

It is also worth noting the above poster said that the continuation of what we see in the Old and New Testaments to bring about healing and cast out evil is a “pagan idea.”

Other responses welcome.

 

[rwoehmke]

Whether the Bible tells us directly to use relics today or not, it seems rather obvious that the keeping and veneration of relics is a long standing practice in the Church. Mass having been said on the tombs of martyrs in the catacombs which led to the use of relics in the altar stones of our churches, and so on.

Like the picture of old great grandpa Pete or grandma’s old prayer book, etc. relics bring to mind the person they belong to and their way of living the Faith which in itself may be helpful if not miraculous. I would allow that in the Middle Ages people went overboard to the point of superstition and sometimes even today, but that does not negate the witness of people who have received cures and other favors from the proper use of saintly relics.

 

[Tomster]

This is just one reason which justifies the veneration of images. The images recall the Saints to our minds, and the reverence we pay to them is simply relative, as the images themselves, considered materially, have no virtue in them on account of which they should be honored. The honor paid to them passes to the rational persons, the Saints, whom the images represent. The purpose of the practice is explained by the second Council of Nicea in its decree concerning sacred images: “that all who contemplate them may call to mind their prototypes, and love, salute and honor them, but not with true ‘latria,’ which is due to God alone . . . For honor paid to the image passes to the prototype, and he who pays reverence to the image, pays reverence to the person it depicts.”

As an honorably discharged member of the United States Marine Corps, I still salute the flag of my country, the graves of my fallen comrades, and any officer I see dressed in full uniform. I do not worship my country nor my fellow servicemen, dead or alive. I pay them the respect they are due.

 

[DLClark]

Taken from another thread where it was getting off topic.The above poster defended John MacArthur’s condemnation of relics by arguing that the passages above do not confirm or deny the goodness of relics. Neither MacArthur nor the above poster provided Scripture condemning this concept. The above poster argued that we are not told if the action of bringing these relics to the sick were “right or wrong.” But what does Acts 19:12 say? It says that the delivery of Paul’s relics defeated “evil spirits.” The above poster is arguing that evil was used to defeat evil, a concept specifically condemned by Christ.

It is also worth noting the above poster said that the continuation of what we see in the Old and New Testaments to bring about healing and cast out evil is a “pagan idea.”

Other responses welcome.

"What is the purpose of relics? Why do we need them today?
I used 2 Peter 1:16-21 to show that we do not need relics today because we have the Bible. I never relics were evil so please don’t add words to what I said. All I want is a passage from the Bible that says that elics are useful today.

 

[DLClark]

Whether the Bible tells us directly to use relics today or not, it seems rather obvious that the keeping and veneration of relics is a long standing practice in the Church. Mass having been said on the tombs of martyrs in the catacombs which led to the use of relics in the altar stones of our churches, and so on.

Like the picture of old great grandpa Pete or grandma’s old prayer book, etc. relics bring to mind the person they belong to and their way of living the Faith which in itself may be helpful if not miraculous. I would allow that in the Middle Ages people went overboard to the point of superstition and sometimes even today, but that does not negate the witness of people who have received cures and other favors from the proper use of saintly relics.

So what if the they have been used for a long time in the past. That does not mean they are pleasing to God. What use do relics have in the first place? Do they bring us closer to God? If so how?

 

[withwind]

well, one lady got healed by holding onto the Relic of Blessed Mother Teresa. God allows it for His glory.

 

[MarcoPolo]

"What is the purpose of relics? Why do we need them today?
I used 2 Peter 1:16-21 to show that we do not need relics today because we have the Bible. I never relics were evil so please don’t add words to what I said. All I want is a passage from the Bible that says that elics are useful today.

2 Peter 1 does not say we do not need relics because we have the Bible.

As to relics’ purpose, they are a sign of the holiness of Christ in the life of an obedient Christian. The glory be Christ’s.

 

[tugbaby]

The real question for the original poster is “Is the Bible biblical” since the entire argument places the burden of proof as to whether the veneration of relics can be found in the Bible. Where is it in scripture that God willed man to write down scripture? This is always where sola scriptura falls flat.

 

[DLClark]

2 Peter 1 does not say we do not need relics because we have the Bible.

As to relics’ purpose, they are a sign of the holiness of Christ in the life of an obedient Christian. The glory be Christ’s.

Where in the bible does it support your idea that relics are a sign of the Holiness of
christ? How do you know that your relic accurately portrays the Holiness of Christ? The 2 Peter passage, if you carefully read it, will show us that the Bible is all we need. Peter, James and John were on the Mt. of transfiguration and saw Christ in all His glory. Yet Peter says in 2 Peter that the Word of God is more important than that or any experience we may have. The point is that the Bible is to be primary in all thing in the christian life in order to know God and live a life pleasing to Him, 2 tim 3:16.

 

[withwind]

The point is that the Bible is to be primary in all thing in the christian life in order to know God and live a life pleasing to Him, 2 tim 3:16.

Does “primary” mean “only”? Thanks!

 

[gookykookypig]

Where in the bible does it support your idea that relics are a sign of the Holiness of
christ? How do you know that your relic accurately portrays the Holiness of Christ? The 2 Peter passage, if you carefully read it, will show us that the Bible is all we need. Peter, James and John were on the Mt. of transfiguration and saw Christ in all His glory. Yet Peter says in 2 Peter that the Word of God is more important than that or any experience we may have. The point is that the Bible is to be primary in all thing in the christian life in order to know God and live a life pleasing to Him, 2 tim 3:16.

Acknowledging or respecting relics is an holy act that we acknowledge God’s sanctity in them. We believe that matter, when its essence has been co-worked or had done relations in everything that is holy, becomes holy itself. Yes, relics are not the focus of Christian life, for the relics themselves don’t emit their own holiness, but the fact that holiness once touched them, these things we cannot reject in any way.

You, my Protestants brothers, often quote the second letter of Peter, eh? You forget that the same letter gives importance to things or places that were once related to the Holy One, which is Christ himself. Look:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made
known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

For when He received honor and glory from God the Father,
such an utterance as this was made to Him by the
Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”–

and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven
when we were with Him on the holy mountain."
(2 Peter 1:16-18, emphasis mine)

Look on the words “holy mountain” above. We know what Peter is talking about. He’s talking about his one-of-a-kind experience of witnessing Jesus’ transfiguration together with James and John. The question is, why on earth would Peter call Mt. Tabor, “holy”? Mt. Tabor isn’t mentioned nor deemed in the Old Covenant as a holy place

If Peter had no intention to give acknowledgment to the reputation of the mountain, he wouldn’t have call it “holy”. That is blasphemous enough to universal Christians he is writing unto if the mentality of the early Christians is the same with the modern fundamentalists: *Christ alone, you alone are holy, no other holy not even things get holy. *

Just as St. Peter gave significance to that thing (mountain) because it has once been attached to grace, or had its essence touched by holiness, so are we, we deem these things (relics) as holy for they had been once touched by holiness through the saints by the one holy God.

---

http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq143/katolikongtunay/visit.gif

 

[Tomster]

2 Peter 1 does not say we do not need relics because we have the Bible.

As to relics’ purpose, they are a sign of the holiness of Christ in the life of an obedient Christian. The glory be Christ’s.

Exactly.

After giving DLC the scripture citations for relics in the other thread it is interesting that he just dismisses them. It shows a lack of a willingness on his part to discuss the topic.

Overall, this is just another classic case of what I like to term “the consistent inconsistencies of Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist theology.” On the one hand they tell you it’s the Bible and nothing but the Bible and on the other hand when the Scriptures are presented to them in a consistent manner they tell you that, as in the case of relics, the theology regarding relics no longer applies. And by whose authority, I ask, did they make that judgement? Did those parts of the Bible all of a sudden become irrelavent or not inspired? The audacity of it all.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Where in the bible does it support your idea that relics are a sign of the Holiness of christ?

Acts 19:12 When handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched his skin were taken to the sick, their diseases left them and** evil spirits went out of them**.I don’t know any other power than of Christ that can drive out demons.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The 2 Peter passage, if you carefully read it, will show us that the Bible is all we need.

The passage says no such thing, but you are welcome to break it down here for us.

 

[gookykookypig]

Acts 19:12 When handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched his skin were taken to the sick, their diseases left them and** evil spirits went out of them**.I don’t know any other power than of Christ that can drive out demons.

Yes, exactly. God’s power can really work through matter. He even raised a dead man to life through the bones of prophet Elisha:

"As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a
marauding band; and they cast the man into the
grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the
bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.
(2 Kings 13:21, emphasis mine)

 

[Cluny]

The Ark of the Covenant was basically a reliquary.

 

[Tomster]

The passage says no such thing, but you are welcome to break it down here for us.

This oughta be good.

 

[Tomster]

Yes, exactly. God’s power can really work through matter. He even raised a dead man to life through the bones of prophet Elisha:

"As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a
marauding band; and they cast the man into the
grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the
bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.
(2 Kings 13:21, emphasis mine)

For sure and God’s power really can work through matter. Take the seven sacraments for instance.

Catholicism is truly the Incarnational Church of God.

 

[Tomster]

Yes, exactly. God’s power can really work through matter. He even raised a dead man to life through the bones of prophet Elisha:

"As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a
marauding band; and they cast the man into the
grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the
bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.
(2 Kings 13:21, emphasis mine)

It must be remembered that Gnosticism divided the early Christians into those who were spiritual and had the special knowledge of the interior “spark” of the divine within each human being (sound familiar) and those without this knowledge. Those who were gifted with this special knowledge and the knowledge of how to reach this divine “spark” could properly interpet the world, God, and salvation. In effect, these special Christians were superior to other Christians who only had the Church.

Those lacking the special knowledge were in a lower class which the Gnostics called psychic. In effect, this set up an authority above and beyond the authority of the Magisterium. Obviously, unless the Pope and the bishops were all spiritual men, they would only speak on the level of the psychic Christians and obviously their teaching would be reviewed according to the “gnosis” of the “spiritual” men. Further, this division of Christians set up two levels of Church membership which, of course, the Church would not accept.

Christian Gnosticism at its earliest posited some very strange things. One of these is a heldover, to a greater or lesser degree, by those non-Catholic Christians who basically consider matter evil.

 

[gookykookypig]

Are you spirit-led, Mr. Tomster? I was also thinking of Gnosticism in these last minutes. Yes, I was about to type that Protestants must not advocate the early Christian gnosticism that view matter as evil, so not to inherit God’s channeling in them.

Keep up your clairvoyance, sir. Or maybe, are we just one in mind and spirit in thinking of the same topic? Credo in sanctorum communionem.