Combox for:
Dialogue With a Baptist Pastor on Relics (vs. Ken Temple)
[3 June 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-on-
relics.html
Biggest problem is your hermeneutics --
historical narrative must be interpreted differently
than
didactic/principles/teaching/commands sections of Scripture.
Your scriptural texts in favor of relics are from historical narrative. That means that it happened; but it does say or command us to try and copy that; that is the problem.
I added the above to the paper (currently the final blue section) and gave an answer, as of 8:45 PM EST 6-3-08.
1) No condemnation of the practice itself is in the text.
I did not say there was a condemnation of the practice in those contexts. Obviously, I believe God did the miracles just as the sacred text says He did, through the axe head, bones of Elijah, the handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul, and the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:13-16); and you left out another example -- the hem of Jesus’ cloak. (Luke 8:43-48.)
2) The text does condemn an abuse that is described right after the mention of healing hankies and aprons.
For the believers/Paul/apostles (Acts 5:12), you are right, there is no condemnation of this act in the historical narrative in Acts 19:11-13; but for the unbelievers (the Jewish exorcists, as you rightly pointed out; they were not able to perform a miracle just by saying the phonetic sounds of “Jesus”, etc. (Acts 19:13-16).
3) If our example was also an abuse, then it would have been condemned alongside the other, but it was not.
All through history, people try to repeat miracles by the aid of physicals things considered holy things or relics. Most of the time nothing happens, and at most the pilgrim gets “a warm feeling in his/her heart”. Sometimes, something extra-ordinary happens, at least it is claimed that by historical writings of miracles. But since those are not God-breathed Scripture, there is no way to have absolute proof that a real miracle took place. Though I have noticed that the RCC does a much better job of investigated and testing for confirmation of a real miracle than the modern Charismatics and Pentecostals. (some things; they seem to let Marian zealots do whatever they want in all sorts of contexts.)
They (Charismatics) usually think any kind of testing or asking questions is automatically a lack of faith. No, in this the RCC is closer to the Biblical injunction, “test all things” and “test the spirits”. ( I Thess. 5:21; I John 4:1ff)
4) Therefore it is a biblically sanctioned practice.
Now, you made a big jump; by taking a historical narrative passage, and turning it into a command to try to repeat and practice. The nature of history and narrative and miracles are that the purpose of the text is to tell us what happened; and that God is in control and does miracles when He wants to; not when we want Him to do them.
5) Besides, Paul commands us to imitate him.
Yes, but now you have jumped from Acts 19 (or Acts 5) to I Cor. 4:16 (disciple others in the faith, and don’t be arrogant); I Corinthians 11:1(follow what I do and the principles I follow in I Corinthians 10 and glorify God in whatever you do, whether eating or drinking; don’t be a stumbling block to other cultures, Jews or Christians, etc.); Philippians 3:16-17; 4:9; (spiritual and ethical and moral principles all through chapters 3-4; nothing about handkerchiefs or aprons or visiting graves) and each of those contexts are talking about ethical and moral commands and attitudes to follow Paul in holiness and godliness and humility, etc. not prayer cloths and shadows, axe heads (Elisha) or visiting graves. (Elijah).
The Word of faith movement does the same thing, and applies it to different things. They will quote Ephesians 5:1 “be imitators of God”, and then they quote Romans 4:17, “God . . . who calls into being that which does not exist.” And then they will say we are to imitate and create money, prosperity, healing, success by the ex nihilo command like God, “be, and it is” (Genesis 1). This is stringing texts together and ignoring the context.
The Charismatics and Pentecostal faith healers also take those historical narrative passages and make them into some kind of universal principle for everyone for all time and send prayer cloths to people (if they give a certain amount of money). All of this is bad hermeneutics.
6) It's an inference, but a very plausible one, that Paul agreed with folks taking his handkerchiefs and aprons for the sake of healing and casting our demons.
No problem, but it was a one time action in that context; historical narrative.
7) Therefore, to do this today would be imitating the apostolic practice of Paul, as he himself urged.
Again, it is dangerous to take the historical narrative of what happened in one context and genre of literature; then jump to another genre (Epistles, teaching) and say “imitate that practice”.
8.) Jesus said we would cast out demons and heal in His name anyway, and this text gives us a concrete example of same.
Yes, Mark 16, and the fulfillment of that is all through the book of Acts. The Appalachian mountain Pentecostals have snake handling because of this too; does that make it legitimate to copy it and make it a universal principle? I think not.
9) Ergo: the objection collapses because it is superseded by the immediate sanction of the practice in the text and Paul's instruction for us to imitate him.
Again, you have made an illegitimate jump from historical narrative to the commands to imitate me in the epistles, ignoring the immediate context of the epistles on exactly what they are to imitate Paul in.
10) Ergo: secondary relics are expressly sanctioned by Holy Scripture.
No, invalid conclusion. So, I saw your explanation earlier, but just did not go through all the typing, because my summary statement about your bad hermeneutics was enough of an explanation. Using an historical narrative passage to justify a modern practice and then take a command (imitate me) from a different genre and apply it back into a different context is just bad hermeneutics.
God can choose to do miracles when He wants to; and those miracles happened as Scripture says. But we cannot manipulate God or get automatic spiritual grace (like a substance) by visiting graves or kissing relics or statues.
So, I saw your explanation earlier, but just did not go through all the typing, because my summary statement about your bad hermeneutics was enough of an explanation. Using an historical narrative passage to justify a modern practice and then take a command (imitate me) from a different genre and apply it back into a different context is just bad hermeneutics.
No, it's bad hermeneutics to set up rigid and wooden rules for "genres" in the absence of common sense or attention to the particular scenario. If a narrative would naturally have let into a didactic response, then you don't use guidelines about genre to say "nope, this is a historical narrative, so there can't possibly be didactic meaning here." This is what happens when people just blindly accept rules without examining the reason behind them. Of course, since your whole religion is based on accepting your subjective opinion without reason, it's not surprising that you have trouble with the concept.
I posted this in reply to Jordanes' and Paul's reply to my post concerning false relics and Calvin's treatise in the original thread where this branched from, but didn't get a response - would be interested in input from any other RCs as well of course:
Paul and Jordanes,
Yes I anticipated some might reply as you have, which is why I linked to the whole treatise in which he makes a lot more points (not just based on pure hearsay or his own hyperbole). Now I suppose one could say that every example he cites (including ones where there are conflicts between different sites claiming the same relics and ones that aren't referenced in any historical source for hundreds of years) is merely based on hearsay and conjecture. Seems more likely that at least some of the examples he cites (or ones he doesn't mention at all) were in fact fraudulent and being venerated (a case for every argument he makes being invalid could be made if there was a thorough rebuttal made to his treatise, but I'm not aware of any).
"If relics turn out not to be what they were believed, then they are no longer venerated."
Sure, but they were encouraged to be venerated for a time though right? Is veneration of false relics sinful, even if done in ignorance or with right intention? Because shouldn't the faithful be able to trust their leaders and the Church not to teach/sanction anything that is hurtful to the soul?
I have just about tripled the size of the original post by replying to Ken's counter-replies (above) for my ten point capsule argument, including a very fun-to-write fictional conversation between St. Paul and one of his followers, as of 6 PM EST 4 June 2008.
Hi Interlocutor, Your questions are good because the answer helps to clear up a misunderstanding about relics. You wrote:
"Is veneration of false relics sinful, even if done in ignorance or with right intention? Because shouldn't the faithful be able to trust their leaders and the Church not to teach/sanction anything that is hurtful to the soul?"
To answer the first question, the answer is no. The veneration of false relics is not sinful at least for those who are commemorating the the saints the relics are purported to represent. Since an item purporting to be a relic is first blessed (1 Tim 4:4-5) it would be no different than honoring an icon and what it signifies at that point. Relics and icons both are what Catholics consider to be sacramentals.
Since items purporting to be relics are first blessed, the sin is not owned by a person venerating such an object. The sin is owned by the person who fabricated the relic.
Your second question implies that the Catholic Church itself or certain of its leaders would intentionally allow the faithful to venerate a relic known not to be a true relic or even had a hand in fabricating the relic themselves. If such persons were to do such a heinous act, I understand that the fabricators of a fake relic incurs an automatic excommunication from the Church which I take to mean that the person is excommunicated whether the forgery is discovered or not. Personally, I can not conceive why someone would intentionally endanger their immortal soul by engaging in such a dastardly and unChristian deed.
Without doing extensive research as to whether anyone has addressed the actual claims of John Calvin which you linked to (which I intend to do after get some of my other projects done first), I did think of one thing that might help explain the multitudinous relics matter. Catholics classify relics based on whether they are actually bones or tissue of a saint, an object that belonged to or was used by the saint and objects which a person used to touched a relic of the other categories. Thus, I would suspect that a relic that one might perceive to be a forgery may actually be an object that was fashioned to look a true relic which someone may have used to touch the true relic, making the item a genuine relic itself. This explanation probably doesn't explain the animal brain or stag bone substitutions but would explain why there are so many splinters of the True Cross.
Interlocutor, I hope this helps answer some of your questions. God bless!
Paul,
Thank you for that clarification - the icon/relics analogy is helpful.
"Your second question implies that the Catholic Church itself or certain of its leaders would intentionally allow the faithful to venerate a relic known not to be a true relic or even had a hand in fabricating the relic themselves."
Actually I didn't mean it this way - I surely would expect the Church to correct matters once evidence showed a relic being venerated was indeed false. What I meant was that if venerating false relics was sinful, and if there have been instances in the past of the Church and its leaders sanctioning veneration of those false relics (though not maliciously, but out of ignorance of certain evidence or what-have-you that hasn't come to light), then that would seem problematic to the whole indefectibility/authority issue (I'm not mentioning infallibility here - RCs are to submit mind/will even to non-infallible teachings that thus may be reformed/revised, but it is my understanding that while such teachings could be in error, they would never be in error to such an extent as to be heretical or sinful or be hurtful to the soul). A similar argument could be made for canonizing a false saint or something that the faithful then pray to, though I believe canonization is a matter of infallibility. Anyways, given your icon/relics analogy and given that it's not actually sinful on the part of the faithful if a relic was false, the Church actually could theoretically just let fraudulent relics (that have been blessed and such as you said) continue to be venerated right? Such apathy would seem negligent and silly though on the Church's part, but wouldn't seem to have much effect on one's spirituality/salvation though in the end.
Is there an official list of official valid relics that the infallible magisterium has made to help guide the RC people and also telling people where they are?
If not, how is one to know for sure what is true or not?
Is there an official list of any miracles that happen to pilgrms visitng shrines and relics?
Seems there need to be proof of that; for them to be on the same level as Acts 5 and 19 and the examples in Kings (bones, ax, shadows, handkerchiefs, etc.)
Hi Interlocutor, You asked:
[T]he Church actually could theoretically just let fraudulent relics (that have been blessed and such as you said) continue to be venerated right?
It would seem to me that the answer is yes, but as you pointed out, it would be silly for them to do so.
I was reading an interesting article about a scientist proving that St. Joan of Arc's relics were actually from a cat mummy, but if they had done any research to begin with, historical accounts tell us her remains were completely burned to ashes and tossed into the river and would have saved themselves the time and money of testing the "relic" to begin with.
One last thought~relics are considered sacramentals. The Church does not require anyone to venerate a relic nor is the practice considered essential for one's spirtuality or salvation. Sacramentals are merely aids to excite us and help us to become closer to God. Regardless of what we Catholics may think of it, reading the faith and heroism of Protestant martyrs in Foxe's Book of Martyrs I am sure has been a stirring example helping many Protestants in their faith. We regard relics as the physical witness of the faith and heroism of Catholic saints.
God bless!
Hi Ken,
You asked, "Is there an official list of official valid relics that the infallible magisterium has made to help guide the RC people and also telling people where they are?" To my knowledge, no. The Church does not handle relics like inventory or souvenirs. With that being said, I am aware by virture of the Vatican collection that is on display here in Ohio right now, that many relics are also treated as historical or artistic artifacts as well and are catologued accordingly like one would see in a museum or historical library.
You asked, "If not, how is one to know for sure what is true or not?" From an article I read about reliquaries, I am given to understand that Rome only distributes the relics of canonized Saints. At one time, this practice was different with the person charged with the cause of the canonization of a saint being responsble for the distribution of such. In any case, the relic is supposed to be placed in a theca or container and then a seal showing the relic's authenticity is placed on it. This method has been used for a number of centuries. While there have been counterfeitors of relics, the containers which hold them and the seals, it seems that this practice still is pretty reliable today.
You asked, "Is there an official list of any miracles that happen to pilgrms visitng shrines and relics?" Most shrines are not under the direct control of the Vatican, but are under the jurisdiction of the religious order or local bishop where they are located. At St. Anne de Beaupre in Quebec, which I have visited, they do investigate miracles that occur there and keep an official list of miracles that happen there as well as the crutches, braces, canes and wheelchairs of those who have been healed there. I also know that the Church takes the claims of miracles seriously and there is some sort of official investigation of them. You might want to read a biography of St. Pio or watch one of the movies about St. Bernardette and you will see that rather than being a bunch of gullible rubes, the Church attempts to do everything possible to disprove them and exclude all possible physical or natural explanations for their happening. Only after such scrutiny does the Church accept a miracle.
Your comment: Seems there need to be proof of that; for them to be on the same level as Acts 5 and 19 and the examples in Kings (bones, ax, shadows, handkerchiefs, etc.) Well for starters we have eyewtiness testimony of folks like St. John Chrysostom in regards to the demon repelling power of relics of St. Babylas or St. Augustine in "The City of God" as to the healing properties of the relics of St. Stephen or even John Henry Cardinal Newman about the oil given off by the relics of St. Walburga in Apologia Vita Sua Apologia. As I mentioned, we also have the scrutiny of the Church.
I hope this proves useful as a starting place for you. God bless!
This discussion/debate betate between Ken and Dave was done well. Although Ken is strongly opposed to Catholicism, and is a conservative Calvinist, he (usually) is usually much more gracious in debate than the folks at RefCath, Beggars, AOMIN etc.
Dave, you were very polite and patient with Ken as well.
Well done, both of you. However, sorry to say, but Dave's argument by scripture and logic is indeed much more solid.
Usually a pleasure.
Paul,
Thanks for all those details. I appreciate your answers and sincerity. Very helpful and interesting.
I have always respected the RCC for its investigations of miracles to see if they really were a miracle. That makes sense to me.
Most of the modern Charismatics/Pentecostals I know think that if you question or want to investigate in order to confirm that a true miracle took place; then they say that is a lack of faith. That seems really wrong.
So, the RCC on this issue has my respect.
There is a lot of mystery involved in that whole area also - miracles.
Thanks Z !
I think we all should at least strive for that -- I Peter 3:15 "with gentleness and respect."
I just thought of a couple other examples --
Should we imitate Jesus when he spat in the mud and put it on the blind man's eye to heal him?
Should we imitate Jesus when he spat on His fingers and put them into the deaf guy's ears?
Should we imitate Jesus when He breathed on the disciples and said, "receive the Holy Spirit?" John 20:22 ??
(Like Benny Hinn does) ?
Is copying Paul from Acts 19 only for priests, or can all Christians do that? What kind of cloth qualifies?
What are the parameters and conditions and controls over doing things, do you think?
Mark 7:33-35 -- Jesus actually spits on the guys tongue! I had forgotten about that. That, I have to admit, is weird. I believe it; but I cannot explain it.
How would you explain this? Why did Jesus do it?
Should be imitate this? If not, why not, since it says, "imitate Christ" and "be imitators of God" ?
33After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he spit and touched the man's tongue. 34He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means, "Be opened!" ). 35At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.
The other one about the mud was from John 9.
Who knows about all that, Ken?! The fact remains that the practice was not condemned, and we have to assume it is therefore permissible. Therefore, you can't say that the notion of relics is unbiblical. Elisha's bones is even more explicit and unable to be denied.
We can quibble about details and application, but you have to face the fact of the overall permissibility and accceptance of the concept that matter conveys grace (which is nothing more than sacramentalism, which in turn flows from the Incarnation, which raised all matter up to a new level).
Your problem is that the Bible teaches one thing, but your relgious tradition teaches another, so you have a conflict. You either have to modify the unbiblical aspects of your tradition or disprove the biblical data. You haven't done the latter (with all due respect) and you won't agree to the former, so you are betwixt and between.
The Catholic labors under no such difficult dilemma . We can follow the biblical teachings because they are never in disharmony with Catholic Tradition.
That's one thing I dearly love about Catholicism: it is so deeply biblical in a way that no form of Protestantism (or even all taken together) are. Since I love the Bible so much, this is a great joy to me.
Elisha's bones raised a man from the dead (2 Kings 13:20-21).
The context was an attack by Moabite raiders. There is no paradigm for a command to actually touch the dead body to Elisha's bones. It was a quick response to an unexpected attack on their funeral service and burial.
Did Elisha's bones ontologically (by themselves) raise the man from dead; or did God merely choose to exercise His power and raise that man up; as a testimony to the raiding band of unbelieving Moabites, who because of their attacks, forced the people burying the man to just quickly throw the body into Elisha's tomb?
Benny Hinn uses this verse to explain where he got his "anointing" from -- from the grave of Kathyrn Khulman; -- he goes and visits her grave site and claims to get his powers to heal from visiting her grave; since she also is claimed to have the gift of healing.
Now, I believe that the man was resurrected in 2 Kings; but seems a stretch to then take that and use it as a paradigm for visiting shrines and graves for healing. It just does not happen most of the time. (miracles; healings) The main point is that God can choose to heal or do a miracle whenever He wants to.
What are the parameters for that belief in RCC ? Do priests take dead bodies to graves in hopes of resurrection? In order to fully take the historical text the way you are suggesting, it seems that all catholics should now take their dead bodies to others graves ( presumably RCC saints, but Elisha was a prophet, and how many of those are still around, extant in archeology?)
Interesting how you just avoided those other examples. You have to admit, if you are going to make some historical narrative (bones, handkerchiefs, aprons, shadows) normative for then imitating the practice; then you have to start using these other ones also (breathing on people and spitting on people's eyes, tongues, and ears) for healing.
What is your basis for using some and not using others?
flows from the Incarnation, which raised all matter up to a new level
Where is that in Scripture?
But Elisha's bones were pre-incarnation -- so how do you explain that?
I added more replies to the post as of 8 PM EST 7 June 2008 (after the last set of five asterisks).
Ken,
To answer your question, somewhat: We are doing some of the things (using matter to convey grace, and/or receiving some grace from God, through matter, as Jesus, Peter and Paul have showed us) to some degree (Cactholics, Eastern Ortho's, and in certain ways some Pentecostals), which is certainly biblical, versus not using any at all (Traditional Protestant, in fact, condemning it), which is demonstrably non-biblical.
Now if the Catholic does not smear mud in one's eye, but does venerate the bones or clothing of of a saint, this is fine, and I think can be proven to be biblical and logical.
The traditional Protestant position is not supported by the bible.
Maybe we don't do all, but we do some, rather than none.
Do you see my point?
As to an exhaustive list of which one s are ok and which ones are not: I'm certain there is not a list, but I'd stick with what the church does do, and treat it in the same manner as the Cbhurch allows for apparitions.
Pardon me, to clarify: Stick to the ones the church does do and does approve of, and the peripheral or obscure ones, treat conservatively...much like apparitions.
Question: Do we need an exhaustive list?
Its funny, the protestant complaints that the Church puts to many rules or barriers between the Christian and the Gospel, however it becomes upset when rules are not spelled out. He will go and demand of the Church that it be more rigid.
So which one is it, too many or too few?
using matter to convey grace,
What is the definition of grace from Roman Catholic magisterial official position?
I did not demand a list; I merely asked if there was one; and the lack of a principles and a basis that explains which ones are valid to copy and which ones are not shows the inconsistency of Roman Catholic exegesis and bad hermeneutics of narrative passages.
See the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
06689a.htm
Give it up, Ken. Your argument on this has completely failed. I know you can't admit that, but down deep I believe you know, and that it is causing you cognitive dissonance. so you flail away all the more desperately to avoid facing that fact.
After reading this I realized just how important the "Prayer to the Holy Spirit" argument is.
Given the so called "solO Sciptura" (nothing short of explicit commands are acceptable) position Ken has painted himself into on this relics issue he has absolutely no grounds for Praying to the Holy Spirit.
Yet he could not argue against praying to the Holy Spirit without it resulting in some implied heretical notion that the Holy Spirit is not God.
With all due respect to God the Holy Spirit, there is actually clear evidence of relics in Scripture but not so clear, in fact only implicit (prayer not condemned, Holy Spirit is God, etc), evidence of prayer to the Holy Spirit.
At this rate, with the extreme anti-sacramental Baptist mindset, the passages about Elisha's bones, hankies, etc are not only worthless but counter productive. What on earth was God thinking by raising a man from touching dead bones and what was God trying to prove by having people touch blessed items? Such "miracles" (superstitions) are obviously the way idolaters and pagans think and operate, not Christians....right?
Well stated Nick! Ken is in a real pickle on this one. The biblical evidence is clear and explicit, but he has no choice but to reject it because that is what his man-made, quite unbiblical tradition of anti-sacramentalism tells him he must do.
See the online blog article:
Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Holy Foreskin
Dave Armstrong wrote:
“. . . the Incarnation, which raised all matter up to a new level”
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are.
Doesn’t say anything about raising matter to a new level. This is about God’s Spirit dwelling in believers, and being with believers in a special way when gathered in the church. It says that the believers are holy, called saints; and God will destroy people who seek to destroy the people of God, the church. Nothing about matter changing or having extra-ordinary powers or ability to give off grace. Your argument fails.
1 Corinthians 6:15,19 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? . . . Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;
Same as above, the Holy Spirit lives within believers, but the Holy Spirit is not limited or localized in a physical way; rather it speaks of a special relationship we have with God through the Holy Spirit and that we are not our own. God owns us and has the right to call the shots, and He is Lord over our bodies and has the right to command us to use our bodies for God’s glory; not in sexual immorality or lust or greed or laziness or gluttony. Nothing about matter being raised to a new level. Nothing about all matter, for if your argument is true, the two verses so far would only include matter that relates to the believers, not the world or unbelievers. But the matter that relates to unbelievers still rots and decays; we still die, so our flesh decays; buildings fall apart and rafters sag and stones erode over time unless builders come in an repair and renovate.
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
yes, believers are the body of Christ, but physically we still get old and wear out and die. Nothing about actual matter being raised to a new level here.
2 Corinthians 4:10-11 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh.
The context is not about matter being raised to a new level as a result of the incarnation; rather the context is about ministry and sharing the gospel with people and the persecution that results from those that reject the gospel.
Verse 1 – we don’t loose heart because this ministry of preaching the gospel is a gift of mercy and grace, just as our salvation is.
Verse 2 – we renounced secret and deceptive methods, and we preach the gospel openly and clearly to people’s consciences.
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Verses 3-6 – unbelievers are perishing and Satan blinds their minds. We preach Christ, not ourselves. This is about preaching the gospel and ministry and the trials and challenges and persecutions that come.
7But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.
Our bodies are earthen vessels, clay pots, but the power of the gospel, gives spiritual life to others, when the gospel is preached; not new physical powers in matter.
Continued
2 Corinthians 4:12
So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.
“life” is the new spiritual life imparted through the preaching of the gospel to the Corinthians and the power of God and the Holy Spirit in their lives as they walk with Christ and follow the apostles doctrine and moral and ethical teachings. Nothing about matter being changed to a new level.
When Paul and his missionary suffers, their bodies, clothes, houses, ships (see the shipwreck in Acts 27, imprisonment in 28.) , physical things they take on their travels are continually running down. God does a miracle for Paul; the snake bit does not harm him, fulfilling Mark 16:18 and Luke 10:19.
13 It is written: "I believed; therefore I have spoken."[b]With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, 14because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.
[It is the resurrection, not the incarnation that will in the future raise matter to a new level; but that has not happened yet; as the new heavens and the new earth and the resurrection of the dead is still future. One of the purposes of the incarnation is for God to show He approves of creation and matter, for sure; but that is not the only purpose. Matter is not evil; the body is good; food is good; sex is good; God created matter as good. But it is still rotting and everyone dies.]
15All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.
16Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
Nothing about what you want to make this passage into.
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (cf. Phil 3:10)
Again, nothing about the incarnation, nor about matter being raised to a new level. Rather, believers are spiritually crucified with Christ and united with Him in His death to sin and we are to live lives of trust in Him while we are here in the flesh (in the body on earth), until we die. Phil. 3:10 is about being conformed to his death and manifesting the power of Christ in ministry and love and reaching out to others and living holy lives so that others may experience resurrection power. Faith and unity with Christ gives us hope in the resurrection of our flesh, which is future. Because of Christ’s resurrection, we have hope for a glorified, resurrected body at the judgment. It would have more accurate to say that because of the resurrection of Jesus, there will be a future redemption of matter in the new heavens and new earth and our resurrection bodies; but our physical bodies now and relics and churches and holy sites are not “matter that has been raised to a new level.”
Galatians 6:15,17 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. . . . Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.
Yes, we are new creatures, spiritually, being born again by the Spirit of God. (2 Cor. 5:17; Titus 3:5; John 3:1-8.). But nothing about matter being raised to a new level. In fact, his matter, his body is being scarred and whipped and broken by the persecution he endures.
Ephesians 1:22-23 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Because of the resurrection and ascension and session – see the context, verse 19-21, not because of the incarnation. Again, bad argument on your part.
Ephesians 5:29-30 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
This speaks to the inherent goodness of matter, our bodies, in creation; and in marriage and taking care of our own bodies by healthy eating, and whatever else we do to maintain our health and take care of ourselves; so also, husbands should take care of their wives, etc. There nothing about the incarnation, nor about raising matter to a new level; but there is teaching here about God’s concern for matter and the body and that the body is good and sex is good and holy in marriage.
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
Nothing again. Paul’s suffering persecution as he preached the gospel results in more people, unreached, non-Jewish Gentiles (the nations) being saved and added to the church, so in that way, he is spreading the gospel and fulfilling the purpose of Christ’s sufferings and the reason why time continues to this day – to reach people with the gospel (context, the Gentiles, Christ in you, the hope of glory). Your arguments all failed. We will get new bodies, glorified bodies at the Second coming, resurrection of the flesh; (I Cor. 15:50-57, Phil. 3:19-20)
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."[g]
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"[h] 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
So, we may could say that the incarnation started that process toward the resurrection and the new heavens and new earth, but since we all still die and get old and all matter still needs fixing, like cars, and houses, the incarnation did not raise all matter to a new level. Rather, God affirmed matter as good and not evil by the incarnation (contra Doceticsm and Gnosticism and Platonism) and came in the flesh, weak, to die for our sins, and to encourage us in our human weakness and frailties (getting tired, thirsty, having temptations – see John 4, Hebrews 4:15; but none of those verses prove your point about miracles coming from relics; and I agree that they did sometimes, in Scripture, as special acts of God’s power when He chooses to in Scripture, not from some kind of inherent power from the relics themselves.
But the matter that relates to unbelievers still rots and decays
Should have been (since all matter decays and both unbelievers and believers still die physically.)
But the matter that relates to unbelievers in the afterlife will also have some kind of consciousness in hell, "where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48.)
Believers in Christ get new glorified bodies in the future resurrection; and God will also destroy the old earth, and create a new heavens and a new earth at the Second Coming/resurrection/judgment.
While I strongly disagree with Edwin T. Babinsky's atheism and attacks on Christianity, etc. This article about relics was pretty good, especially the catalouge of relics and the false and heretical doctrine of indulgences that the Medieval church applied to those who visited and looked at a relic. What a ridiculous false doctrine, heresy, unbiblical, shameful thing the Roman Catholic Church has done in this garbage.
SELECTIONS FROM AN OFFICIAL CATALOG OF RELICS FROM PRE-PROTESTANT GERMANY
The Castle Church at Wittenberg, where Martin Luther probably posted his ninety-five theses, was famous for its extensive collection of relics, as the following excerpt from what might be called the official catalogue shows:
"... Three pieces of the city where the Virgin Mary was born. One piece of a yarn which she spun. One piece of the house where she lived at the age of fourteen. Two pieces of the city of Mt Zion where Mary lived. Two pieces of the room where Mary was greeted by the angel. Five particles of the milk of the Virgin Mary. One piece of the tree where Mary nursed the Lord near the Garden of Balsam. Four pieces of the hair of Mary. Three pieces of the shirt of Mary. Three pieces of one robe of Mary. Eight pieces of other robes of Mary. Four pieces of the belt of Mary. Seven pieces of the veil of Mary. Two pieces of the veil of Mary which was sprinkled with the blood of Christ under the Cross. One piece of the city where Mary died. One piece of the wax candle given to Our Lady when she died. Six pieces of the grave of Mary. Two pieces of the earth of the grave of Mary. One piece of the place where Mary ascended into heaven.
VI. A silver picture of the little baby Jesus. Four pieces of the city where the Lord Jesus was born. One piece of the diaper in which he was wrapped. Thirteen pieces of the manger of Jesus. One piece of the cradle. Two pieces of the hay. One piece of the straw on which the Lord lay when he was born. One piece of the gold and of the myrrh which the Three Kings offered unto the Lord. One piece of the city where the Lord Jesus was circumcised.
VII. Four pieces of the mountain on which the Lord Jesus fasted. Two pieces of the city where Christ preached the Lord's Prayer. One piece of the stone on which Jesus stood while weeping over Jerusalem. One piece of the stone from which Christ got on the donkey. Two pieces of the ground where the Lord Christ was arrested.
VIII. Five pieces of the table on which the Lord Christ held the Last Supper with his disciples. One piece of the bread of which Christ ate with his disciples during the Last Supper.
IX. One piece of the land which was bought for the thirty pieces of silver for which Christ was betrayed. One piece of the Holy Land. Three pieces of the stone where the Lord sweated blood. One piece of the ground where the Lord sweated blood. One piece of the stone sprinkled with the blood of Christ.
X. Three pieces of the Mount of Olives and of the rod of Aaron. Two pieces of the rod of Moses. One piece of the burning bush which Moses saw. One piece of an object sprinkled with the blood of Christ. Eleven pieces of Mount Calvary. Two pieces of the Mount of Olives. XI. One piece of the cloth with which the Lord wiped his disciples' feet. One piece of the robe of Christ: One piece of the seamless robe of Christ. One piece of the robe of Christ. One piece of his purple robe. Two pieces of the cloth which St Veronica received from the Lord. Three pieces of the white robe in which the Lord was ridiculed by Herod . Three pieces of the cloth with which our Lord's holy eyes were blindfolded. One piece of the beard of the Lord Jesus.
XII. One piece of the wax of the candles which touched the sudarium of Christ. One piece of the wedge with which the cross of Christ was held. Three pieces of the stone on which the cross stood. Three pieces of the place where the cross of Christ was found. Twelve pieces of the column where the Lord Christ was scourged and flogged.
The Eight Aisle. I. One piece of the rope with which Jesus was tied. Three pieces of the rod with which the Lord Jesus was scourged. Three pieces of the whip with which the Lord Jesus was flogged. One piece of the stone upon which the Lord Jesus sat when he was crowned. One piece of the stone which was crushed while the Lord carried the cross. One piece of the sponge with which the Lord was given vinegar and gall....
III. Two pieces of the crown of the Lord Jesus. Eight complete thorns of the crown of the Lord Jesus. IV. One large piece of one nail which was driven through the hands or feet of the Lord Jesus. V. A thorn which wounded the holy head of the Lord Jesus.
VI. One piece of the holy cross....
VII. Three pieces of the holy cross.
VIII. Three pieces of the three kinds of wood of the cross of Christ.
IX. A particularly large piece from the holy cross.
X. Twenty-five pieces of the holy cross.
XI. One piece of the stone which lay on the grave of Christ. Twenty-two pieces of the grave of Christ. One piece of the stone from which Christ descended into heaven.
XII. A casket lined with silver in which are found sixteen hundred and seventy-eight pieces. Seventy-six pieces of holy remains. Bones from holy places which on account of faded writing can no longer be read and identified.
All in all : five thousand and five pieces. An indulgence of one hundred days for each piece. There are eight halls and each hall has an indulgence of one hundred and one days in addition. Blessed are those who participate therein.
This proves the un-biblical and heretical nature of all the RCC doctrines of indulgences, treasury of merit, purgatory, prayers to the saints, and thinking relics are going to give one grace and forgive sins and get one time out of purgatory.
Source: Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed. The Reformation: A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants (Harper and Row, Inc. 1964, Reprint Baker Book House, 197
pp. 47-49.
Cited at "Indiana Jones and the search for the Holy Foreskin"
Commenting by HaloScan
