even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them. (Acts 19:12)
Reliquary of St Alexius
Merry Christmas!
even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them. (Acts 19:12)
Merry Christmas!
“Veneration of relics, of all things, is entirely biblical.
even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them. (Acts 19:12)”
The desire and practice was a desire to be healed because of contact with the items. They did not pray to them, kiss them, worship them, venerate them. Never recorded.
then cited Acts 19:12 in support of the claim that veneration of relics is "fully biblical".
Here it is again, with the preceding verse;
11 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.
We see there that unusual miracles were being done, yet we do not see much of anything in the way of this so-called "veneration" for "relics" themselves -- which is the thing which you were needing to establish, but failed to do.
As towards relics themselves, interestingly enough a relic of Moses, which when that item or "thing" was not a 'relic' of the past per se, but was one of then present-day use, apparently provided miraculous relief from snakebite, from which some of the Israelites had been dying of, the snakes themselves having been sent among them by the Lord, in the first place (Numbers 21:6).
Later, when this very same bronze 'serpent on a pole' object was no longer being used in the original way, and was thus a relic from the past which persons "venerated" and burned incense unto; was destroyed for that reason, for having become a superstitious relic;
He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image[a] and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.[b]Footnotes
a. 2 Kings 18:4 Hebrew Asherah, a Canaanite goddess
b. 2 Kings 18:4 Literally Bronze Thing
What else is entirely biblical regarding this king of Israel who cast down idolatrous "things", including having destroyed the bronze 'fiery' serpent on-a-pole which the Lord had (in times past) commanded Moses himself to have made?
5 He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. 6 For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the Lord had commanded Moses. 7 The Lord was with him; he prospered wherever he went.
There is fully biblical precedent for iconoclasts, provided they do hold fast to the Lord, and keep His commandments.
Let us not confuse here the [ahem] commandments of those whom would advise substitution, or even addition of "veneration of relics" as if the relics themselves held "powers", or were as holy objects in and of themselves --- with commandments of the Lord, Himself.
Thus says the Lord:“Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?
All of which results in your claim -- that veneration of relics to be "entirely biblical", to not be that, but to be more entirely all wet, wrong, in error, mistaken, shallow, superstitious, not "entirely biblical" at all ---- except for having engaged in a cherry-picking to support the premise, which for those who do understand Scripture more "entirely" (I just love going back to the word, lol) the theological underpinning of I've just scattered using that which is more entirely biblical.
Let's face facts here.
This "relics" business, is one which the RCC itself has long supported (and engaged in, as a $$business$$ even!) and which is custom (minus the $$$ for the most part) among some other ecclesiastical communities also. Yet even there, it can be established was custom which arose --- rather than being that which came directly from Apostolic teaching & tradition itself.
The cloths were used miraculously by God ---to provide healings, etc. There is no evidence the cloths themselves were "venerated".
To do that is to venerate the gift -- instead of the giver. Just as soon as that is engaged in, from the first micro-second, if the process is not brought to a halt, then it is all downhill, theologically speaking.
Or else you worship some other God than I do? If that be the case, then I think I'll restore/put back into use an old tagline.
Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?