Talk:Relic

Tone
I can't tell if this is snark gone wrong, or a weak definition of "relic". I don't want to edit till I know the author's intent, though. -- 14:43, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Weak in that it only deals with religious relics? Neveruse513 14:45, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yep. or doesn't state something like "the literal definition relates to religious or venerated things, though the term has been expanded to include any possession found".  We talk often about such abstractions as relics of a language, when dealing with Native cultures.-- 14:52, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Debunk
Where's the debunking? There's nothing about the phenomenon of perfumed and "uncorrupted" bodies.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 17:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the uncorrupted body stuff but I have on occasion seen relics that are in all probability legit (by which I mean human remains that have a high probability of actually coming from the person the Church claims it came from). The several relics of St. Luke the Evangelist came from a Syrian guy who died between the first and fifth centuries. The story of Peter being martyred in Rome, or even his existence as a person is rather spurious but an excavation in the Crypt of Saint Peter's Basilica found the remains of another old Middle Eastern guy who died sometime in the first century. While there is no possible way to know and a lot of reasons to be skeptical, I actually do put stock in folk tradition when there aren't any "miraculous discovery" claims. Venerating the dead was most certainly an early Christian practice just as it was and still is a Jewish practice (though it is not as intense as Catholic practices and we most certainly do not dismember bodies) and it is not unreasonable to assume that the early Christians, as persecuted as they were kept track of the particular catacombs housing their most revered saints. Alsto003 (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

Ark of the Covenant a Christian relic?
It's really Jewish, isn't it? --Annanoon (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)