Skip to comments.Tomb of St. Philip the Apostle discovered in Turkey's Denizli
Posted on 07/27/2011 6:39:32 AM PDT by marshmallow
D'Andria said the structure of the tomb and the writings on it proved that it belonged to St. Philip the Apostle, who is recognized as a martyr in the history of Christianity
The tomb of St. Philip the Apostle, one of the original 12 disciples of Christianity's central figure Jesus Christ, has been discovered during the ongoing excavations in Turkey's south-western province of Denizli.
Italian professor Francesco D'Andria, the head of the excavation team at the Hierapolis ancient city in Denizli, told reporters on Tuesday that experts had reached the tomb of St. Philip whose name is mentioned in the Bible as one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus.
Professor D'Andria said archeologists had been working for years to find the tomb of the Biblical figure, and finally, they had managed to reach the monument while working on the ruins of a newly-unearthed church in Hierapolis.
D'Andria said the structure of the tomb and the writings on it proved that it belonged to St. Philip the Apostle, who is recognized as a martyr in the history of Christianity.
Describing the discovery as a major development both for archeology and the Christian world, D'Andria said the tomb, which had not been opened yet, was expected to become an important Christian pilgrimage destination.
Hierapolis, whose name means "sacred city", is an ancient city located next to the renowned Pamukkale, white Travertine terraces, in Denizli province. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
The city, famous for its historical hot springs used as a spa since the 2nd century, is a mixture of Pagan, Roman, Jewish and early Christian influences.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldbulletin.net ...
Very interesting discovery.
Less interesting is the threadnapper with the ginormous chip on its shoulder.
it never ceases to amaze me that some think they can seperate Jesus from His Body, The Church. and yes, the Universal ( Catholic ) Church was present in the apostolic age and yes, the Apostles were members of Christ’s Body, The Church. the shame is appearing to divide this Body in the eyes of the world, but of course this can’t be done, just as the gates of hell can’t prevail against the Church.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks sauropod and esquirette.
When will the Turks go back to central Asia and leave Anatolian Greece and Armenia to their rightful Christian inhabitants?
I think the Mongols would not be on board with this.
I was driven to get some additional info about Phillip. This quick and dirty account of his death is from Wikipedia.
“Later stories about Saint Philip’s life can be found in the anonymous Acts of Philip, probably written by a contemporary of Eusebius. This non-canonical book recounts the preaching and miracles of Philip.
Following the resurrection of Jesus, Philip was sent with his sister Mariamne and Bartolomew to preach in Greece, Phrygia, and Syria. Included in the Acts of Philip is an appendix, entitled “Of the Journeyings of Philip the Apostle: From the Fifteenth Act Until the End, and Among Them the Martyrdom.”
This appendix gives an account of Philip’s martyrdom in the city of Hierapolis. According to this account, through a miraculous healing and his preaching Philip converted the wife of the proconsul of the city. This enraged the proconsul, and he had Philip, Bartholomew, and Mariamne all tortured.
Philip and Bartholomew were then crucified upside-down, and Philip preached from his cross. As a result of Philip’s preaching the crowd released Bartholomew from his cross, but Philip insisted that they not release him, and Philip died on the cross. Another legend is that he was martyred by beheading in the city of Hierapolis. The Catholic Church regards the accounts of his death as legendary. No reputable source describing Philip’s death has been found.
Phillip sounds like a hell of a preacher to be able to preach Bartholomew off a cross under those circumstances.
Maybe they will be able to identify the body in the tomb if it has no head?
Yes. There are places in Presbyterian liturgy that refer to the Catholic church and it's meant in the sense of the church universal, not the Roman Catholic church.
I was thinking the same thing. Cease with the discrimination against Christians.
They are considered saints and martyrs of the Catholic church, as are all early Christians who died for the Word. Catholics revere them for their sacrifices and what they can teach us about how to live our faith. This does not detract from their Jewishness in any way. It is wrong for you to suggest otherwise. Our deep respect for the saints and martyrs is why we name our children after them instead of naming the kidlets after jewelry stores and mountains (Tiffany; Dakota).
Thank you for the succinct (and frightening) chronology of the apostles. When you read it all together like that, the martyrdems are breathtaking. It makes me realize that I have no credential to meet any of them in the afterlife.
sure he was.....while the term Roman Catholic was not yet in use, if he was baptized, he was a Roman Catholic. If you are baptized, you were baptized into the Catholic church...no choice. Baptism makes you a member of the church that Jesus Christ, Himself, founded.....and that was the Catholic church. You can't be baptized a Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist.....nope, you became a Catholic. Whether or not you practice the religion of Christ is another matter. The revoutionists (reformers) decided that they could do a better job of instituting a religion than could Christ and their followers are truly fallen away Catholics....come on back, we need you and you really need us!!!
No one in the first century talked about being a Roman Catholic: its not in the words of the Bible.ROTFLMAO!
“Catholic” is just a word meaning “universal,” which I why I always refer to Roman Catholics as ROMAN Catholics, or just “Romanists.”
Referring to themselves as just “Catholic” is personally insulting to me, and every other Protestant and non-Romanist believer in Christ, because it implies that they are in the universal Church and we are not.
Historically you cannot see a Pope-of-Rome-as-the-one-Vicar-of-Christ claim until at least the 6th or 7th Century—so the idea that the organization of the “Roman Catholic Church” as constituted for the last thousand years or so, going back to the 1st Century is laughable.
Originally there were 5 Archbishops representing the 5 most important cities for Christians in the ancient world: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome rose to prominence as the most important bishop of the (formally) most important city of the world. His centralizing organizing influence for orthodoxy was very important in the ensuing chaos of the (so called) Dark Ages.
The Bishop of Rome’s allegiance with very powerful and wealthy governing authorities though, very soon brought about the corruption associated with great wealth and power...
This corruption, along with growing power, continued increasing throughout the Middle Ages culminating with the Great Schism (with the other 4 Christian popes of the cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople—making up the Eastern Orthodox Church) in AD 1054 and into the Babylonian Captivity (when there were 3 Roman popes...all claiming legitimacy) of the 1400s.
Finally in 1517, a certain German monk had the guts to nail 95 Theses to the Castle Church door in Wittenberg, and he wasn’t burned to death (as previous reformers had been...) and we had the Protestant Reformation.
In the same way that no one called a phone a "hard line phone" until cellphones came along. Only after the great schism occurred did it become necessary to differentiate between eastern and western Catholics. There is no theological significance to it.
And I'm a faithful Catholic Christian....just NOT under the man-made authority of a Bishop of Rome.
The ideas and authority of the Apostles is OBJECTIVELY BEST known through their direct writing--unfiltered by 1500+ years of man-made-traditions--in what we call the New Testament of the Bible.
To be faithful to Apostolic authority and the Lord Jesus Christ, is to be faithful to the Bible, period.
Character is also determined by culture, not genetics
I was in Denizli two weeks ago. Very friendly people, albeit an ugly town.
Why don’t the Armos stop telling lies about their alliance with the Red Soviets against the Turks, and get the heck out of Karabakh.
A. your ``No one in the first century talked about being a Roman Catholic``.
So you have heard every word that was spoken from the year 3 B.C. until the year 99 A.D.
True — the saints on this earth or not are granted eternal life by the grace of God — everything of course is done by God and is to His glory.
Shirley you jest.
Sadly, Mr. L, there are groups whose sole defining belief or truth is that they are against catholicism — they don’t care about anything else, in fact if you ask them, they will say that the Gospels, the letters of Peter, John, James etc. are only for Jews to read and even Psalms are not supposed to be read by Christians — the only thing they say Christians should read are some of the Pauline Epistles — correct, bibtut?
Besides, what gave some groups the right to call themselves Evangelicals or Charismatics etc.? It's a way to define oneself, so chill..
Never been there. People are people wherever you go — and I generally find people in the Middle East are very friendly, except for Saudis..
Im not a Roman Catholic and I was reading BiblicalTruths post saying ???? HUH? There are some that define themselves by stating what they do not believe rather than actually know what they do. Weird.
The RCC has never been able to produce any credible evidence for this myth. Therefore, place that in the category of "sacred tradition" ... no evidence required then.
oh, you ought to check some of his earlier threads — like the ones saying that the book of Psalms should not be read by Christians etc. etc.
So what is the nature of the evidence you discount, and why?
For Peter being in Rome?
If a tomb holding the bones of an elderly male whose feet had been cut off, with an ancient Greek inscription on it that says "Peter is within" (along with a lot of other evidence of ancient Christian veneration of the site), as well as the testimony of every church father who had anything to say on the topic ... if that isn't "credible evidence," what is?
Ignatius (AD 107) refers to Peter and Paul in connection with the Roman church (he ought to know; he knew both Peter and Paul personally).
Irenaeus, 70 years later, speaks of the Roman see being founded by Peter. Cyprian, 70 years after that, refers to the Roman popes as successors of Peter. All of that is still 60 years before Constantine came on the scene, and the building of a basilica over the burial site that stood until its replacement by the current building in the 16th Century.
To simply discount all of that testimony from men who lived so close to the actual events is like saying that we don't really know where George Washington is buried. Oh, sure, there's a lot of people who say he's buried at Mt. Vernon in Virginia, and there's a tombstone there with his name on it, but really -- all that stuff is just a myth, probably invented by Andrew Jackson for political reasons.
Let me guess, he probably think Jesus was a Christian and never a jew.
Then where was Peter?
He must have been someplace.
Was he in Spain?
Athens? Corinth? Damascus? Rhodes?
Somebody there must have known where he was.
By the same measure,
your ``The RCC has never been able to produce any credible evidence for this myth. ``
we don`t even know where Obummer was neither,
The DNC has never been able to produce any credible evidence for this myth.
Ergo, Obummer is also a myth.
Reductio ad absurdam.
Don’t you know he was in Babylon?
The Lord has been so good to me! Always when I seek answers He provides them to me.
I have been in a discussion with a rather rabid anti Catholic on another site. One of the things I brought up to him is that the NT does not record the death of any of the Apostles other than James.
The point I was raising was that there is so much that happened to them that is not recorded in Scripture, which he accepts as the only(Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gracia type)valid resource for faith and doctrine.
He says that if it is not specifically written of in Scripture it is not true or did not happen.I asked him if he then believes that none of the other Apostles died since none of their deaths are recorded in the NT.
Of course, he ignored this and accused me of thinking Scripture has errors or gaps and that proves that my faith is fundamentally flawed and I am not saved.
No, that's not what it says...You can probably find a bible on line...Look it up to see what it really says...
Can you find that Greek phrase in the scriptures???
The bible is the scriptures...And of course people talked about the sciptures in the first century...
Prove it from the scriptures.
I'm thinking it would be more accurate to say that all Catholic scholars refute the book...And then, the only refutation they have is, 'the book is not true'...
I cant take that as serious evidence. That has as much weight as a tombstone with "Vlad is within" in Leningrad.
Ignatius (AD 107) refers to Peter and Paul in connection with the Roman church ... etc etc et al
A good examination of the issues is here ...
To simply discount all of that testimony from men who lived so close to the actual events ...
Paul and Luke lived the closest to those events, yet they don't mention any of this. Neither does Clement, who is earlier than Ignatius, and who wrote an epistle to the Romans. For each quote from some father you give there is another one who lists Linus as the first bishop of Rome.
If there is anything to be learned from the church fathers, it is that they did not have uniform theological beliefs on any topic whatsoever, with the exception of perhaps the deity of Christ.
Congratulations for wrecking an otherwise interesting thread with your pathetic trolling.
The bible is the scriptures...And of course people talked about the sciptures in the first century...
There were no new testament scriptures in the first century. Contrary to popular opinion, the Apostles, with the exception of John did not write their Gospels. They were given as oral sermons from church to church and later committed to writing by men who traveled with the Apostles and heard their stories over and over. Of course this is not true with epistles of Peter, James, John and Paul.
While Mark was not an Apostle he traveled with them and wrote their words. We do not know who commited the words of the Apostles’ Gospels to writing but we do know that the Gospels come from the Apostles.
There are some that say it is possible that Luke is an exception that there is reason to believe that he actually wrote Acts and that if he did that he likely would have also written the Gospel with his name. This is based entirely on his first person accounts in “The Acts of The Apostles”.
Since no original manuscripts are in existence all we have to go on is oral tradition. That tradition would lead us to believe that the Gospels are the true words of the Apostles as told to hundreds of congregations and written by others.
One of the excellent proofs of the Gospels is their agreement even though they were written separately. They do have minor discrepancies but they are very close. There is probably much that was lost in the transcriptions but what we have is what was told over and over again by the Apostles and is probably what they thought was important.
The New Testament was not compiled as a collection until early in the 4th century. Before that individual books of the Apostles Gospels were taken from church to church and read and copied. After a couple of hundred years of this there developed different versions of the same books. Then in the Synod of Hippo in AD 393 the various versions were compared and an authorized version was accepted. After Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible a few years later based on this compilation called the Vulgate there was little change. What we have now is essentially the Vulgate. Not that our translations come from the Vulgate but they come from the same sources that Jerome used.
What we now have is the Word of God regardless of how it came to be. There may be other words of God that have either been hidden or destroyed but what we have now is what we have, we should be grateful for it.
Did you ever read the book.I have. It is bias and glosses over key issues with protestant horror issues. It is badly one sided. I have read books by protestants and catholics that are fairer than that book. Scholars today know it is a shoddy work of so-called research.
With tax-chick as our shining example, it should take a couple of generations if we all do our part and we do a good job of training them for combat. Deus vult!
Seaman Anoreth will be going to Gunnery school in September, and our 10th baby is due around the end of January.
I’m not sure we want to take over Anatolia, though. What’s the weather like? How about the bluegrass music scene?
I guess the even more original pagan Trojans are out of luck.
“Tiffany,” according to most sources, is a variant of “theophany,” “revelation of God.” It was not all that unusual, in the colorful Victorian period, to find young girls named “Theophania” and known as “Fanny.”
The Tiffany family of the jewelry and decorative arts fame included a hero of the Spanish-American War.
total nonsense, if you are a Catholic, obey the church which Jesus Christ gave authority to. The Cathoic church, alone, has the authority to interpret, explain, and impose the various passages from the bible. After all, it was the Catholic church which compiled, translated, edited, copied, preserved, and actually saved the bible for us. They certainly wouldn't have done so to a book which proved them wrong...they did so to a book which we follow to the letter and which supports Catholic theology to a "T". You might not support Catholicism, but you can in no way, deny her authority nor her faithfulness....
why refer someone to a site hosted by sabbath keepers, why not use Christian sources?
Catholics are those that are baptized into the Body of Christ and believe the Catholic Faith. Something tells me you don’t qualify on either point.
i wonder if you would be kind enough to answer a question very few are willing to tackle, namely, is there an authority on earth that can infallibly state which books are Scripture and which are not? if no, how can you be sure you have the correct Scriptures in your hand when you read the Bible? if yes, what is the name of this authority, where did they get their authority from and do they have any other authority other than declaring the canon?