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 ...
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..
Hahaha!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.