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 ...
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?
Libya?
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?
s/
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 ...
http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/peterinrome/
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...
________________________________________________________
NO!
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?
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.