Tomb of St. Philip the Apostle discovered in Turkey's Denizli

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.

[I wonder where St. Peter was?] In Instanbul? He was in ROME.

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.

You apparently make a point of ignoring the Apostolic Fathers, not to mention Eusebius. I was going to point out that Peter was bishop of Antioch (per Ignatius, the second successor after him) and that he likely did not arrive in Rome until at least the middle 50's if not later. By then the church in Jerusalem was firmly planted (with James the Just as its head: this is not James the Apostle, by the way).The church in Rome, famed for centuries as the lodestone for correct understanding, was therefore not the first church planted (being first doesn't mean anything anyway).

I should also point out for those thinking 'catholic' meant 'universal' in any time period within centuries of the first one after Christ that this became the translation only when Vincent of Lerins and Augustine of Hippo used it that way in the late fourth century. Originally, the word meant 'complete' as in 'we are the catholic (hath olou) church because we have an apostolic bishop at our head, celebrate a true Eucharist and give the great Amen as one congregation, after which we communicate the most sacred Body and Blood of our Savior, exactly as He told us to do. We therefore have access to the saving grace of the kath olou (complete) Christ and the greatest likelihood of reaching salvation.

When one realizes this distinction, one easily understands what Paul means when he says 'the church in the house of [fill in the blank]' or the 'church which meets in one place at {fill in the blank]'. There is a universal (oeconomicos) catholic (kath olou) church when every church headed by a bishop holds the same understanding of the Savior they worship. So many local catholic churches add up to one universal catholic church.

Sorry if this wastes protestant reading time.

I agree with your points in a sense...but the "Catholic Church" is not the same as the organization based in Rome. (You want to balance the whole authority of Rome on one bible verse to St. Peter?) Is there overlap? Of course, as I fully acknowledge there are many Christians loyal to the Roman section of the Church.

However, the Church, as Rome itself acknowledges, is bigger than Roman Catholicism...which is why you, with Rome, would call me a Christian, or an Eastern Orthodox believer a Christian, or Baptists, or a Pentecostals or even a "non-denominational" believers, Christian. None are a part of the organization based in Rome, yet, when Rome acknowledges there are ANY Christians apart from her organization(and not all in her organization are true Christians either....just as in any other Christian body)--she acknowledges there is a Church universal, beyond Rome's reach--the members of whom are known by Christ our Head Himself.

I'm very familiar with the Patristic era (before AD 500) when the New Testament was first recognized and put together. All of the New Testament writings are 1st Century and of Apostolic origin...not invented or created by the Church, therefore, if one takes a historical/scholarly approach to what the Apostles actually believed and taught, you cannot look at it through the lens of many centuries of traditions, papal decisions and doctrinal appendages, any more than if you wanted to know what the Founding Fathers intended for our government, would you look at U. S. Supreme Court decisions, much less acts of Congress or Obama...instead of the Constitution itself.

I think there is an excellent parallel there--as Protestant Christianity is the original "strict constructionist" approach to Christianity--"back to the sources!" was the rallying cry of the Renaissance in which it was born... and the Bible, God's Word revealed to us, just as it was for those saints in the first 400 or 500 years, is the supreme authority, over and above the Church, who must be obedient to the Lord and his Word. Does this deny the authority of the Church universal? NO. It does however put her authority UNDER God's authority--thereby actually establishing her authority.

(Isn't it interesting that BEFORE Rome & Constantinople et al. became super powerful, politically and in every other way--the Church did actually stay together as one? When the Church leaders reached beyond the authority of holy Scripture, with innovations and traditions-made-dogma, then, and only then, did our fellowship break, beginning with the Great Schism, NOT Luther)

Yes, the Church Catholic in total (and like I said, that includes ALL Christians)....does have the authority to "interpret, explain and impose" (religiously, not with force of arms through the state...) the holy scripture, and I'm very proud of OUR Christian heritage--of those who gave their lives protecting, compiling, translating, editing, copying, preserving and saving the bible, especially in those early centuries.

However, if you took a time machine and transported say, Irenaus of Lyons, or Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or even the great Augustine of Hippo into the present day, they would not recognize the Church based in Rome today as that same Church Catholic they knew... MANY beliefs have been appended since those times...and NO Roman prelate in their day had anywhere near the power or supposed authority medieval Roman Catholicism granted the Bishop of Rome--which he continues to claim today.

The faith and practices of Rome appear very different to me and others who have read and studied the New Testament, from the faith and practices taught there...which is why, it is a fact that until recent generations, Rome discouraged bible reading...and even, a few hundred years ago, severely persecuted those who dared translate the bible (Look up William Tyndale, for example) into the common tongue.

Even now, the least biblically literate Christians I've ever met were Roman Catholic...as it makes sense, if the Church and the Curia have equal authority to the bible....then why bother to read and think, just ask your priest, right?

I don’t have time right now to refute your statements but I will keep your message for further reference. One thing you said, however , that until recent generations the church discouraged bible reading.....first of all, until the invention of the printing press...virtually noone read the bible. Bibles were prohibitively expensive because they were hand copied by CATHOLIC monks, hence only royalty and a few libraries could afford them. You also mentioned bible interpretation...you can read and enjoy the bible all you want, but make no mistake about it, the church remains the authority concerning its interpretation. Can you imagine a couple of billion different images of what the bible really meant???not a good idea at all. Listen to what the church teaches and then adapt your interpretation to their teachings. I think that’s what Jesus had in mind when He gave the church the keys to the kingdom of heaven

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.