Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeNothin · 04-13-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think that this sentence will unintentionally confuse people. There are two things here:

1. The claims recorded in ancient literature and known in churches in Kerala today that the apostle Thomas evangelised India.

2. The claims invented by Victorian fraudsters such as Notovitch of the 'Jesus in India' type.

The latter has nothing to do with the former, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yes, I think this is correct. It seems that the Christian literature and artwork is quite ancient in Kerala, which would support their claim of being amoung the oldest extant Christian community. Aside from claims about Thomas' tomb (which isn't very good evidence), I haven't heard of any other evidence to support the claim that the Apostle Thomas set up the church there. But, the Christian church there is undoubtedly very very old.

JoeNothin · 04-13-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeNothin

Since Thomas was one of Jesus' apostles, he would have claimed to have known Jesus personally -- in the flesh, as it were. Isn't the history of this church evidence for a real historical Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not unless there is actual proof that Thomas was one of Jesus' disciples and founded the church - none of which has any hard evidence.

Well, if there is any evidence to support the claims of the Kerala Church, I haven't been able to find it. But then, I'm no expert. Perhaps I should try a library instead of the internet...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeNothin

The Kerala Christians believe in Jesus' divinity. Doesn't that suggest that the first Christians, those associated with the apostles, believed in Jesus' divinity? (I had always thought Jesus didn't really become divine till the third century. Perhaps I'm mistaken.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That sounds like the Da Vinci Code psuedo-history. The earliest Christians who left any evidence believed in Jesus' divinity. That supports the hypothesis that Jesus was originally a divine supernatural entity who was later historicized.

I thought that the idea that Jesus was divine was a product of the first or second century, and that the issue came to a head in the third century. It wouldn't surprise me that Jesus was considered divine by the earliest church, as many cult leaders are considered divine by their followers -- even today.

Lógos Sokratikós · 04-13-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not unless there is actual proof that Thomas was one of Jesus' disciples and founded the church - none of which has any hard evidence.

Like a photograph, driver's license or a birth certificate with fingerprints, like other common folk in the Roman Empire.

Toto · 04-13-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This site appears to be a Hindu hate-site. Since Hindus are the majority and control all the power in India, while the Christians are a tiny minority, I think we need to be careful. Encouraged by material like this, extremists there carry out atrocities on the Christian minority (burning sleeping Australian missionaries and their families alive, etc). Are you quite comfortable with referencing this sort of site? I wouldn't be.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

A lot of religious sites can be characterized as "hate sites" by their religious opponents. This site appears to be designed to counter the conversion attempt of Christian missionaries, and carries the text of a book, 'Jesus Christ: Artifice for Aggression.' It complains extensively of the problems that Christians have created for India. But I don't see any encouragement on the site for anyone to commit atrocities.

The author is described here as a Canadian

Quote:

he had belonged to a family of middle class professionals who were practicing Christians. He does not have a formal education but is well-read in history and religion and has travelled extensively in Canada, Europe, North Africa and West Asia. He had meditated in a Franciscan hermitage at Assisi and worked on a Communist kibbutz in Israel.

The author's experience of these institutions helped turn him against all monolithic creeds and he came to India in 1967 in search of spiritual direction, choosing India because it gave an honourable place to the Goddess and because it had the only great pagan civilization to have successfully survived centuries of repressive Islamic and Christian imperialism. .... He says that as long as Christianity wages an ideological war on Hinduism its curious theories and unique claims must be thoroughly investigated and vigorously replied to by informed Hindus of integrity and conviction

The political issues are way off topic here. The relative virtues and sins of missionaries has been the topic of at least one thread in another forum.

Toto · 04-13-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think that this sentence will unintentionally confuse people. There are two things here:

1. The claims recorded in ancient literature and known in churches in Kerala today that the apostle Thomas evangelised India.

2. The claims invented by Victorian fraudsters such as Notovitch of the 'Jesus in India' type.

The latter has nothing to do with the former, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Only that both are likely examples of religious imagination at work.

JoeNothin · 04-13-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChandraRama

http://hamsa.org/

Thomas is a bogus claim by the church.

It seems like this is a pretty informative sight. ChandraRama is a much better googler than me.

I thought this was pretty interesting. FROM HERE:

Quote:

The whole subject has been examined recently by Stephen Neill in his History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to 1707 A.D. published by the Cambridge University Press, England, as late as 1984. He says,'A number of scholars, among whom are to be mentioned with respect Bishop A.E. Medlycott, J.N. Farquhar and the Jesuit J. Dahlman, have built on slender foundations what can only be called Thomas romances, such as reflect the vividness of their imaginations rather than the prudence of rigid historical critics.' Pained by the spread of this spurious history among large sections of Indian Christians, he observes,'Millions of Christians in India are certain that the founder of their church was none other than apostle Thomas himself. The historian cannot prove it to them that they are mistaken in their belief. He may feel it right to warn them that historical research cannot pronounce on the matter with a confidence equal to that which they entertain by faith.' Stephen Neill was a bishop who had spent long years in India.

skeptic dave · 04-13-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeNothin

Any comments about that would be welcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goan
With the imposition of the Inquisition (1560–1812), many of the local residents were forcibly converted to Christianity by missionaries, threatened by punishment or confiscation of land, titles or property. Many converted, however retaining parts of their Hindu heritage. To escape the Inquisition and harassment, thousands fled the state, settling down in the neighbouring towns of Mangalore and Karwar in Karnataka.

kalchiran · 04-13-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic dave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goan
With the imposition of the Inquisition (1560–1812), many of the local residents were forcibly converted to Christianity by missionaries, threatened by punishment or confiscation of land, titles or property. Many converted, however retaining parts of their Hindu heritage. To escape the Inquisition and harassment, thousands fled the state, settling down in the neighbouring towns of Mangalore and Karwar in Karnataka.

That is true... Perhaps they were more cruel than Islamic barbarians...
The Hindu heritage of Goa and Kerala has been badly shaken due to this Inquisition... However, Hindus still remain as majority population in kerala and Goa... It is becoz of resilience of hindus..
The worst picture is in North eastern India... the conversions are going at insane rates there.... One tribe in nagaland claims that it is one of the 10 lost tribes that is mentioned in OT.. I dunno how sane OR how foolish it is... but it is costing and had cost a great deal to India and hindus......

TedM · 04-14-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I doubt there is much hard evidence but this sort of tradition is usual.

See the list of COE patriarchs, including Thomas

COE patriarchs

Thanks for the link. The next question for the curious is where do these lists come from? How old, how consistent, etc..?

yalla · 04-14-2006, 09:09 AM

I googled to check my memory.
I was in India in 1975 and saw the church at Temple Mount where Thomas was allegedly martyred. Not in Kerala, but Madras.
I was not interested in Christian 'history' at the time but remember being told that St. Thom visited Madras, after arriving in Kerala and having adventures, was martyred etc.

I also saw a temple nearby at Chingleput [IIRC] and was told a story of how Hindu monks occupy the bodies of the sacred vultures. There is a long detailed story to describe it all.
I saw no reason to believe either set of stories.
cheers
yalla

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-14-2006, 09:09 AM	#30
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	I googled to check my memory. I was in India in 1975 and saw the church at Temple Mount where Thomas was allegedly martyred. Not in Kerala, but Madras. I was not interested in Christian 'history' at the time but remember being told that St. Thom visited Madras, after arriving in Kerala and having adventures, was martyred etc. I also saw a temple nearby at Chingleput [IIRC] and was told a story of how Hindu monks occupy the bodies of the sacred vultures. There is a long detailed story to describe it all. I saw no reason to believe either set of stories. cheers yalla

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.