01-12-2006, 01:10 PM
The Syrian Christians are nothing like the Parsees. Whereas the Parsees have offered only good things to India, have become its own children and did not proselytise, the Syrian Christians are the total opposite. They've lied and claimed that Hindus persecuted and killed (martyred) St Thomas. The truth is, the only Thomas of note that they could be referring to was killed in Persia, when the Persian ruler realised the proselytising nature of this religion they had given refuge to (after the Syrian Christians, known as the Nestorians*, fled the Christian nations where they were persecuted as heretics by the then orthodox form of the Church). After Persia kicked them out, the Syrian Christians came to India seeking refuge. In the case of the Parsis, Jews and Tibetan Buddhists, we've done the right thing. But with the Syrian Christians we had no idea what we were letting ourselves in for.
The Thomas-who-never-came-to-India was made into a martyr, because martyrs are a tradition in Christianity. Those annoying Hindus who wouldn't give them a martyr! So they made it up. Today it's a useful myth to relate to underline the "intolerance of Hindus".
As it happens, the Bible the Syrian Christians have DOES NOT contain the Gospel of St. Thomas which research has dated to be older than the 4 canonical gospels (see Elaine Pagels). And no, it is not a different St Thomas than the one the current Syrian Christians claim they are referring to, because their tradition says that he is Didymus Judas Thomas, i.e. Judas Thomas, the twin of Jesus (Didymus means twin). The Thomas Gospel of the Gnostic Gospels recovered is dated to be the oldest (as well as the one that gave rise to parts of the contents of the currently accepted Gospels on Jesus life). In this version, Jesus is married and has a twin named Judas Thomas given the title Didymus. Interestingly, the only complete version they've recovered is in Coptic, translated from an incomplete Greek original which they'd found earlier.
So if St Thomas, who's claimed to have lived in Jesus time, and his people did come to India in that early date after year "0", then why oh <b>why is there no St Thomas Gospel to be found among the Syrian Christians in India</b>? And never was either? Because, the Syrian Christians of today have practically the same Bible that the Nestorian Churches in Syria have and the latter don't have the Gospel of Saint Thomas either. They're closer to mainstream Christianity for that reason: the heretics had already been weaned off from the St Thomas Gospel by the time they came to Persia and then India. And that was centuries later than the time of Jesus Christ or his disputed twin. They had lost the Gospel back when they were living in Syria (or wherever they came from, as Armenia and Egypt also had Nestorian churches), but had kept the "Jesus had a twin in Thomas" belief. Before anyone proposes it, no, the persecutions of the Portuguese have nothing to do with the lack of the St Thomas Gospel in India's Syrian Christian canon. The answer is that they simply never had it when they came to India.
Though having said all that, they were better than the mainstream Christianity of their day. See http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/078...rning.html, look for the word "Nestorian".
Interestingly, this link states the following:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Christians, liberal as they never were had the Nestorian Christians driven from Syria by the Emperor Zeno, the Isaurian, around 485 AD.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the mainstream Christian church at that time persecuted the Nestorian heretics and sent them packing in 485 CE. That makes their arrival in India later - after all, they came seeking refuge from persecution. Unless they were persecuted prior to 485 CE as well, but there is an upper limit to that time: Christianity started persecuting heretic Christian sects after the religion had become the established religion of Rome and Byzantine (Persia had bouts of trouble with Christians around the same time too or later). And that was mainly after the council of Nicaea which was in the first half of the 4th century CE (i.e btw 300 and 350 CE)**. So, outside of India, no-one who's studied western and Christian history believes the nonsense we've put up with for so long.
And finally, they keep changing their story: in earlier times they say they were given shelter by Hindu kings and their saintly Thomas converted some of the Brahmins of Kerala. This story lasted for a long time, right upto the age when it was no longer fashionable to have converts of such caste origins. However, with the new "equality for all" PR of Christianity, they now claim that the first Indian converts to Syrian Christianity were Dalits and Shudras etc. How quaint. Their story is ever-changing, to suit popularity demands and aimed at the group they want/need to convert.
Now they're also <b>claiming that Christianity was the oldest religion of Kerala </b>(see http://kunjethy.tripod.com/syrianchristians/ ). I need a pause to recover from my laughter. Earlier, as per their history of their arrival in India, they admitted they were given refuge by Kerala's Hindu Rule. But they've now redefined Hinduism, with the help of the ever helpful AIT, to be some "Aryan religion" they call "Brahmanical" or whatever. Hence they think they can claim that Christianity was the oldest religion of Kerala. As if the Malayalis never had Gods prior to the benevolent Intro to Religion course foisted on them by Syrian Christians.
Thankfully, Syrian Christians are not all like this. Similar to how not all Muslims are violent (it's mainly those who've perused and accepted the Koran). But evangelisation is a hallmark of Christianity, and the Syrian Christians (or the new converts who claim to be Syrian Christians) are aggressively pushing it onto people in Kerala.
*Not all Syrian Christian churches in Syria or India are called "Nestorian", some are called Syrian Orthodox, etc. But the lineage of their branch of Christianity is Nestorian, so I've referred to them as such.
** Previously I had wrongly typed "3rd century", when I meant to refer to the century starting from 300 CE. I've now corrected it to "4th century CE".
The Thomas-who-never-came-to-India was made into a martyr, because martyrs are a tradition in Christianity. Those annoying Hindus who wouldn't give them a martyr! So they made it up. Today it's a useful myth to relate to underline the "intolerance of Hindus".
As it happens, the Bible the Syrian Christians have DOES NOT contain the Gospel of St. Thomas which research has dated to be older than the 4 canonical gospels (see Elaine Pagels). And no, it is not a different St Thomas than the one the current Syrian Christians claim they are referring to, because their tradition says that he is Didymus Judas Thomas, i.e. Judas Thomas, the twin of Jesus (Didymus means twin). The Thomas Gospel of the Gnostic Gospels recovered is dated to be the oldest (as well as the one that gave rise to parts of the contents of the currently accepted Gospels on Jesus life). In this version, Jesus is married and has a twin named Judas Thomas given the title Didymus. Interestingly, the only complete version they've recovered is in Coptic, translated from an incomplete Greek original which they'd found earlier.
So if St Thomas, who's claimed to have lived in Jesus time, and his people did come to India in that early date after year "0", then why oh <b>why is there no St Thomas Gospel to be found among the Syrian Christians in India</b>? And never was either? Because, the Syrian Christians of today have practically the same Bible that the Nestorian Churches in Syria have and the latter don't have the Gospel of Saint Thomas either. They're closer to mainstream Christianity for that reason: the heretics had already been weaned off from the St Thomas Gospel by the time they came to Persia and then India. And that was centuries later than the time of Jesus Christ or his disputed twin. They had lost the Gospel back when they were living in Syria (or wherever they came from, as Armenia and Egypt also had Nestorian churches), but had kept the "Jesus had a twin in Thomas" belief. Before anyone proposes it, no, the persecutions of the Portuguese have nothing to do with the lack of the St Thomas Gospel in India's Syrian Christian canon. The answer is that they simply never had it when they came to India.
Though having said all that, they were better than the mainstream Christianity of their day. See http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/078...rning.html, look for the word "Nestorian".
Interestingly, this link states the following:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Christians, liberal as they never were had the Nestorian Christians driven from Syria by the Emperor Zeno, the Isaurian, around 485 AD.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the mainstream Christian church at that time persecuted the Nestorian heretics and sent them packing in 485 CE. That makes their arrival in India later - after all, they came seeking refuge from persecution. Unless they were persecuted prior to 485 CE as well, but there is an upper limit to that time: Christianity started persecuting heretic Christian sects after the religion had become the established religion of Rome and Byzantine (Persia had bouts of trouble with Christians around the same time too or later). And that was mainly after the council of Nicaea which was in the first half of the 4th century CE (i.e btw 300 and 350 CE)**. So, outside of India, no-one who's studied western and Christian history believes the nonsense we've put up with for so long.
And finally, they keep changing their story: in earlier times they say they were given shelter by Hindu kings and their saintly Thomas converted some of the Brahmins of Kerala. This story lasted for a long time, right upto the age when it was no longer fashionable to have converts of such caste origins. However, with the new "equality for all" PR of Christianity, they now claim that the first Indian converts to Syrian Christianity were Dalits and Shudras etc. How quaint. Their story is ever-changing, to suit popularity demands and aimed at the group they want/need to convert.
Now they're also <b>claiming that Christianity was the oldest religion of Kerala </b>(see http://kunjethy.tripod.com/syrianchristians/ ). I need a pause to recover from my laughter. Earlier, as per their history of their arrival in India, they admitted they were given refuge by Kerala's Hindu Rule. But they've now redefined Hinduism, with the help of the ever helpful AIT, to be some "Aryan religion" they call "Brahmanical" or whatever. Hence they think they can claim that Christianity was the oldest religion of Kerala. As if the Malayalis never had Gods prior to the benevolent Intro to Religion course foisted on them by Syrian Christians.
Thankfully, Syrian Christians are not all like this. Similar to how not all Muslims are violent (it's mainly those who've perused and accepted the Koran). But evangelisation is a hallmark of Christianity, and the Syrian Christians (or the new converts who claim to be Syrian Christians) are aggressively pushing it onto people in Kerala.
*Not all Syrian Christian churches in Syria or India are called "Nestorian", some are called Syrian Orthodox, etc. But the lineage of their branch of Christianity is Nestorian, so I've referred to them as such.
** Previously I had wrongly typed "3rd century", when I meant to refer to the century starting from 300 CE. I've now corrected it to "4th century CE".
