Post 40
Concerning Gondophernes or Guduphara (Gondophorus is a form I hadn't seen before, is that to make it more like the name of a Hindu king of Punjab 'Porus' and less like an overtly Iranian name?)
a king with a name Grecianised to Gondophernes may well have existed. But that does not prove the existence of either thomas, the other apostles or jeebus. Nor does it corroborate the tale of thomas in India. This is similar to how the mentions of Rome, Herod, a Roman emperor here and there, do not verify the fantasies about non-existent jeebus or of the tales of christo martyrdom at Roman hands.
Christian history is often based on lies, using the formula: christian 'history' = fictional characters and events + factual background setting. In that way, the factual settings and verifiable periphery characters are made to lend support to the non-existent ones (jeebus creepus, thomas, etcetera). Ninan is not breaking new ground here, but merely retreading christian methods older than the church.
Consider how the famous compulsive liar of the Church, bishop Eusebius of Caesaria, has been honoured with the title 'Church historian'. It is such men, not actual historians, that are honoured by christianism. Lies are honoured, as long as the lies serve the christo meme.
Eusebius, also mentioned in the post above, is well-known as the 'baron von munchhausen' (arch-liar) of the church, although the church itself has an understandably higher opinion of him and so do the christos of course. Eusebius is particularly noted for inventing fictitious statements and then putting them into the mouths of earlier christos and even non-christians of an earlier time.
See for instance the right-hand column at http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview2.htm under the heading 'Canonical Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Epistles'
He does it again here ( http://hamsa.org/03.htm ):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->C.B. Firth, in An Introduction to Indian Church History, writes, "It is no uncommon thing to find [ancient writers] using [the name India] of countries such as Ethiopia, Arabia or Afghanistan. Indeed, except for those who had reason to be acquainted with our India, 'India' was a vague term which might stand for almost any religion beyond the Empire's southeastern frontiers.... To the fourth century Fathers India is the place of St. Thomass labours; but others, of earlier date, say Parthia, that is the Persian Empire stretching from North-West India to Mesopotamia; and of these the most notable is Eusebius the historian, who wrote in the fourth century. He says, 'When the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were scattered over all the world, Thomas, so the tradition has it, obtained as his portion Parthia...' Eusebius quotes as his authority for this statement the famous Alexandrian Father, Origen (ca. 185--254), thus carrying back the tradition to the first half of the third century. According to Origen and Eusebius, then, it was Parthia to which St. Thomas went. Moreover in another place Eusebius says that it was St. Bartholomew who went to India.... In what he says of St. Bartholomew Eusebius may well have in mind one of the countries bordering on the Red Sea."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As can be seen above, even the liar-for-gawd who wrote 'Church (ecclesiastical) history' did not ever claim that thomas went to actual India.
http://hamsa.org/19.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Muthiah's allusion is to Pantaenus the Alexandrian, who is said to have visited "the land of the Indians" before 190 C.E. The first reference is made by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, which others follow, but Dr. A. Mingana, an authority on the spread of Christianity in India, quoted by C.B. Firth in An Introduction to Indian Church History, asserts, "... the India they refer to is without doubt Arabia Felix. The fact has been recognised by all historians since Assemani and Tillemont, and has been considered as established even by such a conservative writer as Medleycott. It will be a matter of surprise if any responsible author will mention in the future Pantaenus in connection with India proper."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No true historian ever takes Eusebius' word for anything, at best they just pass his fictions by without referring to them, unless these can be confirmed in external (non-christo) sources. Edward Gibbon, for instance, explained why he could not rely on the bishop's writings. Christian 'historians' on the other hand, put a lot of trust in Eusebius' nonsense.
But in all fairness, Eusebius was but the most accomplished in lying, since most if not all early christian fathers, theologians and other 'luminaries' of the church have been shown to be liars.
For example, Joseph Wheless writes in 'Forgery in Christianity' about saint Justin Martyr who preceded Eusebius by over a century:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->JUSTIN MARTYR: (c. 100-165): Saint, Martyr, a foremost Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous script.
His principal works, in Greek, are his two Apologies, the first addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, whose reply he also forged; <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The bottom line is, christianism makes liars out of many of its followers. To put any trust in what ninny ninan writes - only one of the latest incarnation of the early christian liars - is to do a disservice to the truth.
Bodhi, look at the following in the interview with the Swami which you posted:
http://hamsa.org/interview.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most historians will tell you that St. Peter never went to Rome and did not establish a Christian church there. Yet the very authority of the papacy rests on this fiction and most educated people accept their claim. I was interested in the Indian parallel, in seeing what the historians had to say about the coming of St. Thomas to India and his establishing a church in Kerala. I soon discovered that the most reputed historians of Christianity including Eusebius, von Harnack, de Tillemont, Latourette, Winternitz and. Bishop Stephen Neill, all denied the coming of St. Thomas to India. Some denied his very existence. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So some christian historians broke the mold and wanted to base history on facts, for a change.
Concerning Gondophernes or Guduphara (Gondophorus is a form I hadn't seen before, is that to make it more like the name of a Hindu king of Punjab 'Porus' and less like an overtly Iranian name?)
a king with a name Grecianised to Gondophernes may well have existed. But that does not prove the existence of either thomas, the other apostles or jeebus. Nor does it corroborate the tale of thomas in India. This is similar to how the mentions of Rome, Herod, a Roman emperor here and there, do not verify the fantasies about non-existent jeebus or of the tales of christo martyrdom at Roman hands.
Christian history is often based on lies, using the formula: christian 'history' = fictional characters and events + factual background setting. In that way, the factual settings and verifiable periphery characters are made to lend support to the non-existent ones (jeebus creepus, thomas, etcetera). Ninan is not breaking new ground here, but merely retreading christian methods older than the church.
Consider how the famous compulsive liar of the Church, bishop Eusebius of Caesaria, has been honoured with the title 'Church historian'. It is such men, not actual historians, that are honoured by christianism. Lies are honoured, as long as the lies serve the christo meme.
Eusebius, also mentioned in the post above, is well-known as the 'baron von munchhausen' (arch-liar) of the church, although the church itself has an understandably higher opinion of him and so do the christos of course. Eusebius is particularly noted for inventing fictitious statements and then putting them into the mouths of earlier christos and even non-christians of an earlier time.
See for instance the right-hand column at http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview2.htm under the heading 'Canonical Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Epistles'
He does it again here ( http://hamsa.org/03.htm ):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->C.B. Firth, in An Introduction to Indian Church History, writes, "It is no uncommon thing to find [ancient writers] using [the name India] of countries such as Ethiopia, Arabia or Afghanistan. Indeed, except for those who had reason to be acquainted with our India, 'India' was a vague term which might stand for almost any religion beyond the Empire's southeastern frontiers.... To the fourth century Fathers India is the place of St. Thomass labours; but others, of earlier date, say Parthia, that is the Persian Empire stretching from North-West India to Mesopotamia; and of these the most notable is Eusebius the historian, who wrote in the fourth century. He says, 'When the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were scattered over all the world, Thomas, so the tradition has it, obtained as his portion Parthia...' Eusebius quotes as his authority for this statement the famous Alexandrian Father, Origen (ca. 185--254), thus carrying back the tradition to the first half of the third century. According to Origen and Eusebius, then, it was Parthia to which St. Thomas went. Moreover in another place Eusebius says that it was St. Bartholomew who went to India.... In what he says of St. Bartholomew Eusebius may well have in mind one of the countries bordering on the Red Sea."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As can be seen above, even the liar-for-gawd who wrote 'Church (ecclesiastical) history' did not ever claim that thomas went to actual India.
http://hamsa.org/19.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Muthiah's allusion is to Pantaenus the Alexandrian, who is said to have visited "the land of the Indians" before 190 C.E. The first reference is made by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, which others follow, but Dr. A. Mingana, an authority on the spread of Christianity in India, quoted by C.B. Firth in An Introduction to Indian Church History, asserts, "... the India they refer to is without doubt Arabia Felix. The fact has been recognised by all historians since Assemani and Tillemont, and has been considered as established even by such a conservative writer as Medleycott. It will be a matter of surprise if any responsible author will mention in the future Pantaenus in connection with India proper."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No true historian ever takes Eusebius' word for anything, at best they just pass his fictions by without referring to them, unless these can be confirmed in external (non-christo) sources. Edward Gibbon, for instance, explained why he could not rely on the bishop's writings. Christian 'historians' on the other hand, put a lot of trust in Eusebius' nonsense.
But in all fairness, Eusebius was but the most accomplished in lying, since most if not all early christian fathers, theologians and other 'luminaries' of the church have been shown to be liars.
For example, Joseph Wheless writes in 'Forgery in Christianity' about saint Justin Martyr who preceded Eusebius by over a century:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->JUSTIN MARTYR: (c. 100-165): Saint, Martyr, a foremost Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous script.
His principal works, in Greek, are his two Apologies, the first addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, whose reply he also forged; <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The bottom line is, christianism makes liars out of many of its followers. To put any trust in what ninny ninan writes - only one of the latest incarnation of the early christian liars - is to do a disservice to the truth.
Bodhi, look at the following in the interview with the Swami which you posted:
http://hamsa.org/interview.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most historians will tell you that St. Peter never went to Rome and did not establish a Christian church there. Yet the very authority of the papacy rests on this fiction and most educated people accept their claim. I was interested in the Indian parallel, in seeing what the historians had to say about the coming of St. Thomas to India and his establishing a church in Kerala. I soon discovered that the most reputed historians of Christianity including Eusebius, von Harnack, de Tillemont, Latourette, Winternitz and. Bishop Stephen Neill, all denied the coming of St. Thomas to India. Some denied his very existence. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So some christian historians broke the mold and wanted to base history on facts, for a change.