• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thomas In India? History Of Christianism In India
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Nov 29 2006, 08:11 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Nov 29 2006, 08:11 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->this was considered a myth till the end of the 19th century, when coins bearing the name of Gondophorus were unearthed in Pakistan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But of course it's considered a fact amongst christo congregations. Ecclesiastical tradition has been considered facts for a long time.

Husky, for the complete package of 'facts', see this document: (History of Early Christianity In India) by "Dr" M M Ninan a missionary historian.

By the way what is the authenticity in Gondophorus thing? Also see the other "proofs" of Thomas in India in that doc. I could not copy-paste as it did not allow.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 30 2006, 08:09 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 30 2006, 08:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky, for the complete package of 'facts', see this document: (History of Early Christianity In India) by "Dr" M M Ninan a missionary historian.[right][snapback]61552[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Only gave the propaganda pamphlet a cursory glance now. (Might look through it later, if I have insomnia and need a sure-fire remedy.)
- Christos are desperate. All they can do is appropriation. For example, ninan's claim that Om was stolen from Logos - itself not a christian concept at all but one appropriated from neo-platonism. Hence Logos is a pagan concept, as all scholars have stated. See also http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1b.htm#Logos
And Om is ancient in Hinduism, regardless of ninan's faith-based ramblings. And perhaps he doesn't know it's widely admitted that 'Amen', so important in christoislamic-terrorism, came from Osiris worship, a religion more ancient than Judaism?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Osiris was a God in the ancient pre-Christian Egyptian religion. The 23rd Psalm in the Bible plagiarized an Egyptian scriptural prayer.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many sayings associated with Osiris were taken over into the Bible. This included:
- 23rd Psalm: an appeal to Osiris as the good Shepherd to lead believers through the valley of the shadow of death and to green pastures and still waters
- Lord's Prayer: "O Amen, who art in heaven..."
- Many parables attributed to Jesus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen - a title of the Egyptian God who was Osiris' father, was also invoked at the end of every prayer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->- Syrian christos appear to be even more desperate than the average christo considering their appropriation tactics, perhaps because they feel a need to have a claim on India since Syria is on track to becoming an islamic pardees?
For example, ninan calls Vaishnavites 'Aryan brahmins' - predictably only christos rejoice in the christo invention of oryans and dravidoids. I've never seen any oryans or dravidoids myself, but maybe apostle thomas originated from one of these two categories since ninan seems to know they existed with as much 'certainty' as he claims for thomas himself.
He also has the cheek to refer to the silly little churches in Kerala as Kovils. Kovil is Tamil (maybe also Malayali) for Hindu temples. Language appropriation, and attempted indigenisation of alien structures called churches.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 30 2006, 08:09 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 30 2006, 08:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way what is the authenticity in Gondophorus thing?  Also see the other "proofs" of Thomas in India in that doc.  I could not copy-paste as it did not allow.[right][snapback]61552[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->From http://hamsa.org, which is back up thankfully:

(1) http://hamsa.org/02.htm#_ftn6
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[6] This king is the only character in the Acts (besides Judas Thomas) who can perchance be identified with a historical person. Some say he is the same as Gondophernes or Guduphara, the Indo-Parthian king who ruled over Arachosia, Kabul, and Gandhara (modern Afghanistan and Pakistan) from about 19 to 45 C.E. (the dates are disputed). The Acts gives no vital information about him, his reign, his city, or his country except to say that it is in 'India'. He can be identified as Parthian from his name, the original Persian form of it being Vindapharna.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Still doesn't make 'Pakthia' Pakistan.

(2) http://hamsa.org/04.htm - with some paras above and below for context
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But Bishop Medleycott's victory went further. He got himself named as the St. Thomas authority in the prestigious Encyclopaedia Britannica, Fifteenth Edition, 1984, along with Chevalier F.A. DCruz, editor of the old Mylapore Catholic Register and author of St. Thomas the Apostle in India.

The unsigned main entry for St. Thomas in the Encyclopaedia is muddled and dissembling and simply wrong in some places. After giving the New Testament references, it says, "Thomas subsequent history is uncertain. According to the 4th century Ecclesiastical History of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he evangelized Parthia (modern Khorasan). Later Christian tradition says Thomas extended his apostolate into India, where he is recognised as the founder of the church of the Syrian Malabar Christians, or Christians of St. Thomas. In the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, originally composed in Syriac, his martyrdom is cited under the king of Mylapore at Madras ..."

The Acts does not "cite" this at all of course, as we have shown by direct quotation; it does not even remotely suggest it. There is no known record that Mylapore had a king in the first century and if it did, he was not a Zoroastrian with the name of Mazdai. The story in the Acts and the Mylapore legend have nothing in common, though the latter can be said to exist only because of the former. Further on the article says, " He allegedly visited the court of the Indo--Parthian king Gondophernes ... though some of the Acts of Thomas is probable, evidence remains inconclusive."

Now even if some of the Acts is accepted as probable, the composer of this entry has still got the story wrong. He uses the word "allegedly" for the visit of St. Thomas to the court of Gondophernes—assuming that Gondophernes is the same as Gundaphorus—when he could correctly cite the Acts for the reference.

These errors are deliberate and motivated, given their context and arrangement, and this St. Thomas entry in the Encyclopaedia has been written by a Catholic scholar who not only subscribes to the apostle's alleged South Indian adventure, but wishes to place the Mylapore tale over that of the Malabar tradition. He does this by mixing the North Indian legend, represented by the Acts, with the South Indian fable that the Portuguese left in Mylapore, to promote his particular South Indian view. He gets away with the deception because nobody has read the Acts of Thomas and studied its references to the kings Gundaphorus and Misdaeus-Mazdai, and the execution of Judas Thomas on a mountain that contained an ancient royal tomb.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Qualifications necessary to become an apostle:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ignorant rolemodels invented for Christianity
From <i>The Christ</i>, by John E. Remsberg:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Palestine was one of the most backward of countries; the Galileans were the most ignorant of the inhabitants of Palestine; and the disciples might be counted among the most simple people of Galilee."
-- Renan, historian
"His followers were 'unlearned and ignorant men,' chosen from the humblest of the people."
-- [F.W.] Farrar, a Bible scholar
"A dozen knaves, as ignorant as owls and as poor as church mice."
-- Voltaire<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Maybe ninan and other christos are exercising their ability to be as much like an apostle as they can in doing their 'research' on christian history?
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.
<!--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:
<!--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.
Pope's speech that offended Kerala's Christians amended

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pope's remarks that St Thomas had preached Christianity in 'western' India, from where it spread to other parts of the country, had created a controversy among the community, which believes that St Thomas came to this part in A D 52 and established seven and half churches. They regard the Apostle as their 'Father in Faith'.

The amendment, which has been made in the official website of the Vatican, states that 'St Thomas first evangelised Syria and Persia and then went on to western India from where also he finally reached south India'.

The Pope had, in a recent pronouncement at St Peter's square in Vatican, spoken of St Thomas, the Apostle, seemingly taking away from him the traditional title 'Apostle of India'.

Addressing a vast crowd, he is said to have stated, 'Thomas first evanglised Syria and Persia and then penetrated as far as western India from where Christianity reached also south India'.

Though the Pope did not actually use the expression 'Apostle of Pakistan', what he said may have seemed to imply it, George Nedungatt, a faculty member of the Oriental Pontifical Institute, Rome, said in an article in Satya Deepam, a mouthpiece of the Syro-Malabar church.

The article had stated that the Pope's predecessors had on several occasions referred to St Thomas as the Apostle of India.

However, differing from this view, Pope Benedict feels the area St Thomas evangelised was not South India, but what he called 'western India' corresponding roughly to today's Pakistan, the article had stated.

Thomas's visit under doubt<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Pope Benedict XVI made the statement at the Vatican on September 27. Addressing the faithful during the Wednesday catechises, he recalled that St Thomas first evangelised Syria and Persia, and went on to western India from where Christianity reached Southern India. The import of the statement was that St Thomas never travelled to south India, but rather evangelised the western front, mostly comprising today's Pakistan. </b>

Knowingly or unknowingly, he had in one stroke challenged the basis of Christianity in India and demolished long-held views of church here that St Thomas landed in Kerala, where he spread the gospel among Hindus. The comments were especially a letdown for the Syrian Christians of Kerala, who proudly trace their ancestry to upper-caste Hindus said to have been evangelised by St Thomas upon his arrival in 52 AD.
<span style='color:red'>Clash of Pope with Indian Syrian Christians is centuries old...</span>

Below passages are from "Christianity in India: an historical narrative" written in 1859 by Sir John William Kaye, an East India Company army historian posted in Madras. Link to downloadable Google book.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But it is a painful and a terrible chapter of history.  The first Christian settlers in India were the most unchristian of men, and it has taken more than 3 centuries to wipe away the stain cast upon Christianity, by the lives of its European professors.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the history of missions in India Francis Xavier stands out... as the one apostolic man...Beside him all his successors were mountebanks and imposters. ...

He went about his own work and the Syrian priests tended their flocks in security and peace.  Before his death the Franciscan friars had endeavored silently and secretly to undermine the Malabar churches; but had restored to no acts of violence.  Soon, however, the overbearing policy of Rome began openly to assert itself; and the Christians of St Thomas saw their independence threatened by the men whom they regarded as little better than idolators in religion and buccaneers in active life.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then began the great struggle, to the history of which Gibbon has devoted two pregnant pages, and Hough more than a volume of his work.  The Christians, long seated on the coast of Malabar, traced their paternity to the Apostle Paul, who "went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches."  They looked to Syria as their spiritual home.  They owned the supremacy of the Patriarch of Babylon.  Of Rome and the Pope they knew nothing.
The Portuguese were scandalized at the appearance of Syrian houses of worships, which they declared to be heathen temples scarcely disguised.  It is certain that Malabar Christians had never subscribed to Roman doctrine.
The inquisitors of Goa discovered that they were heretics; but they were quietely living in the enjoyment of a faith which had been vouchsafed to them a thousand years before - vouchsafed to them when Rome owned a heathen Emporer, and knew not the sterner, more capacious tyranny of a sovereign Pontiff of the Christian Church.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>But like a wolf on the fold, down came the delegates of the pontifical tyrant upon these doomed Indian Churches.... Pope appointed Don Alexis de Menezes as Archbishop of Goa.  It was his mission less to make new converts than to reduce old ones to subjugation; and he flung himself into the work of persecution with an amount of zeal and heroism that must have endeared him to Rome. </span>

Impatient of the slow success of his agents, he determined to take the staff into his own hands. Moving down to the South, with an imposing military force.  There was other work to be done by this expedition than the reduction of the Syrian Churches; but the authorities of Goa saw the advantage of imparting to the movements of the Archbishop all the circumstance of official pomp and the persuasiveness of military strength.

He summoned Syrian churches to submit to his authority.  The churches were under an Archdeacon, who sensible of the danger that impended over them, determined to temporize, but at the same time to show that he was prepared to resist. An escort of 3000 resolute men accompanied him on his visit to Menezes, were with difficulty restrained, on the first sight of violence. 

But no fear of resistance could divert Menezes from his purpose; and he openly denounced the Patriarch of Babylon as a oestilent schismatic, and declared it heresy to acknowledge his supremacy.  He then issued a decree forbidding all persons to acknowledge any other supremacy than that of the Roman pontiff, or to make any mention of the Syrian Patriarch in services of their Church; and, this done, he publicly excommunicated the acknowledged head of the Syrian Churches, and called upon the startled Archdeacon to sign the writ of excommunication. 

Frightened and confused, the wretched man put his name to apostate document; and it was publicly affixed to the gates of the church.

This went on for several months. This guy will go about to the churches one by one and force the Syrians to come under his authority. He acheived it by violence, and many times by bribery too.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And finally Menezes issued a decree for a synod; and on June 20, 1599, all churches assembled at Diamper.  All Syrian christians were forced to read the 'Confession of Faith'.  One of the Syrian Priests, who acted as the interpreter, then read the confession in Malabar language, and the assembled multitudes repeated it after him, on their knees. 

And, so the Syrian Christians bowed their necks to the yoke of Rome.  In the course of 6 months, that ambitious and unscupulous prelate reduced the syrian churches to bondage.
The Gospel of Thomas Collection from THE GNOSIS ARCHIVE
The gospel of thomas does not belong to the Syrian christians in India, even though they were from Syria also (where this gospel was in use). India's immigrant Syrian christians are of the Nestorian branch of christianity, which is also of Syrian origin. They are Nestorian christians.
They were only called thomas christians in the 16th century or so (will find the proper date) - in any case, much later on.

The gospel of thomas was created by the gnostic christian community. This was one of the christian communities in Syria in those early centuries of christianity. Will try and post some links about these things later.

The thing is that there were many mutually-hating branches of christianity all over the Roman empire and especially in Syria. They did not generally share gospels. The Syrian christians in India do not appear to believe any of the things that the gnostic christians who used the gospel of thomas believed in. (A world of difference between that and the beliefs of the more orthodox early christianity that would later split into sects like nestorianism, roman catholicism, and the like.) For instance, the gnostic christians didn't know of a resurrected jeebus. Their jeebus brought salvation through wisdom. Unless the syrian christians in India are willing to renounce the resurrection, they won't have anything to do with the gospel of thomas or try to trace their line to its authors.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bishop Giovanni dei Marignolli, the Franciscan papal legate who built a Roman Catholic church in Quilon, in 1348, is the first person to use the appellation "St. Thomas" Christians. He did this to distinguish Syrian converts from low-caste Hindu converts in his congregation. This allowed the former Nestorians to retain their caste status as Roman Catholics. The appellation "St. Thomas" Christian is thus of Roman Catholic origin and indicates a social division within the Roman Catholic Church. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is good for information on Gnostic Christianity:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Gnostic Christians, who developed in the first century, who were the first Christians in Egypt and elsewhere, did think Jesus brought salvation — but not by dying on the cross. [Christian] Gnosticism's Jesus saved by bringing sacred wisdom.

<b>Only the sect of Christianity founded by Paul developed the Christ myth of the dying resurrected savior.</b> Paul was a diaspora Jew, raised in Pagan Tarsus, who never met Jesus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->( http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm )

From http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Gnostic Christians</b>
Christian Gnosticism was a later branch of Gnosticism. For instance, <b>Eugnostos the Blessed</b> was a non-Christian Gnostic treatise which was later used to create Gnostic Christian material.

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> One of the most powerful and widespread kinds of early Christianity was [Christian] gnosticism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The gnostic Christians ...used the Gospel of Thomas [which was] another mid-first-century collection of Jesus sayings. And again, no mention of Jesus death or resurrection.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Gospel of Thomas was one of the main Gospels of the Christian Gnostics.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The gnostic Gospel of Thomas never mentions Jesus' saving death.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The gnostics believed Jesus saved not by his dying and resurrection. The gnostics believed Jesus saved by the sacred wisdom he taught.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->From: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/scholars...ense_first.html,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[About Dr. Bauer's book <b>Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity</b>:]
For hundreds of years <b>everyone assumed that the earliest Christians were orthodox New Testament Roman Christians, and "heretical" Christianities — like Gnosticism and Marcionism — developed later</b>, branches off the original orthodox trunk.
Then in the 1930s ...Walter Bauer decided to actually look at the evidence. ...What he discovered was that pretty much everywhere he looked — Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc. — <b>the "heresies" weren't branches off any trunk, they were the original local Christianities</b>. And they weren't small marginal sects, they were the <b>main local Christianities</b>.

The evidence shows that all around the Mediterranean, outside Rome, <b>the orthodox New Testament Roman Christianity was a secondary sect, a sect that became dominant only after the conversion of Constantine gave it the advantage of Roman swords.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nestorianism was an offshoot of 'New Testament Roman Christianity'. It was a 5th century christian branch, whereas the sects of Gnostic christianity developed much earlier on, from <b>prechristian Gnosticism</b>.
A bit on Gnosticism - that is, <i>before</i> christianity:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2b.htm again
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Before the so-called New Testament was completed, the leaders of the primitive Christian Church had to do battle with a "heresy" called gnosticism. It is now known that <b>gnosticism is older than Christianity</b>, and an argument can be made that Christianity is a Gnostic heresy, rather than the other way around as traditionally taught.

<b>The Gnostic library discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt provides some examples of how non-Christian materials could have been appropriated for Christian purposes.</b> The so-called "Apocalypse of Adam," a non-Christian phantasy composed of Jewish elements, follows the same general outline and contains many of the same components as does the birth narrative found in the twelfth chapter of the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. It is clear that both stories are derived from a common mythological source - a source that Gnostic principles allowed to be adapted for Christian use by "St. John the Revelator."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...how non-Christian materials could have been transmuted into the documents now found in the New Testament. James M. Robinson, the editor of the Nag Hammadi materials published in English, tells us that
"<b>The Nag Hammadi library even presents one instance of the Christianizing process taking place almost before one's eyes.</b> The <b>non-Christian philosophic treatise Eugnostos the Blessed</b> is cut up somewhat arbitrarily into separate speeches, which are then put on Jesus' tongue, in answer to questions (which sometimes do not quite fit the answers) that the disciples address to him during a resurrection appearance. The result is a separate tractate entitled The Sophia of Jesus Christ. Both forms of the text occur side by side in Codex III."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some of the Jesus biography was derived from pre-Christian gnosticism, and some material was incorporated from Hellenic-Jewish wisdom literature.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->From: http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html 'How Jesus got a life'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Various side-currents and independence movements within history of christianism, and how they were dealt with by the Church...

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Cathars</span>

The term "Cathars" derives from the Greek word Katheroi and means "Pure Ones". The Cathars professed a theological dualism in which two coequal divine principles, one good and one evil, struggled against each other from eternity. They believed all matter to be evil because it was created by Satan, the principle of evil. The soul, which has its origins in the realm of the good God, is trapped within the material body.  Much of the Old Testament was viewed with suspicion or even discarded. The doctrine of <b>the incarnation was rejected. Instead Jesus was regarded as an angel whose sufferings and death were only apparent.</b>

The origins of the Cathar movement lie in the missionary work of the Bogomils, a dualistic sect that emerged in south eastern Europe in the 11th century. During the 12th century the doctrines of the Bogomils were brought to western Europe by missionaries and soldiers returning from the second crusade (1147-49). In about 1150 the first Cathar bishopric was established in France. A few years later two more bishoprics were set up in the regions of Albi and Lombardy. By the end of the 12th century the Cathars had eleven bishoprics - five in France and six in Italy.

Such was the perceived threat posed by Cathar doctrine to the mainstream church that in 1209 Pope Innocent III proclaimed a crusade against the Cathars. There followed twenty years of ruinous warfare, during which cities and provinces throughout the south of France were devastated. In one of the worst episodes of the war almost the entire population of Toulouse, both Cathar and Catholic, were massacred. Resistance continued until 1243 when the Cathar fortress of Montsegur in the Pyrenees was captured and destroyed. <b>Those who refused to renounce their beliefs were often tortured or put to death by fire.</b> In spite of continued persecution the Cathar movement continued through the 14th century, disappearing in the 15th century.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Lollards</span>

The doctrines of the Lollards were inspired by the teachings of John Wycliffe (ca. 1325-1384), an Oxford theologian whose vies anticipated many of the developments of the Reformation. Wycliff argued that the Bible was the standard of faith for Christians. The head of the church is Christ, not the pope whom he denounced as Antichrist.

The term Lollard derives from the middle Dutch word lollaert (meaning mumbler) and was applied by Wycliffe's opponents to his followers. Because of his anti-clerical views Wycliffe was forced to retire from Oxford in 1378 and his immediate supporters were rooted out and punished. The movement, however, spread well beyond Oxford. The early rapid spread of Lollard teaching was halted when Henry IV came to the throne in 1399.<b> Two years after his accession an anti-heretic statute was passed, De haeretico comburendo, under which a number of Lollards were put to death by fire. </b>In 1414 the Lollards rebelled against the crown, only to be defeated and driven underground.  No contemporary adherents.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Hussites</span>

The Hussites followed and developed the teachings of John Huss, a theologian at the University of Prague who came under the influence of John Wycliffe's writings. Huss taught that the true church consists of those predestined to salvation; that Christ, not the Pope, is the head of the church; and that the Bible alone provides the laws on which church life should be governed. Huss' followers broke with the Roman Catholic Church by using a Czech liturgy and by distributing both the eucharistic bread and wine to the laity. (It was the practice of the Roman Catholic Church to administer bread alone to the laity.)

Because of his open support for Wycliffe, Huss was summoned to appear at the Council of Constance in 1414. <b>Although promised safe conduct, Huss was condemned as a heretic and on 6 July 1415 was put to death by fire.</b>From 1420 the Roman Catholic Church launched a series of unsuccessful crusades against the Hussites. Peace negotiations began in 1431 which granted communion in both kinds to the laity. This was accepted by the Utraquists but not by the Taborites. The Utraquists and Catholics united and defeated the Taborites at the battle of Lipany in 1434, thus ending any further Taborite influence. A peace treaty signed in 1436 ensured the Utraquists their own independent Catholic church. The Church of the Utraquist Hussites survived until 1620 when it was absorbed into the Roman Catholic Church.

Following the first world war a further reform movement emerged within the Catholic Church in the newly formed state of Czechoslovakia. In 1920 the Czechoslovak Hussite Church was formed by a group of priests whose demand for a Czech liturgy and the abolition of celibacy among priests had been rejected among Rome.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Waldenses</span>

Believing the Bible alone to be the sole source of authority for Christians, the Waldenses reject the Roman Catholic Mass, prayers for the dead, and the doctrine of purgatory as unbiblical. Instead of ordaining clergy, they encourage both men and women to preach and to commit themselves to a life of poverty and celibacy.

The founder of the Waldenses was Valdes, a wealthy 12th century merchant of Lyons, France. Inspired by the passage in the Gospel of Matthew in which Christ instructed a rich young man to sell all that he had for the good of the poor, Valdes gave away all of his possessions in order to adopt the life of a mendicant preacher.
As a layman Valdes was not authorised to preach by the church. His refusal to discontinue his preaching led him and his followers to be condemned as heretics and excommunicated at the Council of Verona in 1184.  During the 13th century the Waldenses were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. A remnant survived in the Alpine valleys south west of Turin. Today the church has some 22,000 members in Italy and some 15,000 members in Uruguay

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Jansenist Church of Holland</span>

Jansenist theology derives from the teaching of Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638), bishop of Ypres. In his most important work Augustinus, published posthumously in 1640, Jansen promulgated a theology based upon Augustine's doctrine of predestination.

From the outset, Jansenist doctrine was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, particularly the Jesuits who opposed the extreme doctrine of predestination proclaimed in the Augustinus. Two years after its publication the Augustinus was condemned and proscribed by Pope Urban VIII.

Viewed by the French monarch, Louis XIV, as a threat to national unity, Port Royal was closed in 1709. With the encouragement of Louis XIV, Pope Clement XI condemned the Jansenist leader Pasquier Quesnel in 1713. Under Quesnel's leadership, the Jansenists left France for Holland. In 1723 they established their own independent church at Utrecht. Today the church has some 10,000 members.

Bharatvarsh and Husky, this seems more appropriate thread which discusses history of Christianism and Myth of Thomas. Pasting Bharatvarsh's post from other thread:

<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 20 2007, 06:21 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 20 2007, 06:21 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky the topic of syrian xtian treason is more appropriate for this thread, here is the complete info:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vasco da Gama arrived at Calicut in 1498 with the help of an Arab pilot. He was a clever navigator and one of history's most brutal men,[29] but he was not very bright when it came to religion. He thought Calicut was a Christian city and returned to Portugal with the impression that the temples he had prayed in were churches. Catholic historians still argue that he saw two hundred thousand Christians on his first visit to Malabar, when in fact he had seen only Hindus whose piety he had unwittingly praised and whose wealth he coveted for his own.

Vasco da Gama's mistake was corrected when he returned to Malabar in 1502 and was met by a deputation of Syrian Christians. They identified themselves, surrendered their ancient honours and documents, and invited him to make war on their Hindu king.

George Menachery, a Catholic apologist and former adviser to the Kerala State Department of Archaeology, in Kodungallur: City of St. Thomas, writes, "They presented him a Rod of Justice and swore allegiance to the Portuguese king and implored Portuguese protection. The Admiral received them very kindly and promised all help and protection. The significance of this event is variously interpreted by historians."

Indeed it is—but only Catholic historians prevaricate on why this high-ranking community of merchants and soldiers had turned on their king in this perfidious way.

K.M. Panikkar, in Malabar and the Portuguese, writes, "More than this, they suggested to [Vasco da Gama] that with their help he should conquer the Hindu kingdoms and invited him to build a fortress for this purpose in Cranganore. This was the recompense which the Hindu rajas received for treating with liberality and kindness the Christians in their midst."

The Syrians had of course acted on the exigencies of their Christian religion, which harbours in its heart a demon that divides mankind into friend and foe on ideological grounds. King Shapur of Persia had not been mistaken about the allegiances of his Christian subjects in the fourth century.

The Syrian Christians would soon come to grief for their treachery. The Portuguese regarded them as heretics and schismatics who were no better in True Religion than their Hindu neighbours. They had come with cannon and a papal mandate to instruct the inhabitants of the land in the Catholic faith and this included non-Roman Christians. Their arrival and that of the first Jesuit missionary Francis Xavier, in 1542, turned Christianity in India into a violent and destructive political force that continues to operate in the country till today.

After 1502, the Syrian Christians and Roman Catholic Church embarked on a confrontation. It went on for decades and was aggravated by the activities of the Jesuits. In 1653 a Syrian bishop was burned at the stake at Goa by the Inquisition—which had been invited into the country by Francis Xavier himself. The confrontation only began to subside with the decline of Portuguese power, as the Pope and the Jesuits were both dependant on Portuguese arms to enforce their will. A compromise was eventually reached between the Catholic Church and the Syrian Christians, and various oriental rite churches came into being. But whatever the arrangements or relationship with Rome, the Jesuits, true to their evil genius, had succeeded in destroying the Syrian Christian community in India. There is some justice in this fate, for had the Syrian Christians remained true to their country and king, they would have remained a happy, respected and united community.

So our modern day thomas is just continuing the long tradition of treachery handed down by his ancestors.
Moved the following from post in thread Harvard ethics: an oxymoron to here

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To understand the true nature of Christians around the world, we should take a better look at Kerala. In the 4th century AD Christianity became the dominant religion and than the established religion in the Roman Empire. The Sassanian rulers of Iran wisely foresaw that the Syrian Christians within their borders would develop into a fifth column of their powerful neighbors. Their solution was to persecute the Syrian Christians. Some of these Christians fled Iran as groups. In AD 345, around 400 odd persons from 72 families comprising men, women and children, reached Cragananore (Kodungalloore) Kerala, under the leadership of a merchant, one Thomas Cananeus. The Hindu Kings gave them refuge. What these treacherous Christians did in return was to invite Vasco de Gama to invade India. This information recently came to light from Portugese documents. Sanjay Subrahmaniam in Lisbon went through the Portugese Documents `Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama` and found that these Kerala Christians known as Syrian Christians were indeed a fifth column spies and brought Vasco Da Gama to Kerala shores that began the colonization of India. They had offered to the Portugese, French and British their support to defeat and evict the local kings, Zamorins, who gave them the refuge. Vasco da Gama had bombarded Calicut, in Kerala when the Zamorin ruler of that place refused to be dictated by him. He had plundered the Kerala ships bringing rice to the city and cut off the ears, noses and hands of the crews. The Zamorin had sent to him an envoy after securing Portuguese safe-conduct. Vasco da Gama had cut off the nose, ears and hands of the envoy and strung them around his neck together with a palm-leaf on which a message was conveyed to the Indian king that he could cook and eat a curry made from his envoy`s limbs."

This is the true nature of Christians who are living in India, a fifth column foreigners, a Trojan horse community that wants to destroy India from within since the fourth century. The same fact also came to light from the Dutch History of Trvancore, and also in the French records. That the Syrian Christian Refugees of Kerala wanted the Europeans help them to finish the Hindu Kings that gave them refuge is now the most shocking information Keralite cannot digest.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Anyone read the work 'Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama' by Sanjay Subramaniam that is referred to here? So the Syrian christoterrorists pulled the sufi-act, did they? I'd read somewhere on IF that the sufis in India, frustrated with the inability to convert the Hindus to islam, also called for islamic armies to invade India.

Actually the Syrian christos' behaviour is very much in line with how the christians of the Roman Empire behaved. When Rome was still following the Old Religion, the frustrated christians did more than merely root for Rome's political enemies like Persia. The christians openly plotted treason against their pagan emperors (and murdered Julian) and even actively sought out the state's enemies in order to destroy Rome.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Professor Gwatkin himself remarks that many of the Christians, so far from being willing to defend the Empire, were "half inclined to welcome the Goths and Persians as avengers." The Pope insolently and openly defied Valerian at Rome: and Diocletian's decrees were torn down by Christians in his own palace who relied on the protection of his womenfolk.
Before Diocletian, the Church had had forty years of peace, and it had grown sufficiently to make its anti-patriotic teaching a matter of concern. Yet in not one of the three decrees of Diocletian is the death sentence imposed.
-- <i>The Story Of Religious Controversy, by historian Joseph McCabe</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Evidently the long history of Vishnu Avatars to destroy the kings of Asuras indicates the story of how the Brahminic Vaishanavite group chased and destroyed the Dravidians from the North to the South, even unto Srilanka</b>. <b>Christians have even gone towards claiming that Bali is actually one of the Christian Kings since the archealogical evidence indicates that Hinduism came to Kerala only after the 6th century AD. (See Archealogical Survey of India, 1978). </b>It is interesting to note that the Pallava kingdom ruled from the capital city of Maha-bali-puram(Mahabalipuram) starting from around 7th century. There are mentions of many Bana chieftains, (Banasura being son of Bali), ruling Tamilnadu during the periods when the Chera, Chola and Pandiya were not as powerful.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is somethis new..

By Mugal days, Jesuit missionaries had become very active in India. With Goa as their base, they used to travel to different parts of India, and even participate in courts. Some of their accounts are very interesting (often funny) because of their uneducated and euro-centric views of what they saw in India. Some Jesuits traveled to Akbars court, and spent years with him, in hope to convert him to Christian religion.


Above book is written by one such missionary, and recounts his days with Akbar. Author makes several tall claims (like converting thousands upon thousands of people, and Akbar and his sons being about ready for conversion themself and so on), but we can take those humorousely. This particular account shows how Akbar must have been a clever man, who used these Jesuits for his own purpose, while these folks thought they have plans for Akbar!

Overall, this narrative throws light not only on some aspects of Akbar's time, but also on early Jesuits in India. Reads almost like a fiction.

Likewise, the following book is the account of another Jesuit fellow who traveled to Jahangir's court: JAHANGIR AND THE JESUITS by Father Guerreiro Fernao, S. J. Published 1930
From above book:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Their mission was to convert that monarch to Christianity, and to sow the seed of the Gospel in his dominions; and to these aims their interests and their energies were almost wholly confined. The range of their outlook naturally determined the range of their letters. These were written for the purpose of keeping the superiors of their Order in touch with the Missions, and informed as to the progress that was being made. They may, in fa6t, be described as progress reports, or collectively, as official correspondence/ The references they contain to the public affairs of the day are, in consequence, few in number, and relate, with rare exceptions, only to circumstances that came under the personal observation of the writers, or had a direct bearing on their lives, or the work of their calling. The information contained in such references is sometimes detailed and of great value: in other cases, and these are unfortunately the more numerous, it is disappointingly meagre and vague. In regard to matters that had no bearing on les choses qui concernent la religion^ the Fathers were either altogether silent, or merely passed on, for what they were worth, any odds and ends of information that chanced to come their way.

For the Student of Indian history, however, the outstanding interest of du Jarric's compilation lies not so much in the references it contains to contemporary events, as in the intimate light it sheds on the character and mind of Akbar, in the portraits it presents of the royal Princes and other notable figures of the time, apd in the insight it affords into the general conditions of life under Mogul rule.

The Fathers had abundant opportunities of Studying Akbar, Besides occupying a privileged position at the imperial court, they were in frequent and close attendance on his person. At the public assemblies they were assigned places very near his throne: they accompanied him on his campaigns: they educated his children: and they were often the companions of his leisure hours. On the occasions when they visited him in private, he frequently laid aside all reserve, opening, and even unburdening his heart to them, and discussing freely and frankly the various problems of life on which, in his more serious moments, he was wont to ponder. As a result of such constant and familiar intercourse, the Fathers came to know Akbar very thoroughly. They saw him in every variety of mood, and watched his behaviour under every variety of circumstance; and their impressions of him from one aspect or another, which are scattered through du Jarric's pages, make up a likeness that is at once complete and intimate. The odium theologicum has, it is true, left its lines across the picture; but these are too unmistakable to interfere seriously with our view: we see the real Akbar behind them as plainly as we see the lion through the bars of his cage.

Hardly less intimate is the portrait we get of Prince Salim; indeed, during the later chapters of his narrative, the beam of du Jarric's searchlight plays oftener on the Prince than on the King. If the portrait in this case interests us less, it is not through any fault in the drawing, but because the subject of it is less worth Studying. From time to time, the beam traverses the great hall of audience, reeling momentarily on other notable personages. Of these, especially of such men as Abul Fazl and Aziz Koka, we could have been well content to see more, and of the Prince less. But to the Fathers of the third Mission, the latter was the moSt important person in the empire. The goal of their desires was to see a Christian prince seated on the Mogul throne; and as the prospeft of Akbar's conversion waxed dim, their attentions and their efforts became more and more concentrated on the son who was to succeed him.

Our glimpses of the world outside the purlieus of the court become more numerous as the Story proceeds ; for it was only after the despatch of the third Mission, that the spreading of the Gospel amongst the people at large was seriously taken in hand. A considerable portion of du Jarric's account of this Mission is devoted to Glories of conversions, baptismal ceremonies, religious festivals, and other circumstances illustrating the work of evangelization, the progress made, and the difficulties encountered. These Stories, though sometimes confused and rambling, and though the interest attaching to the incidents they describe is mainly religious, have a very real historical significance. As contemporary records, they are redolent of the atmosphere of the period. They familiarise us with the common sights and the little everyday occurrences which are seldom part of the Stock-in-trade of the professional historian, but which do more than anything else can do to bridge the gulf between the present and the paSt. Incidentally they bring us into touch with the administrative machinery of Akbar's kingdom, and introduce us to various types of State officials, such as Viceroys, Nawabs, Kotwals, Kazis, Eunuchs, etc., shedding many interesting sidelights on the duties they performed, and on the manner in which the law of the land was administered. At the same time they illustrate, better than any other part of the Hittoirey the daily life and surroundings of the humbler classes of the people.
It is, therefore, as a guide to the spirit rather than to the events of the time, to the characters of men rather than to their adtions, that du Jarric's account of the Missions to Akbar merits a high place amongSt our authorities for the history of India. These were matters on which the Jesuit Fathers, both on account of their training and of their opportunities, were eminently qualified to enlighten us, and on which they wrote with knowledge gained from personal observation and experience. The scarcity of contemporary accounts of India in the days of Akbar lends additional importance to their letters, which not only give us information unobtainable from other sources, but contain the earliest impressions of the Mogul empire ever recorded by European writers; for the Fathers were the firSt, and with the exception of the English traveller Ralph Fitch, the only Europeans who visited Northern India in the sixteenth century. The letters likewise contain a considerable amount of miscellaneous information about current events. But, as already pointed out, the attitude of the Fathers towards the general affairs of the empire was one of indifference; and

On this account, and for the reasons previously given, the HiSloire^ in so far as it relates to the action of the political drama of the period, needs to be read and used critically, and with caution.

The termination of the third Mission to the court of Akbar marked the close of the firSt and mo?t interesting phase of the Jesuit campaign in Northern India. Whilst the Missions were in progress, the political element, which entered so largely into the later phases of the movement, though present, was in abeyance; and the Fathers who had charge of the Missions devoted themselves, as I have said above, almost exclusively to the work of evangelization. It may be presumed that, from the outset, they were expected to do anything they could to further the interests of their country at the Mogul court, and to pass on to Goa any information likely to be of use to the Portuguese authorities; but we have only to read the letters they wrote during this period to realise how completely their religious duties outweighed these and all other considerations.

The Portuguese authorities, whether at Goa or Lisbon, were by no means lacking in missionary zeal. Though fully alive to the political advantages which might accrue from the conversion of Akbar, they welcomed his appeal for inStruftion in the doctrines of Christianity as much for the religious as for the political opportunities which it offered; and had Akbar's conversion been a matter of no political concern whatever to them, we need not doubt that the Missions would ftill have been despatched. It has been maintained that the Portuguese had, from the fir&, no belief in the conversion of Akbar, and that the objeft of the Missions was entirely political. I think du Jarric's narrative will convince the reader that neither of these views is tenable. There was both a religious and a political motive behind the Missions; and the exigence of the latter in no way implies the insincerity of the former. As Mr. W. H. Moreland has rightly pointed out, it is this combination of religious and political motives which * is the key to the aftivities of the Portuguese during the sixteenth century, and much of their condudl which is inexplicable from the traders' point of view finds an excuse, though not always a justification in the missionary zeal by which the rulers of the country were distinguished * (India at the Death of Akbar^ p, 200),

Akbar's attitude towards the Missions closely resembled that of the Portuguese authorities. Like them, he was influenced by both religious and political motives, and the former were quite as Strong and real in his case as in theirs. In his case, too, it may confidently be said, that if all political inducement had been lacking, he would ftill have invited the Fathers to his court. The Missions, however, did offer him political advantages, and he naturally welcomed them none the less on that account. Chief amongst these were the opportunities, or excuses, which they afforded him of sending letters and farmans to Goa, the bearers of which were able to bring him much useful intelligence regarding the ftate of affairs in the Portuguese settlements, towards which he had long been cabling covetous eyes.
It cannot be said that Akbar's motives did him great credit, in as much as they were direftly hoftile to those whose friendship he was cultivating; but their baseness was appreciably discounted by the faft that he took little or no pains to conceal them. Looked at from his own point of view, his hostile attitude was neither unnatural nor unprovoked. As a race he held a high opinion of the Portuguese: he was Wrongly attrafted by their religion; he admired their civilization ; and he took delight in the society of their learned doftors. At the same time, he regarded them as intruders. Their domination of the Indian seas was a constant offence to him, and was rendered the more intolerable by the humiliating control which it enabled them to exercise over his maritime ventures. More than all, he resented their settlements on the outskirts of his territories, which effectually barred his access to the We?l CoaSl ports. In short, the Portuguese were a very troublesome thorn in Akbar's side, and one of the dearest wishes of his heart was to turn them neck and crop out of India.
The open participation of the Jesuit missionaries in political concerns commenced with the efforts made by the Fathers Xavier and Pinheiro to frustrate the plans of the English merchant-adventurer, Mildenhall, who visited Akbar's court in 1603, with the objeft of obtaining trading facilities for himself and his countrymen. In the reign of Jahangir, their employment in affair! of a kindred nature became a matter of course.

For this, the Portuguese authorities at Goa were mainly responsible. The aim of Portugal's Eastern policy at this period was not the acquisition of new territories, but the extension of her commerce; and the chief item in her programme was the capture, or, failing that, the control, of India's trade with Europe. It was a policy of greed; and its success depended on the ability of the Viceroys at Goa to win and retain the good-will of the Great Mogul, and to prevent its extension to other European countries. For the purpose of influencing the mind of the Emperor the Fathers were in a position of peculiar advantage; and hence it was largely on them that the task of securing these essential conditions devolved.

The use thus made of the Fathers, while it did little to retard the decay of Portuguese commerce, was wholly detrimental to the cause of the Gospel. Whatever progress that cause had hitherto made was the direft outcome of the purity of life, the singleness of purpose, and the fearless devotion exhibited by the pioneers of the missionary campaign. Such qualities have always commanded admiration in India; and it was their possession in a pre-eminent degree by Monserrate and Rudolf Aquaviva that enabled those Fathers to win the heart of Akbar, and the respeft of his subjefts, whether Moslim or Hindu. But a continuous supply of men of this ?tamp was not to be looked for; and the Fathers who followed them, though equally zealous for the spread of the faith, were not endowed with the same saintliness of character; while the work they were called upon to do in the political arena, and, it may be added, in a very unsavoury corner of that arena, was not conducive to the display of the nobler Chri&ian virtues. The Tories of Jesuit intrigues told by Mildenhall, Hawkins, Finch, and other travellers who found their way to the court of the Great Mogul, are probably overdrawn; but when all due allowance has been made for the bias of the writers, they leave little room for doubt that, in their endeavours to outwit these intruders, the Fathers had frequent recourse to measures which sorted ill with their religious calling, and which muft have done much to discredit the Chriftian faith in the eyes of the people. From the time the Fathers openly assumed the role of political agents, their religious influence began Readily to wane. In the reign of Shah Jahan its decline was rapid; and before the end of the reign of Aurangzeb it had ceased to exift.

Akbar and Jesuits
Dear Friends,

I am intending to write a book on Thomas Fables and Historical Jesus, getting delayed due to some difficulites.

My research clearly tells that Kodungallore or Cranganore and other 6 of the Seven places which were supposed to have Thomas built Churches were below Sea and Most of the Coastal Kerala was Human Occupied only in 7th or 8th Century CE.
I also intend to quote highest Christian Authorities, on these fables.

Most of my book summaries would be submitted here in my next posts.

DS, you should also look a the Shrimad Bhagavat and the story of MahaBali, the land reclamation by Parasurama etc to get a composite picture of Kerala.
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Mar 29 2007, 12:00 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Mar 29 2007, 12:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->DS, you should also look a the Shrimad Bhagavat and the story of MahaBali, the land reclamation by Parasurama etc to get a composite picture of Kerala.

Land reclamation by Parasurama : Mahabharat gives a very detailed account of this. Though not sure that land was modern Kerala. Other opinions are it may be in eastern Iran (the name Persia : ParasUya)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Mar 29 2007, 10:00 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Mar 29 2007, 10:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Land reclamation by Parasurama : Mahabharat gives a very detailed account of this.  Though not sure that land was modern Kerala.  Other opinions are it may be in eastern Iran (the name Persia : ParasUya)[right][snapback]66297[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bodhi, from what I read, Persia appears to have been called Parsa by its own people after its main city (like the Roman empire was thus called after its main city of Rome). And those who were from the capital Parsa were called Parsi/Parsee similar to their language Parsi (later on all Persians were called Parsee), at least they were so in the later times of the empire. Whereas in early times Persians called their own tribe Parshya.
I think S. Talageri identified the Persians with the Parshu tribe, so in that case, that would have been the Indian name for the early tribe of Persians-to-be.

Still, might ParasUya not have something to do with the name of Parashurama (who I don't think had anything to do with the Parshus) rather than with the Parshya/Parshu tribe? There are after all many similar sounding words which do not necessarily derive one from another. Is there any other indication that the land, 'Parasuya', reclaimed by Parashurama can indeed be identified with Pars?

Post 56 (Solomon):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most of my book summaries would be submitted here in my next posts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thanks. Yes, please.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)