Talk:Saint Thomas Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Kerala workgroup.

[edit] Language Accuracy

I had mentioned earlier in this forum the important need for editing this article on various counts. Language editing was one of them.

This itself needs to be done at two levels - macro and micro. At the macro level, I would presently stop with the general observation that the article seems couched in Malayalam in English dressing. At the micro level, my present, limited concern is about the innocent-sounding sentence in the article, quoted below.

  Their devotion to the Mar Thoma Cross was absolute.

This is my apprehension: Won't the term absolute give the impression of idolatry?

Editors may consider this and modify the sentence if and as considered necessary. (I am not aware if this term is deliberate, based on some "authentic reference"; hence my hesitation to do the editing myself.) Doubtingtom (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To all the recent participants

I suggest you ( or multiple ip's) to spend some dime to buy at least one of those books mentioned in this article and read it before pasting the contents of email chains from Pariwar propaganda. Lets get some basics straight first.

Terispalli (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I am one of the recent participants. I have been browsing through the articles for over a couple of years now. Initially, I had some hesitation in entering into the discussions for reasons mentioned later in this note. But when I noticed that the quality of the articles (St Thomas Christians & Malabar Nasranis) was not reaching some acceptable standards matching with the high stature of the community, I ventured to make myself heard on the fond hope that it might turn out to be of some benefit. Hence my notes herein. Incidentally, these notes convey only a fragment of my thoughts on the subject.

Now let me come to the reasons referred to above. Just by way of illustration, permit me to narrate a personal experience I had a couple of years ago. I was having a pilgrimage to Lourdes, Fatima, Nice (Nicea), Avignon, Padua, Assisi etc. There were about 45 pilgrims in the conducted tour, including a senior priest from the Malankara Catholic Church. The priest and myself became close companions, as I found that he was almost the only one in the group with whom I could converse meaningfully. When he brought up the subject of St Thomas and Nampoothiri conversion, I happened to hint that the subject was still shrouded in legends, but the community was nonetheless talking about it as if it were an irrefutable fact. Although he was a man of balance and poise, his reaction was startling. Straightaway he interjected: "Then, who are we? Are we bastards?"

How irrationally emotional are we? Can't we subordinate our emotion to reason? When some legend collides and conflicts with reason, we come across a paradox there. And then we either reject the legend, or look for evidence to prove it, or treat it as just a heart-warming story to be given some space in our history books.

This well-known, severely limiting, restricting weakness of the community is what made me hesitant to enter the discussion initially.

Look at the Hindu community. If you say that Rama was a figment of imagination, or if you doubt aloud how Ayyappan could be the offspring of a gay union (between male gods Vishnu & Siva), the obscurantist Parivaris will be up in arms.

No not particularly. Kerala is the state in India where the Parivar have the least influence, and many more myths among the dogmatic Christian religion are directly in conflict with science, and require huge leaps of faith, and to be taken literally, whereas most of Hinduism is taken figuratively as is open to interpretation. No one would have literally interpreted Ayyapan to be born resulting from homosexuality or whatever you are suggesting.

Or you criticise Velu Thampi before some ordinary Tvm Nair. You know how he would react.

I expect the Christian communities to be reasonable and try to digest stories and legends with a modicum of sanity and realism.

So worshipping some obscure conflicting accounts of life a miracle man from the Middle-East as "lord and saviour" literally should automatically imply that Christian communities are reasonable, and yet some are desperate to claim Brahmin heritage, despite the obvious date mismatches. I suppose the people of southern U.S.A can be described as reasonable and "try to digest stories and legends with a modicum of sanity and realism" too. 220.239.190.4 (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be kept in view that every one who comes up with a contrarian view need not necessarily be an enemy of the community. Many of them are friends, true friends. In fact, a contrarian or a critic could be a greater friend than most of the smug obscurantists and fanatics emotionally clinging to irrational beliefs. You should be able to distinguish between friends & foes. But such distinguishing becomes difficult when our our own minds are clouded, when we are nursing injured emotions.

Before concluding, let me reiterate the need for a comprehensive edit of the articles in terms of contents, language and perspective, in conformity with the high standing of the community.Doubtingtom (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Doubtingtom (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Whether or not the foundation myth of the Saint Thomas Christians have a historically accurate basis, it is their "foundation myth" (using "myth" in a technical sense). That makes it of notable interest and hence encyclopaedic. The historicity of the "myth" might conveniently be discussed in a separate section, provided it is done dispassionately, providing an accurate statement of all viewpoints. I approach the question as a Christian from a different tradition. Because I do not know the subject, I refrain form editing the article. However, I doubt there are 1000 worthwhile books on the subject. I expect there are at least a dozen, and they probably contradict each other; this means that it is difficult for most of us to provide an adequate synthesis with a NPOV, but some one should try. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to copy and paste of some Pariwar literature

It is waste of time to give reply to these kind of bashings. There are more than 1000 books written closely examining the St. Thomas tradition and the orgin of these Christians, suggest my dear friends to be some what educative on what they are talking..

It will be a nice idea to keep the email chains hatred on you email box than pasting it here.

Terispalli (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

We had the benefit of reasoned observations from some of our "recent participants". To me, their comments were not only thought-provoking, but were indicative of some sort of awakening process, maturing process, through which the article was passing. Constructive criticism from different angles could trigger healthy debates and create conducive atmosphere for brain storm sessions enabling the users to verify unverified assumptions that form the basis of current beliefs.

The above en masse, bigotic condemnation of them as Parivaris seems to have either discouraged them from pursuing with their contribution, or they must have resigned to the belief that after all things won't improve in any way with the present set of people "guarding" the article.

My own belief that they are not Parivaris is based on the under-noted two factors:

For, had they been Parivaris,

(1) they would have stubbornly persisted in their comments, if necessary with gang support; their propaganda machinery is so full of fire-power (although mostly unethical) that they would not blink before such peevish comments and easily give up their machinations;

(2) they could have directly attacked (vandalised) the article itself instead of contenting themselves with discussions.

(I may mention here that a few years ago I could successfully stop a rampant Parivari infiltration/invasion into a TV discussion forum by taking up the matter personally with the Chairman of that Channel. And he straightaway withdrew the forum. And the Webmaster might have had to pay his penalty.)

So, please stop seeing a Parivari hiding behind every bush ready to pounce upon you just because you don't like the idea (the "bush"), or because you think the pervasive Parivaris are all out looking for an opportubity to destroy your fixed beliefs. Shed such paranoia.

I am sure the article will certainly improve to a level deserving of a modern community, if the best minds, searching minds, of the community could be attracted to edit this Wikipedia article. Doubtingtom (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Namboothiri Brahmins converted?

I would like to get clarification on a point raised in this article: that St. Thomas had converted Namboothiri Brahmins to become Christians.

The Namboothiris had a strong sense of superiority over other castes, highlighting their position as the highest order of brahmins in India. Namboothiris used to practice Aitha or pollution. Not only lower castes, but even higher castes were not allowed inside Namboothiri houses. Migrant Brahmins like Iyers, Saraswat Brahmins are also considered lower in status because of their non-priestly occupations in Kerala. Non-Hindus were also considered to be of lower social status by the Namboothiris in ancient times. Namboothiris enjoyed their status as the highest caste, and it is unlikely that they would convert to a new foreign religion (in 52 A.D.), thus compromising their social status. Furthermore, a conversion by Namboothiris would herald a larger conversion by other castes to Christianity, since the Namboothiris were thought to be the spiritualy gifted and taught religion to the masses of Kerala. A conversion of this scale was not recorded in the 1st Century AD.

Rather, it is most likely that St. Thomas had converted other lower caste Hindus who where seeking to escape the difficulties associated with the caste system in India, as was the case in more recent times. Is there in fact any evidence that those who initially converted to St. Thomas Christianity were Namboothiris? 220.238.203.105 01:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Despite centuries of persecution, Brahmins were at the forefront of Hinduisms defence against Islam and Christianity. Any conversion of Brahmins to other religions has traditionally been at the point of a sword and after severe persecution. WHy would a whole group voluntarily convert to a rival religion?

This is an interesting question. The studies done on Namboothiri families of Kerala clearly illustrates that none of the present day Namboothiries can trace their lineage beyond the sixth century A.D. Major religion of Kerala was Buddhism during the period of Thomas. If we assume that Vedic religion ever was present in Kerala, somehow they lost their religious identiy by the first century. We have to explain this lack of presence of Vedic Brahmins in Kerala till the sixth century AD. The only way we can resolve this issue is the suggestion that the small Vedic community that were in Kerala were converted to Christianity as a whole. Otherwise we will have to assume that there never were Namboothiries - Vedic Brahmins - in Kerala until the sixth century. The fallacy arises from the assumption that Namboothiries were a high class people by the first century A.D. They were probably a minority group under Buddhist or Jain Kings. They came to be King makers only after the sixth century A.D.

Thomas never came to India. Even Pope had told this recently. It is a major hoax of the church to do conversions. His body is in Europe and no person can have 2 skeletons. And Namboodiris were not in Kerala till around 10-11 century (according to Namoodiri authority EMS). So the question of Namboodoris getting converted is just to cover the inferiority complex of the converted souls (all were from low castes like harijans etc). Lastly Christians converted from low castes like Pulayas, ezhavas due to caste discriminations which existed then. And culture wise, Christians closely follow Hindu traditions. Even the festivals , marriage functions, dances etc all are plagiarized well from Hinduism. In US , you could even see christians trying to plagiarize Kathakali (a temple art), Bharath-natyam which seems pretty wierd. Maybe they want to differentiate themselves among the white christians!

Maybe, and maybe thats the real reason I lite fireworks for divali. But Divali isn't celebrated in Kerala, so is that to differentiate myself from other Keralites in addition to differentiating from white christians. In todays world where village kids in Kerala grow up on a diet of Punjabi songs the argument of classifying Katakali as a strictly temple art doesn't hold any water. These are just divisive arguments to augument ones superiority complexes or to assuage some hidden inferiority complex.

I have removed the statements about St Thomas Christians as having been of Nambuthri descent, since the claims have not been verified and seem to be very contradictory. Personally, I find it as being an example of a religious denomination trying to find superiority amongst their fellow people, based on contradictory facts (since Nambuthris arrived at least two centuries after the arrival of St Thomas- who arrived in 52 AD). It is true that the majority of Christians were from backward caste communities who converted to escape caste discrimination (although I have also heard of dispriveleged upper caste members who converted). But why argue about "Hindu" and "Christian" things, in Kerala many practices have mixed. Kathakali is for everyone, so is Bharathanatyam, just as Christmas and Valentines day is becoming widespread as well.Kshatriya Grandmaster 22:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First question to be discussed is the Nambootiri Conversion Theory as regards the origin of Christianity in Keralam? According to the customary belief of the Syrian Christians, an apostle of Jesus Christ, Thomas reached Keralam in the year 52 of CE and converted its most aristocratic jati, i.e., Nambootiries (native Vedic Brahmins), to Christianity.

Brahmins Let us gather some information from the Brahmins first. The first 32 Brahman settlements in kerala.

a) Between rivers Perumpuzha and Karumanpuzha: 1.Payyannur, 2.Perumchellur, 3.Alattiyur, 4.Karantola, 5.Cokiram, 6.Panniyur, 7.Karikkatu, 8.Isanamangalam, 9.Trissivaperur, 10.Peruvanam.

b) Between rivers Karumanpuzha and Churni: 11.Chemmanda, 12.Iringalakkuda, 13.Avattiputtur, 14.Paravur, 15.Airanikkalam, 16.Muzhikkalam, 17.Kuzhavur, 18.Atavur, 19.Chenganatu, 20.Ilibhayam, 21.Uliyannur, 22.Kazhuthanatu.

c) Between river Churni and Kanyakumari: 23.Ettumanur, 24.Kumaraanallur, 25.Vennanad or Kadamuri, 26.Aranmula, 27.Tiruvalla, 28.Kitangur, 29.Chengannur, 30.Kaviyur, 31.Venmani, and 32.Nirmanna.

It is possible that these settlements came up between the third and ninth centuries of the Christian era, i.e., the close of the early historical period in the history of South India, described by historians as the "Sangam Age", and establishment of the Chera kingdom of Mahodayapuram. There is a solitary reference to the northernmost, and thus possibly the oldest, of these settlements, namely Chellur or Perumchellur or Taliparamba, in the Tamil "Sangam" literature with a Vedic sacrificial background and the Parasurama tradition; but the rest of them are clearly products of a later period. It is also clear that all these had been not only established but also sufficiently prosperous by the beginning of the ninth century, when the Chera kingdom was ruling over Kerala from Mahodayapuram. From where did this strange story of Kalli, Kallarakal, Kalliyankal, Plavunkal, Mattamuk, Manavasri, Pakalomattam, Sankarapuri and Thayyil conversion. Except Paravur non of the churches or christian conversions had taken place in any of these gramams or settlements.

Dr. Veluthat, Kesavan, "The Brahman Settlements in Kerala: Historical Studies", Sandhya Publishers, Calicut, 1978.

Beef eating The Syrian Christian's specialty to beef is a very popular phenomenon. So imagine there were lots of brahmins ready for conversion during the arrival of St. Thomas. The ancient beef eating community, prior to the arrival of Christianity, was Parayas (Candalas) of Keralam. Hindus in general and Brahmins in particular since the days of Vedas are worshippers of cows. It is difficult to believe that a simple alteration of religion/faith can effect changes in the food habits of a social group. I have also gathered some information from jewish encyclopedia which tells us some idea of their weddings held in cochin. The date wasnt specific. It says, the costs of the feast are borne by the father of the bride, the father of the groom furnishing only wine and meat (often forty beeves during the fifteen days of the feast, although beef is given only to the servants, the guests being fed with fowl) The birds referred to as fowl is scientifically known as Galloanserae. Chickens are a well-known member of this ancient clade

JewishEncyclopedia.com

Population progression 2001 census

Ezhavas - 22.91%

Nairs - 12.88%

Christians - 19.00%

Brahmins - 1.59%

Does this proportion give some thought. St. thomas converted brahmins, Jews and some Syrian refugees. But out of 19% kerala population roughly 85% are St. Thomas Christians. ie. Approximately 16.5%. Let us assume some sort of forcefull conversion of St. thomas christians had taken place to the most of 6.5% (assumption) in the 15th century. Even then we have a ratio of 1.59:10. As we all know most of the forcefull conversions were to Roman and latin rite during the 15th century. The problem here is that every single St. Thomas christian claims a brahminical or jewish ancestory(But none of paraya or ezhava). The entire jewish population in this world is 14 million and if we look into the syrian christian population its between 6-7 million in and outside India. Presumably jews could not breed like normal people because they have been chased or killed in many countries. In that scanario we have to assume that Malabar was a refugee asylum for jews in olden days? Coming back to christians and brahmins, even if christians made an abonormal birth rate during all these 20 centuries such a difference will not happen. We also cant come to a conclusion that a massive level of migration of the jews, syrian refugees or persians have taken place in the first century. Other than spices kerala is a part of third world. So when we examine the above figures, a logical conclusion can be that most of the conversions would have been from the Ezhavas, or other lower caste hindus.

Religious heads The high priests of the traditional Parayas are called Kaikaran. It is interesting to see that the trustee/prasuventi of Syrian church is still known/identified in the land as Kaikaran. Why did a savarna origin Syrian Christian not go for a savarna term like Kalakakaran or Adhikari instead of a subaltern terminology.

Primitive burial practices

When the head of the Paraya (Candala) community is dead, as per the customary jati law they bury the corpus of the deceased head (moopan) in sitting posture instead of the usual practice of keeping the dead body in lying position. The Kananaya and Saint Thomas Syrian Jacobite/Orthodox factions of Kerala Christians are the only communities other than the Parayas (Candalas) to bury the corpse of their bishops (spiritual head) in the manner of the Paraya moopans of old. No other Christian factions neither upheld nor practiced such a burial system. This burial pattern suggests a very strong socio-cultural or anthropological relation between both communities, which lost their link elsewhere in the deluge of history. Also no such burrial is practiced by Jews, Brahmins of Syrians. Let any one with a normal intelligence draw their own conclusion.BGfromNZ (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Namboothiris not having converted but I strongly disagree with your suggestion of Nairs having converted except a few who lost caste due to pollution or other traditions or were treated unfavourably by customs after a significant period of Nasrani settlement as the first mention of the Nairs is around 700 AD. The vast majority of the converts are from the Pulayar and Ezhava communities and others later classified as part of the "Avarna" jati of Kerala, (credible facts don't suggest otherwise), which can be supported by the phenotypes exhibited by most members of the Nasrani community and logical assumptions of conversion due to unfortunately being on the bad end of the draconian caste system of Kerala. For the record Nairs and Ambalavasis are also technically "upper caste".Nambiar (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Brahmin conversion is not a plausible event by any count. Kshatriyas and Vysyas too are out of question since Kerala has never been known for these two communities. Then come Nairs, Ezhavas and Dalits by the process of elimination. But Nairs were a strong and prosperous community in every sense - financially, socially, politically and militarily. The faith or the ways of such prosperous communities cannot be easily dented by a new faith or religion coming from overseas. Those who are vulnerable are the unfortunate people living in misery and are insecure in their life, looking for some escape route. That is what happened in Rome in the early centuries of the Christian era. It was the plebeans and slaves in Rome who embraced Christianity in the first two or three centuries. And it was after Emperor Constantine became a Christian out of political expediency, that the patricians began to stand in queue for conversion.

All considered, in Kerala, the possibilities are heavily tilted in favour of the downtrodden forefathers of, say, Ezhavas and Dalits whose lot in the country was not in the least enviable. But, historically, the only thing we can say safely at this stage is that no evidence is available for any definite inference.

Jewish conversion is a minor possibility since the number of migrant Jews and tourists might not have been great.

Overall, the needle of possibilities turns to Ezhavas and Dalits, apart from a few Jews here and there. 202.83.41.175 (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and my feeling is that those few Jews and their descendants are the endogamous group called the Knanayas.KBN (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Every Community Needs Folklores

Foolish though, folklores have their own place in the history and tradition of a community or nation. And it is such folklores that give some sort of identity to such communities.

Thus history books on Roman civilization invariably begin with Romulus and Remus who were sired by the war-god Mars and grew up suckling at the teats of a she-wolf and who jointly founded the empire. Romans even ascribe a year for the founding of Rome by these two legendary figures, namely BC 771!

No history book on Kerala begins without the Parasurama myth. Keralites can even be emotional about it, knowing full well that it is pure myth.

St Thomas' story too comes in this category. Thomas landed at Muziris precisely in AD 52, created seven churches, converted none other than the then non-existent Nambuthiri Brahmins, and the story goes on. People always believe what they want to believe. Nothing wrong in it. But then, legends should be presented as legends and not as history.

Likewise, every nation wants some spook or other. For the Syrian Christians of Kerala "Portugese persecution" has come in as a handy spook. This so-called persecution broke their unity. Till then they were one, living in harmony. There was no Orthodox-Jacobite feud, no Marthoma Church etc.

Interestingly, there could be no "Portugese" bogey behind the innumerable schisms and splits that continually broke up Estern Christianity over centuries. This Christianity split into East Syriac West Syriac, Assyrian and other innumerable sects, and some convenient bogeys need to be invented.

If we start reasoning, the whole of Thomasine folklore will crumble. And the most incomprehensible one that will not stand is Mar Thoma's mission to convert Brahmins (to the exclusion of others), considering the fact that Jesus himself and all his disciples (including Thoma) were of lower castes.

But then, as I said, every one needs heroes and antiheroes, holy cows and spooks. Asarthose (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Great post.Nambiar (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Thomasine Church; a proper name

There was an article here which listed the actual Thomasine Church. That is this church's proper name but Wiki-folk have seen fit to use it as a blanket term. That is improper to say the least. This catagory should be listed as the Schools of St. Thomas because that is what theologians, biblical historians and biblical archeaologists like Finkelstein, Silberman, Pagels, Miller, and Funk use. They are well respected scholars and not prone to religious ideologies. If this doesn't suffice use Churches and Schools of St. Thomas. --69.19.14.18 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

I have moved the following to this page, since it actually only refers to a single "Free Catholic" St. Thomas group and is misleadingly general.

In 1987 an "ecumenical" presbytery was created in America, which gave birth to the Eparchy of Saint Thomas of India in Absentia and the Servants of the Holy Cross, a reference to the ancient Marthomite Cross. With renewed interest coming from North America and Europe, several other new jurisdictions were created, including the transfer of the Indian-Portuguese Rite in 1991 to the United States under +Mar Isagelos, Catholicos of the St. Thomas Christians in America.

[edit] the external links section needs fixing

Can somebody who knows about the issues referred to in the external links section fix the page. ~Vinodmp 20 June, 2004

Here are the contents moved from the article. Perhaps it can be moved to Saint Thomas Christian Church. Jay 14:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) :

Start

The Saint Thomas Christian Church (aka The Holy Aposolic Evangelical Orthodox Mar Thoma Nazarani Church of the East & Abroad) exists in India, Syria, Israel, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, Portugal, Europe, Southern Russia and in North and South America. The Patriarchal See is in the United States of America. Our Apostolic Succession is from Catholicos-Patriarch of the East, H.H. Mar +Binyamin Shimun (1890). Later we received Apostolic Succession from the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch H.H. Mar Yusef Emmanuel II Thoma and H.E. Mar +Timotheos Villatte (1921). We are Assyrian Church of the East in Faith and Portuguese-Malakaran in Practice..though we have diversity in Liturgical Rites. Our Catholicos-Patriarch is H.H. Mar +Isagelos Michai (Portuguese Indian), who resides presently in the United States of America...much like the Church of the East's Patriarch H.H. Mar +Dinkha resides in Chicago, Ill. USA. We do call our Patriarchate the Holy See of Mar +Thoma & Mar +Ehodah haTzidaq (St. James the Just). I.E. The Holy See of Jerusalem.

We are not West Syrian Orthodox (Jacobites), nor are we in communion with any Monophysite Communion. We accept the First two Councils, the Christiology of Chalcedon and the Christiological Concord between the Pope, Patriarch of the Catholic Chaldeans and the Catholicos Patriarch of the East etsablished in the mid 90s. We esteem St. John Nestorios as a Martyr for the True Faith..which was validated at Chalcedon. We view his expulsion and the Ephesian Council as a kangaroo court which falsified Nestorios' true beliefs. We are Nestorians in this sense only..not in the sense Jacobites and Eastern Orthodox claim us to be.

H.G. Mar +Kenat'el W. Huffman DM

Abuna Qasha & Bishop of the Pacific Northwest (AEOC)

www.aeoc.org/diocese/cnc

www.jicb.org

www.aeoc.org

End

The key consideration here is, as always, when looking at some small Christian group that one has never heard of but which calls itself "Catholic" or "Orthodox" is to look for one name: "Vilatte". Vilatte was an Old Catholic hierarch (originally a Roman Catholic studying for Holy Orders) who wandered around the USA and Canada from roughly 1880-1920 and ordained a large number of men to Episcopal rank with no authorization from his own or any other synod to do so. In 1925, he returned to Roman Catholicism and made a formal repentance and repudiation of all the ordinations he had performed. Any group that comes from his activities is most accurately called "Vilattist", as there is nothing else that unifies them. It's a good rule of thumb that any group that has found full recognition from an older-than-1900 organization will drop the Vilatte association like a hot rock. - 68.78.3.53

But what exactly do St Thom. C. believe? How does it match or differ from other branches of the religion?

Does it have any sort of differences due to its great antiquity that have been lost in more western christianity? FT2 02:30, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] merge?

I'm by no means an expert, but I'd think, that Nasrani should either be merged with Saint Thomas Christians or with Knanaya. --Pjacobi 23:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Nasrani as an Ethnic community

You stated that the pages Nasrani, Saint Thomas Christians or Knanaya should be merged.

No, it would be erroneous to do that. The article Saint Thomas Christians deals with the Nasrani people of Kerala as a religious group and seeks to describe its religious denominations and other related aspects. While the article Nasrani deals with the Nasrani people of Kerala as an ethnic people. (infact see the category in which the article Nasrani is listed at the end of that article).

In the same way that there is a significant difference between Jew and Judaism, there is a difference between Nasrani and Saint Thomas Christians. Jew deals with the entire ethnic community of the people of Jewish heritage and descent, or those people born of a Jewish mother. But Judaism is the religion followed by the ethnic community of Jewish people. The two concepts do highly overlap and are related but nevertheless they are independent in basic aspects and is treated as different.

In like manner, the nasranis is an ethnic community and in that sense a single community. However the ethnic community has various denominations as a result of the portuguese persecution. As an ethnic community they refer to themselves as Nasranis refering to the common cultural heritage and cultural tradition. However as a religious group they refer to themselves as the Mar Thoma Khristianis or in english as Saint Thomas Christians refering to the various and diverse [[[denomination]]s between them in terms of their religious tradition, despite a common ancestory of being the descendants of the early Mar Thoma church or Saint Thomas tradition of christianity.

The Knanaya people on the other hand is another denomination within the Mar Thoma church also called as (Mar Thoma khristiani) meaning Saint Thomas Christians. However they are a distinct community within the Nasrani ethnic group. Because of their long endogamous tradition.

This aspect is already written in the first paragraph of both the articles. Please read them carefully. Else this article would have been merged long back. The article Nasrani deals with the traditions of the nasrani community as an ethnic people and their present life (which has to be expanded. Robin klein 04:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge; the one is about an ethnic community, the other is about a religious tradition. Tb (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Namboothiri Brahmins converted?

I would like to get clarification on a point raised in this article: "that St. Thomas had converted Namboothiri Brahmins to become Christians".

[edit] Aneesh Thottackad

What is it and why does 202.83.42.200 keep sticking it in?

Mikereichold 07:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It is probably the editor's name or something, and he's doing it because it's fun. His fun won't last, don't worry. -Splash^talk 07:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Link

under Nasrani religious jurisdictions, there is a link to "Thomasine Church", which redirects to this very page.

OK, I fixed it (hopefully). — goethean ॐ 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Defunct Links

I'm not sure if these are the same links but I've put comments by them to mark them out. Secos5 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marthoma church

I think that the chart of Saint Thomas Christian denominations should list the Marthoma Church as Oriental Orthodox Reformed since Protestantism emerged in Europe with the movement of Martin Luther. The Marthoma church believes that it is a valid Orthodox church with its first Metrapolitan consecrated by the Patriarch at Mardin

It is completely wrong to list Marthoma church as a protestent church. In the chart also it is listed as protestant church. In the aricle about Mar_Thoma_Church it is clearly mentioned that

The Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, commonly referred to as the Mar Thoma Church is a Reformed offshoot of the pre-16th century undivided Saint Thomas Christians, and got its current identity in 1889, even though it was born much earlier. It has its roots in a reformist movement started by a teacher-priest of the Syrian Orthodox Church, Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan (popularly known as Abraham Malpan) in the early part of the 19th Century. It is one of several groups of Saint Thomas Christians tracing their origins to St. Thomas the Apostle who, according to tradition, came to India in AD 52.

How is this defintion, and categorizing the church as a protestent church will go together. It is a Reformed offshoot of the pre-16th century undivided Saint Thomas Christians. Eventhough it is a reformed church it is never considered as a protestant church by church historians. They consider the Mar Thoma Church as Oriental Orthodox(Reformed). --Shijualex 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Mar Thoma Church should not be listed as Protestant, I'm a member of this church, and I truely agree with this, but someone keeps on referring the church as Protestant. --Schacko0205 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to Previous copy

Undid vandalism [[1]] by User:65.211.65.202 and revert to previous edition--Kathanar 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

The issue of "Nambuthri Brahmins" having converted to Christianity has been questioned since the 25th of January 2006 (see above), and still no one has provided any evidence or citations to back up this fact or removed them from this article. Here is a sample of such unverified statements:

"The tradition of Christians of Thomas is a much more reliable source of information than the Acts Of Thomas. According to this tradition thousands of locals including Brahmins, Kshathriyas and Dravidians were baptized by St Thomas."

(The problem in this statement is that there were no Nambuthri brahmins or Kshatriyas in Kerala at that time- unless you can prove it with facts)

"The ministry of St. Thomas covered a period of twenty years from 52 A.D. till 72 A.D. St.Thomas had established churches all over India from Taxila to Kerala. It was one of the main religions of India along with Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism." (This is a statement which must be verified. Taxila during 1st-3rd century AD was under the Kushan Empire, which involved mainly Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism with Hellenic influences)

"According to the Acts of Thomas, the first converts made by Thomas in India were some Malabari Jews............Tradition is that the Apostolate of St.Thomas arrived in Kerala in the 1st century, and contact with some Brahmins in Palayur and converted them to Christian faith in the first Century. These Nambudiri Brahmins were India's first St.Thomas Christians."

I suggest that the conflicting information relating to the "Acts of Thomas" and the "Tradition of Christians of Thomas" should be made clearer (perhaps under another heading). The above statements may or may not be correct, however citations and references must be presented. Until then, or the statements are corrected, I suggest that the pov tag should remain. Kshatriya Grandmaster 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV tag

I don’t think there is a need for an additional paragraph for traditions.

Here is the suggested editing of the unverified statements. If everyone agree please remove the POV tag.

First statement- "The tradition of Christians of Thomas is a much more reliable source of information than the Acts Of Thomas. According to this tradition thousands of locals including Brahmins, Kshathriyas and Dravidians were baptized by St Thomas." This need to be re written as

“According to the tradition many high caste Brahmin families were also baptized by St Thomas.The head of the Malabar Church - the Archdeacon - had to be selected from Pakalomattom, a Namboothiri family that adorned Christianity. This practice was continued till 1816 AD that adorned Christianity.

Source- http://www.gsbkerala.com/christ/christian.htm There are enorums church documents to prove that.

About non existence of a vedic population, many historians have not ruled out the possibility of a small vedic society at that period.

Refer the article-Aspects of the Idea of “Clean and Unclean” among the Brahmins, the Jews, and the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala -Prof.George Menachery

http://www.indianchristianity.com/html/Books10.htm

ST. Thomas Tradition & the Indian sojourn in foreign sources

http://www.geocities.com/nmappila/D2007/1.htm

http://nasrani.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/mar-thoma-the-apostolic-foundation-of-the-assyrian-church-and-the-christians-of-st-thomas-in-india/

Second statement- "The ministry of St. Thomas covered a period of twenty years from 52 A.D. till 72 A.D. St.Thomas had established churches all over India from Taxila to Kerala. It was one of the main religions of India along with Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism."

I don’t see anything wrong with statement on establishing churches from Taxila to kerala, as acts of thomas talks about king gundaphorus and there have been many coins discovered of lately of king gundaphorus. Few decades back king gundaphorus was considered as an imaginary figure but archeological proofs are reinfocring the validlity of atcs of thomas. May be the sentence that it was one of the main religion can be removed as that is not established.

Third statement-

Let me know if everyone aggress so that we can remove the POV tag.

--Thennattu10th Feb 2007

Dear Thennattu!

If the bridge has a problem it should be with the pillars. So let us examine the truth of conversion in 52AD, ie the arrival of St. Tomas. If we cant prove his arrival, then the whole conversion of Jews, Brahmins or Syrians are a myth. The truth is that we don't have any evidence even from the highest hierarchy of Christian institutions to support that. Let us have a look at the Mylopore tomb.

Had St Thomas been buried in Mylapore the Christians in South India would have thronged to his tomb from 1st century onward.This had never happened till 16th century when the Portuguese made it important.History does not speak of any traditional Christians from Mylapore claiming their origin from StThomas time either.

In 1522AD when the tomb at Mylapore was excavated by the Portuguese a full skeleton of a body with an earthern pot was found This was contrary to the belief in all the ancient churches that the holy relics were removed to Edessa in 232 AD

The name of the place where St. Thomas was buried is Calamina according to various records available as on date. There is no such place in Madras .Calamina does not mean any thing in Tamil, where as Mylapore means place of peacocks.

The tomb at Mylapore is in North South direction as opposed to the Christian tradition of East-West direction. The Mar Thoma Cross (Bleeding cross), installed in St. Thomas Mount at Mylapore bears a white dove on the top, six petals facing downwards and six petals facing upwards at the bottom of the cross signifying light world (petals facing upwards), and dark world (petals facing downwards). These are evidences that this cross is not the one used by St Thomas. Moreover the writings on the cross are in Pahlavi language (Persian), which is neither the language spoken by St. Thomas nor the local language (Tamil).

Excavations conducted on the spot proved that the church on the hill was of Armenian origin constructed about 530AD. The Armenians were in possession of the shrine for a very long period. These Armenian merchants in Madras were not Christians of St Thomas origin.On clearing up to a depth of sixteen spans of the grave in July 1523AD, some bones of the skull and some of the spines were found with an earthen vessel at the foot of the tomb. The Cathedral of Ortona where the relics of St. Thomas were shifted from Edessa in 1144 AD bear testimony of a silver bust of St. Thomas which contained his skull. This skull of the Apostle enclosed in a silver casket was exposed for public veneration during the feast of St. Thomas, (Pg. 74 of the book, "In the steps of St. Thomas"). There is also another casket of his relics kept separately. Hence they cannot be excavated from the tomb at Mylapore in 1522 AD. If the relics of St Thomas were removed in the 3rd century AD to Edessa, how can the skull remain intact in the tomb at Mylapore in the 15th century? This proves beyond doubt that the tomb at Mylapore is not that of St. Thomas.

The Syrian Christians of Malankara realized the importance of Mylapore only after the Portuguese constructed a church in the 16th century AD. How can such place of importance remain unknown to the traditional St. Thomas Christians from the 1st century AD? The Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the translation of the body of St. Thomas from his tomb to Edessa took place in the year 232 AD and on that occasion were written Syrian Acts of the saints. The Roman Martyrology assigns the memory of the saint’s martyrdom to December 21st and that of the translation of the body (to Edessa) to July3rd. These dates surprisingly coincide with the main feasts of the saint as celebrated by the Syrian Christians of Kerala.

There are five crosses similar to the one at St. Thomas Mount, Mylapore, two in Valiapally Church, Kottayam, one at Kadamattam , one at Muthuchira ,Malabar, and the fifth at Anuradhapura, Ceylon. The three crosses i.e. one at St Thomas Mount Madras and two at Valiapally, Kottayam bear Sassanian Pahlavi inscriptions almost identical. The Pahlavi inscriptions on these crosses were one, which existed during the rule of NarassahiShah in Persia (293-302AD). This is not evidently the language that could be used by St Thomas in the 1st century as claimed in the case of StThomas Cross at Mylapore.

So this logical evidences coupled with history clearly shows that the arrival of St. Thomas is some sort of folklore created by the downtrodden Christian converts who wanted some class status in the society. But most of the game plan was contributed by the Portugues who played a vital role in Indian christianity. The social class game of christians had a formal turn only during the tenure of british when many lands were gifted to the Syrian Christians for the support to plot the trap of warier king Pazhassi Raja.

The history also states that some rich St.Thomas christians had privileges in the society. That doesnt mean that this huge amount of christians were rich and enjoyed the same. If so why kerala did not turn into a industrial giant like tamilnadu. Kerala has the highest amount of unemployment and the least amount of business.BGfromNZ (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag removed

As there was no response to my suggestions i corrected the article and removed the POV tag.Please discuss before making any changes.---Thennattu March 28th 2007

[edit] Apostolic Throne of St Thomas

There are no proffs existing for an Apostolic Throne of St Thomas in Kerala.

Points:

[1] No evidences, not even in traditions or any of the early century writings.

[2] St Thomas Christians always recived Bishops from Eastern Syria including few nestorians.

[3] This article has no relevance and it should be removed as its just part of the local politics of the n number of factions of St Thomas Christians.

Kevin 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have any proof. Malabari 07:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Malabari

[edit] Traditions

St Thomas tradition of arriving at Musiris. Many historians are of the opion that Maliyankara didnot exist at that time. Kodungallur, known as Musiris in the whole ancient world, and where St. Thomas the Apostle first landed in India, was till the 15th century the “Rome” of India both as the centre of the Indian Church and as its gateway to world-trade through its famous harbour at the mouth of the river Periyar.

Churches of St. Thomas (it will be better to call them villages where Christian faith was preached by an ancient man) lies along a trade route starting from eastern sub port of Muziris at Chettuva lake (Palayur church is located on the shore of this lake), then Maliyankara (it is doubtful whether Maliankara existed at that time. It does not matter at all as it could be at Kottuvallykad or Kuriapilly which are parts of Maliyankara township) on the southern shore of river at Kodungallur, Paravur a few Km west of Kuriapilly, inside the ancient Muziris port, Kokkamangalam on the shore of Vembanad lake which has connection with Kodungallur lake, then Niranam on the outskirts of Ancient Melkinda Trade Centre of Pandia Kings and Nilakkal near Sabarimala on the Melkinda-Madurai land trade route. This man must have gone to Madurai and then to the Chozha Kingdom. He must have gone from Kodungallur to Kalady and Malayattur (nearby places) in search of the Chera King.

Please discuss before anyone makes chnages diectly :Kevin

[edit] Not Just Malabar Nasrani

St Thomas Christians are from all over India and are not constituted solely from among the Nasranis of the Malabar coast.82.6.114.172 11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The term St Thomas Christians

The term St Thomas Christians are used only for Syrian Malabar Nasrani traditional churches.It doesnot even include any protestant or evangelical churches.

I have made corrections removing the evangalical churches.If anyone wants to icnlude it discuss it.

maharishisy, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who has given you right Maharshisy, to interpret the christian church in india ?

Wht this guy is doing is the vandalism !!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&curid=251667&diff=144107250&oldid=143955229

You basically have no knowledge of the christian history of india !!!

Being a reseacher in christian history .... I dont agree with this edit !!!

St. Thomas Evangelical Church broke away from Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church and St. Thomas Evangelical Fellowship of India (broke away from St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India)

Study the history man !!!

Tinucherian 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks user Tinucherian. I belive you are new to this.

About the Church history i very well know what i am talking and dont just claim.

If you want i can give you a list of more than 40 evangelical and protestant churches who has some membership of anywhere between 10 people to 2000 based on refernacable sources. No just claims solicited.

Those are mostly from the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church you are talking ( for ur info the same church constitute less than 4 % of total population of St Thomas Chrisitans). St Thomas Christianity is not politics to divide and grow and divide. Its about traditions, its not any Pentecostal or Evangelical movement also. To attract St thomas Christians especially from the same church mentioned some people like this user claim that all the n number of evangalist churches are part of St Thomas Chrisitans.

Tomorrow when some one like this user becomes a head pastor and start a new penetecostal church he wants inclusion of that also.To do justice to all these claims we might need a twenty or thirty page article and more ever the importance is not on less than 1 percent of the total population.

Already this article has some points explaining that Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church communion is with Evanelical and Protestant churches. We dont need any more entries to highlight less than 1 % of the total population.

To substantive what i am talking let me elaborate in two points.

1] Please see the article http://nasrani.net/2007/02/13/hello-world/. This talks about the St Thomas Christians Demography based on the best available sources. It only talks about the traditional churches. Not just this article any article or well authors books on St Thomas Christians its all about traditional churches.

Reference-

St Thomas Christian Encylopedia- Prof George Menanchery, Demographic history of the Syrian Christians of Kerala- Dr. K.C. Zachariah

2] St Thomas Christianity is Apostolic Christianity, its not any evangelical movements. You just have catholic and orthodox and reformed Syrians who are part of apostolic tradition in it.

3] This addition of Evangelical churches is new and its just in Wiki and its not a reflection of reality. When the article was made in Wiki this was not added. Some one later did that with out discussion.

Till a conscious is reached as per the WP:DR. I am removing the controversial inclusion and lets wait for other comments with logical quotes from credible sources.I request user Tinucherian co operation in solving as per Wiki guideline

maharshisy, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting of Further comments on St Thomas Chrsitian term

As per WP:DR. there is a dispute on St Thomas Christian term and i request readers co operation who have understanding to resolve the issue based on referancable quotes and sources.

To explian the points i raised i quoted 1] Book by world bank demographer 2] Well known Church historian,the chief editor of first ecumenical inititive the St Thomas Chrsitians Encylopedia.

maharshisy, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial section with out any referance

Who has added the section on Brahmin background with out any reference. I think few fanatics are more interested in this artilce. if we people go around each of caste article there will be lot to say. Its better that people wont start that. Editors should remove the section on belief in brahmin background.Half of its new stories and doesnot have any referance. There are other legeneds about each communites i can paste that if some one wants.

maharshisy, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments on Maharishy's well-meant observations: Let me mention, by way of preface, that my family has for generations claimed filial relationship and has maintained friendly connections with a well-known, flourishing Brahmin family in Kerala, although the scions of the latter have always taken any such insinuations with light-hearted laugh. I am sure many a Christian family in the State would have similar, known connections and episodes to relate.

But, in my view, the new section in the article, of which Maharishy has expressed reservations, contains a logic-based observation worthy of consideration. Such observations tend to provide a 360 degree view of the subject - a fuller, comprehensive, complete view. Otherwise, the article as it stands now can acquire the nuances of a sponsored website.

There are a few other sections too in the article that might need a close review, one such section being about Portugese "persecution". It is well-known that there are differences of opinion on this subject even within the Roman Catholic Church, even within the Roman Curia itself. The article's credibility itself would be enhanced if these views too are briefly brought in side by side in the section, with or without any revision in the existing write-up. Such a fuller treatment of the issue would give the reader a rounded, dispassionate picture of the subject. The worst that can happen to an encyclopedic article on a community is its possible evolution as a community website. I trust the editors would apprecite this.

Saktan Thampuran 14:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC) (Note: Incidentally, Maharshy's article seems to have got post-dated.)

I have removed the controversial sections with out any reference. Wikipedia has a policy and if you have some reference we can discuss about it. St Thomas Christians article is not a place for some one to come and put their views about any Hindu community. If some one likes a 360 degree view first go and correct the articles about the many castes and communities in kerala. After all this article is about St Thomas Christians not about Namboothiris. They are a tolerant community but that doesnot mean that some one can use them to score points against any community.

I request the editors not to enterian this kind of historians.There are hundrad of these kind of stories against each community mostly of very late orgin and if we start discussing about these stories it needs a 1000 page book.

If some one has some observations better go there and put that in their article.

If you have your on view points please publish papers and get that discussed among historians and come here. This is not any testing ground.This article is about St Thomas Christians not about any other community.

What makes me remember is an observation made by Dr. M.G.S. Narayanan, Dr. Veluthat Kesavan.

From the beginning of the second millennium A.D. there has been a continuous attempt to glorify the achievements and attributes of Nampoothiries in Kerala.

From the middle of the 19th century, with Nair ascendancy, many books have been written emphasising the achievements of Nairs, who were as Sudras duty bound until recently to serve the other three castes. thousan years Nairs ruled the state with Namputhiri support.all the Royals and most of the soldiers are from that community.even the Chrisitian center of Kottayam 90% of lands were belongs to Nairs.ref: "Declian of Nair dominance" by Dr:Robin Jeffry

Finally today there is a proliferation of works on Dalit primacy.

Unfortunately I don’t think St Thomas Christians article is a place for anyone to score some points about any other community.

Then the other allegations you put doesnot need any answer. Reference are provided better read that.

About the Nambotiri orgin we have reference that the Namboothiri history claims orgin from 7th Century in the Nasrani article which talks about the St Thomas Chrisitans as an ethnic community.Also about the shaivite scholar Manikka Vachkar.

The custom of white dress, the njori or fan-like appendix at the back and the taboo regarding the use of nasal ornaments among the highest ranking Nambudhiri women or Antharjanams is perhaps copied from the St.Thomas Christian women because such customs are not to be found among Brahmins anywhere else in the country. Compulsory use of white dress and the avoidance of Nasabharanam are among the sixty four Anacharams of Adi Sankaracharya (850 AD). Added to these when we study the unique seventy two royal-priestly privileges enjoyed by all Thomas Christians for more than a millennium and when we notice the increasing scholarly opinion that the Nabudhiris are perhaps a community with only a thousand or so years’ history in Kerala, the temptation is strong to conclude that the christians were perhaps the original Nambudhiris, some of whom became Vedic Hindus later on.

http://nasrani.net/2007/02/13/defining-a-kerala-syrian-christian/

There are so many other points which has a reference to mention and I don’t think St Thomas Christians article is a place for anyone to come and score some points against any community.

Again this article in Wikipedia is not a copy from any community web site. A close look at other catse articles in wiki clearly tells you the standard of this article.May be you are uneducated there are many books and articles written on all the theroies about St Thomas Chrisitans discussing about it at lenght.Why we people dont add all stories is for making this short to the point with all different view points.

maharshisy, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The deleted para seems to make sense. So, I am reverting it. Cochinite 11:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fanatics - multiple id's same message no referance :

I am observing this for sometime. I don’t know why all religious fanatics seems to show great interest and enthusiasm in St Thomas Christians article.

One guy wake up suddenly in one day with a dream story ( antiquity is 20-15 days ) and showing guts to come to St Thomas Chrsitians article to score points against Nampoothrir community. Great approach for dalit supremacy. We are not medaitotors for anyones problem.

Following are the observations I have to make.

1. This article is about St Thomas Christians not about Nampoothiri orgins. If some one has there on story go and publish paper as mentioned by some one.Wiki is not a place to paste stories. 2. I request authors attention to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namboothiri Article.

“The Namboothiris' own tradition holds that Parashuraaman recovered the land (of Kerala) from the sea and bestowed it upon them. The excavations made proves that Kerala was once under the sea, as fossils of ancient marine animals were found from almost all parts of Kerala. The belief of modern Historians that Namboothiries migrated to Kerala after 5th century is certainly wrong, considering the fact that even in geographically separated (From Indian subcontinent) SriLanka, there were Sanskrit influences as early as the third century BCE. When the Mauryan Emperor Asoka sent Buddhist missionaries to Srilanka around 275 BCE the capital of Sril Lanka was named Anuradhapura (See Mahavamsa). As it is certain that Sanskrit coexisted with Aryan/Brahmin societies, it can be considered that Srilanka was a Hindu land with Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras along with outcastes (Chandalas). The King had established marriage relations with Asoka and the whole Kingdom was converted to Buddhism. Hinduism reappeared in the island only around 1000 AD when Cholas conquered it and established the province of MummudiChola Mandalam (Jaffna Peninsula) and settled it with Hindu Tamilians. The presence of Sanskrit speaking Aryans in SriLanka as early as 275 BCE proves that in geographically connected (with India) Kerala there were Namboothiri Brahmins as early as 275 BCE and that the Chera Kings of Kerala of the time were noble Kshatriyas and not Dravidians. The Mauryan inscriptions mention the Cheras as Kerala Putras. This proves that Vedic religion predates Dravidian culture, Buddhism and Jainism and Communism in Kerala. The Christian Tradition of Kerala also confirms this as Syrian Catholics consider themselves descendants of those Namboothiries who were banished from Namboothiri community when they give food and shelter to St.Thomas (who was considered a Mlechcha by the orthodox Namboothiri community), the apostle of Christianity who came to India in AD 52. Namboothiries are mentioned in Sangam literarture as early as 200 BCE (as described in Sangam literature, Dandi's story)” If some one wants to score points please go and put their observation in discussion board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Namboothiri_Brahmin

I request editors intervention to tackle this kind of fanatics.

I have removed the section.

Tarijanel, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for other users to help, post at Request for Comment as a good starting point. The {helpme} tag is for users with questions to post on their user talk pages; it isn't equivalent to a request for comment. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The hoax of Nambudiri ancestry and St. Thomas conversion

Nambudiri settlements came up between the third and ninth centuries of the Christian era in Kerala.In "Sangam" documents dated to second century AD there is but a solitary reference to the northernmost, and thus possibly the oldest, of these settlements, namely Chellur or Perumchellur or Taliparamba, The Tamil "Sangam" literature has first, second third eras etc so this particular "sangam" document that we are talking about dates back only to second century A.D and talks about a Vedic sacrife in the Parasurama tradition at Taliparamba (in Kannur district). Let us look at in detail, it is well-known that Parasuraman or Bhargavaraman tradition is cherished by all the Brahmins of the west coast. The tradition originated in the Sourastra region and moved gradually southward. Archaeological evidences also go to suggest that the Brahmanical tradition of Vedic sacrifices moved to the south along the westcoast. For instance, the Vadagaon-Madhavpur inscription, discovered from a site associated with ancient brick structures and Satavahana coins, speaks of a Vajapeya Yajnam performed by a person of the Kasyapa Gothram. This reference, attributed to the 2nd century B.C.,has its counterpart in the mention of a sacrifice in literature in a village further south. This is further endorsed by another song by the same poet, Madurai Marutan Illanakanar, in which Chellur is described as a place where gods receive sacrifice. So there is no documentary evidence to prove the existence of Nambudiris in Kerala before Second century however you look at it.

The churches and individual alike have extensively produced fraud documents to support fraudulent claims of either a Nambudiri ancestry or St Thoma´s visit to India. To make things worse , the St. Thomas myth was propagated in Tamilnadu as well. The most recent example is the following. The International Institute of Tamil Studies, sponsored and funded by the Government of Tamil Nadu, had published in 1985-86 a book titled Viviliyam, Tirukkural, Shaiva Siddhantam Oppu Ayu. The writer of the book was a Christian. The University of Madras had conferred a doctor’s degree on the author for writing this dissertation. The thesis propounded by him was that the ancient Tamil saint, Tiruvalluvar, had become a disciple of St. Thomas and converted to Christianity. N. Krishnaswami Reddiar, a retired judge’ of the high court denounced this book as “trash in the name of research.” The visit of St. Thomas to India was a myth, and wondered how a book like that could be published by an institute set up by the Government and honored by the University of Madras with a doctorate. Dr. R. Nagaswami, eminent archaeologist, also censored the institute and the university for sponsoring a spurious thesis, and said that the St. Thomas story “was a ruse to spread Christianity in India". The author had collaborated with a "ceratin important post holder within the catholic church of Madras", in writing another but similar book, Perinbu Villakku, published in 1975. This person had also tried to prove that Tiruvalluvar had come in contact with St. Thomas during the latter’s travels in South India, and converted to Christianity !!!!. But he had gone much further, and forged ‘evidence’ on palmleaf scrolls in support of his thesis. He had employed a Hindu scholar of Christianity, for this purpose, and paid him to the tune of 15 lakh rupees. The fraud had been exposed when someone put the police on the trail . The case had dragged on in the Madras metropolitan court from 1980 to 1986 when the forgerer was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment on various counts. However the "certain important person of the church" had got him acquitted by means of a civil suit for compromise filed in the Madras High Court at the same time that the criminal case was going on. A simple perusal of the records of the court should be sufficient.

So the story that St. Thomas visited in India and the Nambudiri ancestry story is a hoax. Let us try to beleive the St. thomas visit story (dated AD 52) for a minute, even under such supposition there was no documentary evidence older than second century A.D for Nambudiris in Kerala!!!!!. The fraudulent scrolls and stories propagated are just for the purpose of claiming a superior descent which is a shame. Being followers of the teachings of Jesus have to be the source of pride for christians and looking upto false stories on descent from preistly class of another religion is the most insulting act to a great religion like christianity.

The only valid historical documents that are available to historians are only for ezhava or pulaya conversion to christianity. Records of singular incidents describing nair women outcasted due to being victims of Pulappedi and Mannappedi, converting to christianity or Islam exist. Also records exist that nambudiri women outcasted after smarthavicharam were often sold as slaves to bidders from other communities. So if one is so desperate for "the presence of Brahmin blood" thats the only possibility with a atleast a pinch of historical truth.

Look at the fate of "the request to the pope" for accepting this hoax. So stop these shameful fake and vane claims and look in to the greatness of the teachings of Jesus, which should be the real source of joy and pride.

Coming to the point. I just direct your attention that 'now a days' we do not consider we were Brahmins. We consider we were/are Jewish descent. Of being a Nasrani I am more happy with that rather than with a brahminical decentship. But I guarentee you that in future this also change depending upon the then preception of superiority where the propogator belong.

I also remind you that all historical research/history is someone's opinion and only partially correct.--Peopledowhattheyoughttodo 08:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort for putting such a long argument here. Rest assured that it will be deletd by somebody who consider it either as trash or offensive or slander. And remember that a free editable internet source cannot propogate truth but propogate something which someone is more interested and keen to propogate.

Yes, like your opinion that all Nasrani are descended from Jewish settlers, this requires some evidence, as there is no phenotypes to suggest such.KBN (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs?

What does the church (taking this as a general term for the historic tradition) believe and teach? I read that it's a tradition- and ritual-driven church, or something like that, but what are their traditions and/or rituals? What do they think about St. Thomas himself, since they bear his name? It would be most helpful to have such an explanation in this article. Nyttend 03:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Prespective, prespective, it is all about prespective. I have gone through your home page and that have given me an idea why you asked these quetions, which doesnot appear as questions for Nasrani's who belong to this church.

What does the church (taking this as a general term for the historic tradition) believe and teach?

As you could imagine all churches in the World teach(presently) based on what is written in Bible. Since these churches are now affliated to Vatican/Anthiokya all "Vatican/Anthiokya" tradition of christianity are followed. Besides we have our own tradition evolved under the socio politcal situation prevailed here. An idea about these tradition may be gleaned from the tone of the article itself.

I read that it's a tradition- and ritual-driven church, or something like that, but what are their traditions and/or rituals?

It is very difficult to answer simply because I donot know your background. As you can further imagine we were/are actively discourgaed to know about other 'churches' so I am not in a position to contrast Nasrani tradition/ritual to other tradition/rituals. Hopefully somebody else will explain it. But I am sure that by a critical reading of the articles (and hyperlinks) you could compare it with your church, or much better observe a nearby Syro Malabar church. I believe a few must be there in Ohio too for the Kerala Christian immigrants there.

What do they think about St. Thomas himself, since they bear his name? It would be most helpful to have such an explanation in this article.

I doubt now whether you read the article at all. But assuming that you are new, let me reitrate again here. We believe that apstole St. Thomas arrived in Kerala, India in AD 52 and begun the church. --220.227.207.12 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ten lies make a truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.98.77 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup and reordering of materials for clear and proper chronology

i have performed cleanup and reordering of materials for clear and proper chronology

all elements are still here (except materials repeated elsewhere)

this is a preparatory cleanup of redundancy and circumlocution, etc., Before merger with the article on the Holy Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas

for example: a reference to 1665 is told only after 1912, 1975 and 1926, in that order..

also, recurring statements are merged and retained only in places in keeping with a more chronological account of history, also multiple references to same source is fixed

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Family Historians

Please dont add family names in this article. The family history creation in this scale is only few decades old in Kerala and you can find every family claiming some orgin relating to St Thomas traditions.Please use an objective approach.

Maharshisy (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Review at this stage may be useful

After browsing through the main article and the discussion page, I get the impression that a comprehensive review of the article, in terms of the contents, perspectives, presentation and language may be in order.

(1) Contents: For instance, since we don't have the benefit of reliable historical records, it would be useful if whatever is available is mentioned. For instance, there may be something to endorse the belief that Mar Thoma arrived at Muziris in AD 52. What could be the origin of this belief?

(2) Perspectives: Portugese persecution, for instance, has been mentioned as the cause for subsequent break-up of the community into various denominations. Is that wholely correct? Maybe, or may not be. The Thiruvalla-based Marthoma Church came up much later, it seems. The Orthodox-Jacobite split was/is certainly a later development. Perhaps the Portugese interactions deserves to be viewed from a larger angle.

(3) Language: The English language reads here and there as literal translations from Malayalam, which is not surprising. After all, people outside Kerala would take less interest in editing the pages. Let me quote one example. "Coonan kurisu satyam" has been translated variantly as "bent cross oath", "leaning cross oath" etc. I don't know if "Oath at the Leaning cross" could be better English?

I have mentioned above only a few samples I have in view, with the limited purpose of inviting a meaningful discussion. Doubtingtom (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There you are...All wiki articles are always open for review. Do you mind buying any one of those books noted in article. Atleast read one book available in Internet before pasting contents from outdated propaganda mails from Pariwar factions.Terispalli (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry. Most of the 1000 books launched by the community fanatics are crap. It is a strange paradox that the disciples of the Doubting Apostle Thomas, who would not believe in the Resurrection story without verifying it himself personally, are gullible enough to eagerly gulp down any grandmother fairy tale. More than that - anyone who would disagree is immediately branded as Parivari.

The redeeming factor is that those who make comments based on pre-conceived notions such as the above do not come in the thick creamy layer of the community. I mean, the intellectual (and not financial) creamy layer.

Also, I don't take editing lightly as some people seem to do. Editing is a serious business, to be done in consultation with others and after taking their considered views too. Hence my thoughts expressed in the Discussion Forum. Doubtingtom (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

This is not a discussion forum. I suggest you to understand that its a talk page about the content of the article. If you are looking for a discussion forum search on internet and do air your concerns there.Tarijanel (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections

Corrections and minor changes in, History of the Saint Thomas Christian tradition

Added new Sections, 1.Rough Chronology 2.Historical References on St.Thomas 3.Early History 4.Medieval period 5.Demography

Suggestions: 1.Add more pictures about the religious life of all denominations 2.Forematting and improving the sequence for continuity. 3. There is an overlapping of repetition in few sections. Improving to avoid overlapping.

Tarijanel (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the recent editing (April-May 2008)

(1) Even after the recent major editing and modifications, the article remains an obvious paean on St Thomas and the Christians since named after him. A true encyclopedic article should present an objective perspective.

(2) The article is titled “Saint Thomas Christians”, but its emphasis has been shifted to St Thomas after the editing. There is a separate article on him; and the section “historic references on St Thomas” has been copied from there. This section seeks to bring in circumstantial references about St Thomas and his Parthian/Indian connections, but there is no references to Kerala or any linkage with those who are now known as St Thomas Christians. (contd)

Reply

As the name suggests, the article is about St.Thomas Christians, so its natural to have emphasis on St.Thomas the apostle. I have added the section about historic reference in the article "St.Thomas the apostle" for a wider perspective. ie, to input more reference on St.Thomas ( not just Indian mission) from different Church historians and early church fathers in future.

The historic reference are authentic and its an effort towards more objectivity in article. India specific reference are included in this article.About reference and linkage, every quotation will not be having explicit reference on location. The importance of the passage here is at the context its discussed. Interested people can always refer the original sources for further studies.

Tarijanel (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Continuation from above)

(3) The chronology is interesting and is appreciated.

Its Rough chronology which need further additions.Tarijanel (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a few other fundamental questions too, which I propose to raise another time. Doubtingtom (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demography and population count

The population of St Thomas Christians, as tabulated in the article, adds to about 1.35 crores. Together with the population of Latin Christians, which may be about 20 lakhs, the Christian population of Kerala should go up to about 1.55 crores, forming as high as 50% of the Kerala population!!

According to Government statistics, Christians form hardly 19% of the State's population, ie, a little over 60 lakhs!!

So, how do we reconcile?

Doubtingtom (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply There is a mis match in population count of few denominations.Some denominations dont provide published count based on parishes.To reconcile you should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged. Tarijanel (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments That Kerala's total Christian population is currently 20% or thereabout is a well-recognised fact. Details are available in the well publicised Government census data[2](See Census Data Finder). In Wikipedia itself there is an article Demographics of Kerala, which places the total Christian population of Kerala at 19% of the total population of 3.18 crores, which amounts to around 60.57 lakhs.

In the St Thomas article, this percentage comes to about 50%. Common sense dictates that both cannot be correct at the same time and that prima facie 50% is an obvious mistake.

Hence the Wikipedia editors might look for the sources of the mistake and rectify it at the earliest opportunity. Doubtingtom (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Further observations

The efforts to reconcile the figures might involve examination of several possibilities, including those noted below.

(1) The correctness of the figures shown against each denomination.

(The reliability of the sources quoted needs to be examined under lens. The likelihood of these hyper-enthusiastic websites being more interested in projecting the community and St Thomas as the greatest in the world rather than presenting an objective picture in a realistic light cannot be ruled out. The individual churches (of each denomination) too have often shown the proclivity to exaggerate the strength of their flocks. How to verify these?)

(2) Interpretation of the given figures.

(For instance, the figure of 3.8 million shown against the Church of South India might be the number of their adherents in their overall jurisdiction which covers S India and a portion of Sri Lanka, of which the number of Syrian Christians of Kerala cannot be in millions. Again, the adversarial Orthodox-Jacobite factions might have counted members of each other as their own. Such overlaps would cause serious errors in the final count. Also, the Malankara Catholic Church boasts of being the fastest expanding church in Kerala, such expansion being most likely at the cost of the Orthodox-Jacobite groups, as a result of which there could be multiple overlaps among the three churches.)

(3) Diaspora

I am not aware if reliable figures are available about the diaspora, although different churches would vehemently claim millions in their fold abroad. The Knanaya Catholic Church seems to maintain, prima facie, a reasonably reliable roster in this regard. But I don't know about others.)

(4) Other reasons

I am confident that some of our editors would be able to lay their fingers on other reasons too.

Wiki editors to make every effort to make the articles credible.

Doubtingtom (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

There is no church called The Knanaya Catholic Church in Kerala or in the entire Catholic Church. Thekumbagar has a diocese in Syro Malabar Church. If you are talking about the same counting as a reasonably relaible roster, that diocese is just using the approach of the Syro Malabar Church.Catholic denominations counts are published in an yearly basis up to the detail of parish level in the official Vatican publication.

To reconcile you should provide a reliable source for quotations for the denominations in question. The memeber count of CSI, is not Kerala specific. I invite the Community memebers who are visiting this page to contribute.Tarijanel (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legends regarding Brahmin origin & family names

That there were/ are live legends ardently believed by many in the community about their Brahmin origin is a fact. And there are those who genuinely believe that such legends are not tenable, for a number of reasons. But so long as there are legends which have been engraved into the community's psychosis, it may not be out of place to incorporate such legends in the article by devoting a section or two with suitable riders so that all believers and non-believers in the community have their views heard. In that process, Wikipedia can also avoid the frequent "insertions" and "undoings" of stories involving Palayur, Brahmin, Kallinkal, Pakalomattam etc. Let them all be included, but with a non-biased explanatory note providing all sides of the story.

Editors may like to consider.

Doubtingtom (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Doubtingtom (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Reply

If you look through the legends of Southist and Northist divisions most of them are not even worthy of a decent mention. Do we need to include the same in Thekkumbagor article as the legend has been frequented for the last Three centuries ?

The inclusion of family names in this article is not an approach suited for an encyclopedia article. More ever space will be a limitation for doing the same, as every family claims its origin from the Apostle.

Considering the vandalism this article had to undergo, the frequent "insertions" and "undoings" can not be credited to any of the above said families or family members. Those are just activities of de motivated minds .

Tarijanel (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments

I have removed the passage giving family names, knowing full well that someone would re-insert it.Guliel (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

Talk:Saint Thomas Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Language Accuracy

[edit] To all the recent participants

[edit] Comment

[edit] Reply to copy and paste of some Pariwar literature

[edit] Comments

[edit] Namboothiri Brahmins converted?

[edit] Every Community Needs Folklores

[edit] The Thomasine Church; a proper name

[edit] the external links section needs fixing

[edit] merge?

[edit] Namboothiri Brahmins converted?

[edit] Aneesh Thottackad

[edit] Redundant Link

[edit] Two Defunct Links

[edit] Marthoma church

[edit] Revert to Previous copy

[edit] POV tag

[edit] Removal of POV tag

[edit] POV tag removed

[edit] Apostolic Throne of St Thomas

[edit] Traditions

[edit] Not Just Malabar Nasrani

[edit] The term St Thomas Christians

[edit] Requesting of Further comments on St Thomas Chrsitian term

[edit] Controversial section with out any referance

[edit] The hoax of Nambudiri ancestry and St. Thomas conversion

[edit] Beliefs?

[edit] cleanup and reordering of materials for clear and proper chronology

[edit] Request to Family Historians

[edit] A Review at this stage may be useful

[edit] New Sections

[edit] About the recent editing (April-May 2008)

[edit] Demography and population count

[edit] Legends regarding Brahmin origin & family names

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search