Talk:Saint Thomas Christians/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * """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!"""
 * There are a lot evidences that confirm that St. Thomas came in Kerala. This is a strong tradition of christianity in Kerala. Which Pope recently said that Thomas never came to India? Could you please quote the citations? 93.33.184.244 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2022 (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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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 [denominations 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)

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)

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)

Redundant Link
under Nasrani religious jurisdictions, there is a link to "Thomasine Church", which redirects to this very page.
 * OK, I fixed it (hopefully). &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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-

"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 think here the tradition sentences need to be removed as it has already been mentioned earlier.

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

--Thennattu10th Feb 2007

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

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

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

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)

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)

helpme

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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(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)

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)

Neutrality of this article.
This article is based on the opinions of one of the many churches in Kerala. Entries in ‘’’Rough chronology’’’ are that of this church. Entries about other churches need corrections. Stories of the first century aristocratic origin circulating widely among the Kerala Christians have no historical value. There are a few repetitions that need to be deleted.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My Comments

(1) I fully agree with the opinion expressed above concerning the doubtful neutrality of the article. Maybe because of unreasoned community-patriotism on one side and prejudices on another.

(2) Contributors frequently "insert", mutilate and "delete" others' contributions sheerly out of the tempers of the moment, without understanding and without applying their mind, often in an uncivil manner, without due deference to differing views expressed by others.

Thus the article has become a product of too many motivated cooks, and not measuring up to the standard expected of an encyclopedic article. It is doubtful if, at this rate, the article could be set right. Doubtingtom (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of peer reviewed referenced materials is POV
deletion of referenced materials is POV. You cannot remove passages with references from peer reviewed references. Please do not destroy the quality of wikipedia by removing referenced materials. If you have a new idea then please publish it in a PEER REVIEWED research journal and then people can reference it. The wikipedia is written by many people and will have many cooks motivated or otherwise. The solution is to have passages with references from peer reviewed editions and not deleting passages with peer reviewed references. thanks Vagab (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Some observations
Those who prepared this article surely must have taken a long time and difficult study to prepare it this way. But the neutrality of this article is disputed.

I am a Marthomite. I notice that very little is written about Mar Thoma Church and what little is written needs to be corrected.

Just one example is given below. In the table “St. Thomas Christian Groups”,
 * 1) Mar Thoma church comes under, “West Syriac (Antiochian)”. This is not true. Mar Thoma Church does not follow this Syriac.
 * 2) The definition given for Mar Thoma Church is “Oriental Orthodox Reformed”. I can’t trace this adjective “Orthodox” for Malankara church (including the present Mar Thoma church and Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church) in any book printed and published before 1912. The name Mar Thoma Church was in use long long before 1912.

Just for information:- In the list of Churches given, only Mar Thoma Church, (headquarters at Tiruvalla, Kerala); Malabar Independent Syrian Church, (headquarters at Kunnamkulam; Kerala), Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, (headquarters at Kottayam, Kerala) and St. Thomas Evangelical Church]], (headquarters at Tiruvalla, Kerala) are the only Episcopal Churches whose supreme heads are Malankara Nazranis (Saint Thomas Christians).

I don’t think it is worth cleaning this article. I assume that the mistakes are not a deliberate attempt but misinformation and pure ignorance. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

You seem to have written many books about Mar Thoma Church and now claims you are preparing a concise history book. It is really funny that you don't even know basic about Mar Thoma Church. Mar Thoma Church is called West Syriac (Antiochian) because the liturgy they used is modified from of Antiochian rite. Under the influence of Protestants, the founders of Mar Thoma Church ( which was called Reformed Jacobites until the name Mar Thoma Church came in picture) modified the Antiochian rite according to Protestant doctrine. Do you need any reference for this ?

Try to read and write sensible history.TomThomas123 (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rough chronology
In this section there is an entry.
 * 340-360 By the Thazhekad Sasanam the Nasranies granted special rights and privileges.
 * Is this the same deed that was given by a Kerala king named Cocurangon (as given in Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 14, Page 680 and by G.T.McEncy in Travancore State Manuel Vol. II, Page 139) to Christians. If so, why is it called Thazhekad Sasanam? In which language was this written? In which year this king Cocurangon ruled Kerala?Neduvelilmathew (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Stthomascross.jpg
The image File:Stthomascross.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Forking
Early history here should be forked to the History of the Saint Thomas Christians. It duplicates and overlaps it. There is both a template and the corresponding article that is used for five churches that contains a common history summary and a link to the combined history for (so far) five other churches for only the period from the founding by Saint Thomas to the Coonan Cross incident, after which the histories diverge. Any history here past that time would stay.

The beauty of having all history in one place, is that it can then be addressed by everyone interested in history per se instead of having ten+ articles which are lightly edited and critiqued. Student7 (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another advantage of forking is that some history was placed here "to ensure it wasn't overlooked/lost." Some of this is fairly unimportant or even distracting to the major goal of "tradition", but would be in the right place in a purely "historical" article. Student7 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a merge of the applicable history from here without yet modifying this history. Again this is through the Coonan Cross incident only. The rest would stay in any case. For those interested, wait a few days (!) then take a look at History of the Saint Thomas Christians. For editors who wonder how it got that way, I am painstakingly (maddeningly, if you aren't really interested in EVERY change!) merging and changing the RAW data which I brought over from here. So I am providing WHY I am changing or merging each paragraph rather than trying to merge the whole thing and have another editor guess as to why I made a particular change.

As I write this, the article "History..." is nearly unreadable because of the duplications. These should disappear over the next few days. I would appreciate your forebearance in not changing this article history subsection (only the history) until the changes are either accepted or rejected. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've finally finished. It ain't beautiful, but it is comprehensive. Mostly readable. Could use more editing. It will get some of that anyway when we add the other two or three church histories.Student7 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have an idea on merging when you are ready. I will try to contact interested people on their discussion pages. Or we can discuss it here. I think there are only two or three editors that are interested.Student7 (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As before, please hold off on updating the history subsection only. We don't want to accidentally lose any update when we merge. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Three editors of this page have rejected the merger of the common merged history from History of the Saint Thomas Christians. I have asked them to edit the newly merged history but doubt that they will do so. They believe that this one is "perfect."


 * The one here at least has stylistic problems. The "rough chronology" is a mess, It contains stuff not relevant to this WP:TOPIC. This is not a history of the world, nor a history of Christiandom, just the Nazranis, and it should be limited to that. The "timeline" was fine back in the old days when there was nothing. It seems clumsy today and should be integrated into a textual format from a bulletized one.


 * There is some missing information, and probably too much information. The merged history in the new article takes up 15 pages. It will have to be forked, ultimately. An irony, since that is exactly what the editors of this page are resisting. The history dominates the article.


 * The major objection of the three editors is the conflict with the name "Saint Thomas" which they feel they own. That is fine. My version is a limited history from 54-1663 which is linked (and merged from) five other churches. I can call it anything, but it needs to make some kind of sense. "History of Malabar Christians 54-1663"? Suggest something and I will change. There were five extra histories for the past several years. The Wikipedia world can live with with a redundant history that replaces those five for a while longer I think.


 * As I have probably mentioned above, I am more neutral than any editor I have run into on these pages thus far. I have no pov. BTW, I was accused of "Vedistic" and "Brahmistic" bias. I will have to look those up to find out what they are!!!  :)


 * The flip side is worse, I believe. If the name is redirected, I will be obliged to try to represent the history of the five churches, now missing, into this document, item by item. This will probably be painful all around, since, as I have said, they view the history here as "perfect" and are unable to see it changed in any way, stylistically or otherwise.


 * Let me change the name of the updated article so as not to conflict with this old one. That should do the trick.


 * For the record, go ahead and change the history here, if you dare and are not one of the three editors! Student7 (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It just dawned on me - you read the History of the Saint Thomas Christians like a reader, not like an editor, looking at the raw text. I did offer to make the merge from here transparent (with edit summaries) which I did. There were a lot of them and quite frankly I wouldn't have done it either, but if you had followed the merge, you would have seen the imbedded caveat comments. Probably covers the "Vedic" and "Brahman" stuff that someone didn't like. I have "fact" tags all over the place (as you should have here as well). So some of those things you objected to would disappear of their own accord with time for lack of a WP:RELY reference. I did the same with the prior merges, including a lot in an attempt to appease them. This has been successful so far. Student7 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that reading all the edits is a bit much this late in the game, since you weren't "watching" the page, but you might want to just quickly scan edit history. You can see a high level edit summary of what I was trying to do.Student7 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another problem about invoking an imbedded history is that a) In the case of the history here, it only pertains to one church at the most. The others had shorter histories. b) readers are not limited to history and read off the end of it. This may seem all right from the pov of the editors here, but the editors of the church articles wanted to help their readers understand their church not all the churches in the area at once. Each article has a portal or navbox for that.Student7 (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The merger having been declined by the editors of this article, I would now like to remove the "merge" template from both articles, so I can be free to continue on merging into the other article, the two or three church histories that still remain. I appreciate the history from this article. Merging was a lot of work but has enhanced the combined history considerably. Student7 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

deliberate deletion of references and insertion of statements while copying by Student7
The editor user:student7 claims that he has copied material from other wikipedia pages to create a comprehensive section on the history of the Nasranis in a yet another page on the topic written on this page. He has created a page History of the Saint Thomas Christians. However if one reads carefully, it would be seen that he has deliberately removed all the references to the referenced passages about the possible Jewish heritage of the Nasranis. He has also inserted statements by removing original passages from other pages that he has copied from. This in wikipedia terms is called as Vandalism. To insert ones own pov by removing referenced passages. He has also deliberately removed references to anything related to the Jewish origins of the Nasranis.

His real motive in creating the page is clear. It is to write his own version of nasrani history and remove all references to jewish heritage. He pretends to be a serious editor seeking footnotes. But instead he is removing references and passages and inserting statements.

He is now trying to stop the merger of that page into this already existing page. Vagab (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The User user: Neduvelilmathew is also doing the same thing. He doesnot see to know what he is talking about. TomThomas123 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please avoid WP:ATTACK and WP:AGF. Accusations of vandalism fall into that category.


 * The Jewish "references" such as they were, consisted of a link to a web page with a couple of people who had signed up for a DNA test. No results. This was hardly "proof" of Jewish ancestry. We need WP:RELY. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Student7 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Outline
I looked for Christianity in the Outline of India but wasn't able to trace it down to these article. But if I could, shouldn't the outline read as follows:
 * Saint Thomas Christian tradition invoking the following articles:
 * Christian Religon a
 * Christian Religion b
 * etc. each invoking:
 * A common history, or whatever history they have in common

That is, it makes no sense for a lower level article to invoke a higher level one.

An alternative is to have them all on the same level. Again, it is not reasonable to have one article invoke a subsection in another article on the same level. What if the subsection in "Malakaran Church" had a particularly good subarticle on "Demographics"? Would it make sense for Saint Thomas Christian tradition to call that subsection a "main" article for demographics?

It makes even less sense, if possible, if Saint Thomas Christian tradition is the lowest level article. You still wouldn't invoke a subsection of it. The subsection would be forked and then an only then be invoked as a main article.Student7 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Assyrian people
How is this History of Assyrian people related to the Saint Thomas Christian Tradition? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion, History of Assyrian people
Is it possible for someone out there to explain what the Assyrian People did for the St. Thomas Christians of Malabar? Did they also send bishops and priests to rule over this Christians in the past 2000 years? Are there any records available in Malankara, regarding this claim? If there is no reasonable explanation, this Category, History of Assyrian people, will be deleted from this article. Any objection? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. The navigation box needs to be deleted. I assume we are all agreed that the scripture of the people was often Syriac, having nothing to do with Syriac history otherwise.Student7 (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Antiochean bishops in Kerala
There is a common belief that bishops from Antioch who had visited the Malankara Church regularly, had some kind of jurisdiction over Malankara Church. Many people may believe it. But there are no historical evidences to support this belief. To understand how they happened to came to Malankara (Kerala), purpose of their visit, how they spent their time there, and why most of them were banished from Kerala are given in the annals of the Dutch East India Company. (Ref:Press List of Ancient Dutch Records-1657-1825.)

Moreover, It is believed by many, that Mar Gregorius Abdul Jaleel who confirmed the consecration of Mar Thoma I in 1665 came from Antioch. But recent discoveries of some of his own papers, throw doubt on this claim.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Before to modify some statements that are supported by references, you should give the evidence of the sources you use. A ntv (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks ntv for your comments:
 * Press List of Ancient Dutch Records-1657-1825. was written long before any of the references given in the article. It was a daily report by the Dutch East India Company and the copies of their letters, written before 1825. Available in Archives, India. It is left to you to believe it or not.


 * If you want to know more about the recent disovery please refer ‘’Indian Orthodox Church History & Culture (Malaylam)’’. Rev. Dr.Joseph Cheeran, Adv. P.C.Mathew, Pulikottil and K.V. Mammen Kottackal. 2002.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really have any idea about history. Do you know that the letters written by Mar Gregorius still exists. TomThomas123 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Tom Thomas,
 * I will be really happy if you could tell me exactly where these letters (preferably original), written by Mar Gregorius that still exist are, so that I can do a study and change my views if necessary. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cross in churches
In Malabar, before 1500, there were crosses in the Knanaya churches, (they came from Persia in 345 & 825). But we cannot come to a conclusion that there were crosses in the churches of Malankara Saint Thomas Christians, who were there from the first century. Moreover Cross was not a symbol of Christianity in the earlier centuries. Also the oldest church building that still exists in Malabar does not have a cross on any of its original structure, even though there are so many carvings of flowers on the granite structure. Ref: Herberts, Some Years Travels into Asia and Afrique. 1636.(Published in sixteen thirty-six). Page 304. See also N.M. Mathew, St, Thomas Christians of Malabar Through Ages, 2003. p. 91. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidences to support what you wrote above.

TomThomas123 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please read the references given and also pay a visit to the oldest church building that still exists in Kerala and see it yourself.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read the book you quoted from Sir Thomas Herbert. There are n number of documents from 15th and 16th century which state that the churches of Saint Thomas Christians were full of crosses found from Mylapore.

Then about the source you stated as from N M Mathew. When there are 100 books from sensible people who quote evidences i dont need interpretations written by some one who doesn't understand what they are talking.

My questions are about your sources - The evidences for the stupid statement you made above- I will just take the first sentence you wrote above.

"In Malabar, before 1500, there were crosses in the Knanaya churches, (they came from Persia in 345 & 825)". - What is the Knanaya church which existed before 1500 ? You are talking only about Thekkumbhagar right. You said they came from Persia in 345 and 825 .. Based on what evidence ? How did you get the year 825 ?

You said the oldest church which still exist in Kerala doesn't have this Cross.. Which one is the oldest Church ?

TomThomas123 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Three history sections
I realize that the article is constructed by people at cross purposes. But having three history sections is preposterous. There is a lead in summary for History, then a "rough chronology" then a supposed smooth chronology which don't really agree with each other but represent three points of view. Sorry. These all need merging and detract a serious student. Mythology needs to be purged from here.

St. Thomas could NOT have founded churches. The word and institution hadn't even been founded until long after his death. The statement that the "churches" were Vedic temples attended by a very few is probably more accurate. The few religious who made it here from "the East" (west of India) probably had little affect until the Portuguese showed up.Student7 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest the sources you use for your so called studies ? TomThomas123 (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No source. Bad guess. I've crossed out my assertions.


 * I think there is general agreement that there were no physical churches. These were Christian communities in the broad sense. The concept of common worship in a building with a large congregation, prevalent in the west had to arise at a much later time. But be wary of when that date is. And what architecture the physical church used. If before the Portuguese, it would have been difficult to copy what is common in Christian churches today because Karalans had no model except what they saw around them in Hindu temples. Eastern visitors may not have had much impact until later years. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why was this renamed ?
This article was earlier titled as Saint Thomas Christians, Why was it renamed ?

TomThomas123 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick check on the history, available to anyone, shows that User:Dbachmann performed this move on November 28, 2008. Perhaps you could check the article history, then ask him if there are still questions. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India.
Do the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India celebrate Eucharist liturgy. There are many evangelical protestant groups which originated from the Protestant group - Mar Thoma Church and they are generally not included as Churches of Saint Thomas Christians.Pamparam (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Forked Article
There are couple of forked articles with over lapping information. Most of the contents in these articles are copied from other wikipedia pages and then there are some statements with no sources.

I recommend merging these forked articles with a clean up tag WP:RELY for the statements contained in them to Syrian Malabar Nasrani and this article.

None of the following articles has any different scope or different content. I also recommend sanboxes to those who just does the forking.

Forked Pages,

A.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Apostolic_Throne_of_St._Thomas

B.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malankara_Church

C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malankara_Metropolitans

D.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Saint_Thomas_Christians

Pamparam (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

History
There are Six articles which claim common history of Saint Thomas Christians out of this 4 have almost similar contents about the same period. To avoid repetitive articles and to improve the quality of the article, share about WP:RELY sources and re organization of these articles.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity Pamparam (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are way too many included histories on Malankara Christians who seem to have no standard common name for themselves, either.


 * No history should be merged into here. This history was already included into History of the Saint Thomas Christians. The history here should be deleted. What is vastly important to Traditions should be placed into the template which is visible in each Karalan article, and a "main" given to history. See examples in four (of the seven) churches, which have already been talked about here.


 * Another way, is to form s new history article that everyone can contribute to. Delete all the old ones.


 * But merging here is a really poor idea. Why hide a history that is not unique to this article, inside the article? That does not make any journalistic or encyclopedia sense. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)