S
syromalabarcath
Guest
I thought he did too, haha.
- Status
C
codebilly
Guest
**The Kerala Church
**
*Antony Nirappel
Changanacherry Kerala, India*
*The Gospel was proclaimed in India by Saint Thomas the Apostle. He
landed at Kodungalloor (Crangannore) in Kerala in A.D. 52 and
kindled the light of faith on this land with the baptism of our
forefathers.[1] The ancient Church of Kerala founded by St.
Thomas, despite the multitude of vicissitudes she has encountered,
continues to flourish to this day. The Saint Thomas Christians of
India known also as the “Nazaranees,” have maintained the treasure
of their faith with a sense of genuine honor and orthodoxy; at the
same time they have retained the culture, social customs and
decorum of the land, while contributing-their share to the Kerala
and Indian culture. *
See Kerala:
P
paarsurrey
Guest
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I am interested in the **Gospel of Jesus **and not the one compiled by the Church without any permission/authorization from Jesus untill about the 3rd century as you have mentioned above.
What written book/s did Saint Thomas had with him in AD 52 when he went to Kerala?
Thanks
I am interested in the **Gospel of Jesus **and not the one compiled by the Church without any permission/authorization from Jesus untill about the 3rd century as you have mentioned above.
What written book/s did Saint Thomas had with him in AD 52 when he went to Kerala?
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I was not talking about the Catholics and Orthodox; I was interested in what Saint Thomas believed; he was perhaps different from the Catholics and the Orthodox who sprang out later. Might be Saint Thomas was closer to the Jews or Protestants or “the only true Christians” as they say i.e JWs or the Mormons.
Thanks
I was not talking about the Catholics and Orthodox; I was interested in what Saint Thomas believed; he was perhaps different from the Catholics and the Orthodox who sprang out later. Might be Saint Thomas was closer to the Jews or Protestants or “the only true Christians” as they say i.e JWs or the Mormons.
Thanks
C
chrisse
Guest
No paarsurrey. To do a comparative study, you must start at the beginning.
Let’s start with the first 300 years
Now a comparative study of how Islam spread into India and how Catholicism spread into India would also be appropriate.
Hmmmm, hundreds of millions of Hindu slaughtered, enslaved and subjugated for hundreds of years by Islam. The mounds of decapitated Hindu heads was a very savoury part of Islam’s entry and stay in India, don’t you think?
D
Deconi
Guest
St Thomas, an apostle of The Apostles, still had the gospel ringing in his ears when he went to India!
You are arguing for Catholic Sacred Tradition since the Bible canon had not been defined. It is likely, St Thomas was free from all the heretical books that started to circulate ‘back home’ causing the need to canonize the actual books of Scriptures.
St Thomas, is the one who stuck a ‘stick’ at the front of his church and prayed to God to please NEVER let the sea pass the ‘stick.’ During the tsunamis of 2006, his prayers were answered and the tidal waves spared his church!
Considering **JWs, Mormon, ‘Protestants’ AND Islam **had not yet started when St Thomas went to India, it is stupido to imply he was influenced by any of these!
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiSt Thomas, is the one who stuck a ‘stick’ at the front of his church and prayed to God to please NEVER let the sea pass the ‘stick.’ During the tsunamis of 2006, his prayers were answered and the tidal waves spared his church!
Is it written in the NTBible or a new invention?
Thanks
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
in 52ad the bible was not put together as a book in fact the last book of the bible REV HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN so the only bible was the OT…
BTW no christian use the jw bible
D
dzheremi
Guest
I am very tired of this theme in the posts of our Muslim friends…everything that is Christian is the result of imperialism outside of the “white” areas of the world (sorry to be so blunt, but that is the underlying assumption), because there cannot possibly be anything in Christianity for people who are not European. What a bunch of garbage that kind of thinking is! It is ahistorical, racist, and insulting to the millions of Christians all over the world who live and die for their faith.
Here is a question for you, Planten: If Catholicism is purely the product of colonialism, why was it present in Lebanon for centuries under the Ottoman Empire, before the French absorbed it as part of the French Mandate of Syria in 1918? Were the Ottoman rulers European Catholics, or Turkish Muslims? If Catholicism is purely invasive, why is the Ethiopian Catholic Church so small despite the presence of the Catholic Portuguese there as 1622, and continuously since 1839? Could it be that Catholicism in and of itself is not to blame for imperialism?
I will be the first to admit that Catholicism HAS been spread through imperialism in many parts of the world, but to me it seems more honest to say that such ventures are more the result of the individual empires that sent the missionaries, such as the kingdoms of Spain, Portugal, etc. Because the Catholic Church is much, much larger than a few states in southern Europe, what you are suggesting makes no sense. Saint Thomas was not a European, St. Maroun was not a European, etc. You are discarding the approximately 1000 years of shared history between the East and the West that blurrs the story of the spread of Christianity much more than you can handle with your simple generalizations. It is not for nothing that many of the Asian, African, and Middle Eastern saints of the early Church are venerated in both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, or (more obviously) that we are talking about all populations of Christians in India in relation to one another (Syro-Malabar Catholic, Syro-Malankara Catholic, Malankara Jacobite Syrian, Malankara Orthodox Syrian, Chaldean Syrian Church [ACoE in India], etc)…they all trace their faith back to St. Thomas, who brought Christianity to India long before any doctrinal/judicial splits in the Church!
By comparison, when and how did Islam come to India? In 664 AD, over 600 hundred years after St. Thomas had come to India! By Al Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrah, a military commander (as per usual…) under the Umayyad caliphate. There is apparently some scholarly and popular debate over just how Islam was spread in India, but my point is not to malign Muslim Indians. Instead, I would suggest that if you are going to try to lambaste any form of Apostolic Christianity in India or anywhere, you will need to do so by refuting those who originally spread the faith in a given area, not those that came hundreds of years later like the Portuguese, with the full power of empire (and its associated greed) behind them. Since Islam once it spread outside of Arabia did so mostly with a great deal of military and economic power, I would say that you are in over your head here. Islamic expansions by military and economic subjugation happened almost simultaneously with the death of the Prophet. Those same methods of expansion by Christian powers were not used until much later, when there actually were Christian powers with significant militaries and the philosophical trajectory to use them to “spread the faith” (always a terrible idea). This was absolutely not the case in India for several centuries after the coming of Christianity with St. Thomas, so I cannot fathom what sort of point you think you are making.
Here is a question for you, Planten: If Catholicism is purely the product of colonialism, why was it present in Lebanon for centuries under the Ottoman Empire, before the French absorbed it as part of the French Mandate of Syria in 1918? Were the Ottoman rulers European Catholics, or Turkish Muslims? If Catholicism is purely invasive, why is the Ethiopian Catholic Church so small despite the presence of the Catholic Portuguese there as 1622, and continuously since 1839? Could it be that Catholicism in and of itself is not to blame for imperialism?
I will be the first to admit that Catholicism HAS been spread through imperialism in many parts of the world, but to me it seems more honest to say that such ventures are more the result of the individual empires that sent the missionaries, such as the kingdoms of Spain, Portugal, etc. Because the Catholic Church is much, much larger than a few states in southern Europe, what you are suggesting makes no sense. Saint Thomas was not a European, St. Maroun was not a European, etc. You are discarding the approximately 1000 years of shared history between the East and the West that blurrs the story of the spread of Christianity much more than you can handle with your simple generalizations. It is not for nothing that many of the Asian, African, and Middle Eastern saints of the early Church are venerated in both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, or (more obviously) that we are talking about all populations of Christians in India in relation to one another (Syro-Malabar Catholic, Syro-Malankara Catholic, Malankara Jacobite Syrian, Malankara Orthodox Syrian, Chaldean Syrian Church [ACoE in India], etc)…they all trace their faith back to St. Thomas, who brought Christianity to India long before any doctrinal/judicial splits in the Church!
By comparison, when and how did Islam come to India? In 664 AD, over 600 hundred years after St. Thomas had come to India! By Al Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrah, a military commander (as per usual…) under the Umayyad caliphate. There is apparently some scholarly and popular debate over just how Islam was spread in India, but my point is not to malign Muslim Indians. Instead, I would suggest that if you are going to try to lambaste any form of Apostolic Christianity in India or anywhere, you will need to do so by refuting those who originally spread the faith in a given area, not those that came hundreds of years later like the Portuguese, with the full power of empire (and its associated greed) behind them. Since Islam once it spread outside of Arabia did so mostly with a great deal of military and economic power, I would say that you are in over your head here. Islamic expansions by military and economic subjugation happened almost simultaneously with the death of the Prophet. Those same methods of expansion by Christian powers were not used until much later, when there actually were Christian powers with significant militaries and the philosophical trajectory to use them to “spread the faith” (always a terrible idea). This was absolutely not the case in India for several centuries after the coming of Christianity with St. Thomas, so I cannot fathom what sort of point you think you are making.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
Since Jesus did not left anything written down by him or dictated by him, so you were left with tradition- which in itself was not complete yet. Jesus lived upto the age of 120 years approximately till he died a natural death in Mohallah Khanyar, Sirinagar, India.
Jesus ministry in Judea was only for three years and that was a period of tribulations. Jesus was not free to speak or practice; so the tradition you speak of is also not correct and is also incomplete.
Jesus was the last Messenger of the Jews from God Allah YHWH and the prime purpose of his ministry was to spread the Gospel- good tiding of the advent of Ahmad after him.
I love Jesus
Thanks
Since Jesus did not left anything written down by him or dictated by him, so you were left with tradition- which in itself was not complete yet. Jesus lived upto the age of 120 years approximately till he died a natural death in Mohallah Khanyar, Sirinagar, India.
Jesus ministry in Judea was only for three years and that was a period of tribulations. Jesus was not free to speak or practice; so the tradition you speak of is also not correct and is also incomplete.
Jesus was the last Messenger of the Jews from God Allah YHWH and the prime purpose of his ministry was to spread the Gospel- good tiding of the advent of Ahmad after him.
I love Jesus
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
Even after the incident of Crucifixion, you could ovserve, Jesus was afraid from the Jews. When he came out of the tomb he only met his selected disciples for fear of being caught again by the Jews. Do you agree?
I love Jesus
Thanks
Even after the incident of Crucifixion, you could ovserve, Jesus was afraid from the Jews. When he came out of the tomb he only met his selected disciples for fear of being caught again by the Jews. Do you agree?
I love Jesus
Thanks
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
you know very little of what you say and this statment is just hog wash— “” Jesus lived upto the age of 120 years approximately till he died a natural death
D
Deconi
Guest
That St.Thomas’ church was spared because of his ‘stick’ and his prayer? Matey, read world events and the news! Try googling it and if you get the chance, travel there and see!
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiThat St.Thomas’ church was spared because of his ‘stick’ and his prayer? Matey, read world events and the news! Try googling it and if you get the chance, travel there and see!
I think it is only as superstition of the Catholics; please don’t mind.
I love Jesus so I would defend him against superstition.
Thanks
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
well that is just great and good for you,you say you love jesus maybe you need to know jesus and find out who He is,think
B
bpcatholic
Guest
I find it odd that you try to defend Jesus against superstition and not Muhamad…he was a very superstitious person (an example would be his view on dogs).
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
How can you love Jesus when you do not know who Jesus is the Jesus i know was in heaven in 33ad and you think He lived until the age of 123 years old thats not the God of the bible,and is not the CHRISTIAN God. KEEP ON TELLING PEOPLE THAT YOU DO…----------------- SORRY MY KEY BOARD IS NOT WORKING AGAIN,I,M NOT YELLING
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
You may be playing with your keybord or yelling in your home; that is between you and your keyboard, I don’t mind.
I don’t understand, one can love a child, a young man, an old man; love is not a function of age.
I love Jesus and I would defend Jesus against useless ideas of Paul
Thanks
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
what Paul are you talking about
- Status