Talk:Thomas the Apostle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reverted a LOT of changes

I just reverted a lot of changes. These were either made with no edit summary or unhelpful ones, like "changed x to y." Changing x to y does NOT explain WHY x was changed to y, which is often important to other editors.

Most material about Thomas in India has to be qualified with the term "reportedly" etc. There are NO records existing which prove where Thomas went. "India" was a term used by Europeans to designate the area of the Indus River, or what we would call "Pakistan" today. It seems doubtful that the subcontinent had a unique name at that time.

Other material seemed to introduce a homily to the text. "This may be useful to people with weak faith" or whatever. This is WP:POV.

Virtually none of the insertions had new citations, though some were made before existing citations which leads to problems. Is the new material supported by the old ref? In lieu of an edit summary, we have to assume that it wasn't.

There were a few good faith edits that did useful links and other stuff. I apologize for clobbering those changes. But they can be re-inserted. Student7 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Missing a lot of citations. When the material is highly debatable (for example, the existence of Gundaphoras, who has no article in Wikipedia), we really needs verifiable (online) material, not out of a book of what could be possibly fables for the credulous. We need to view the source! Student7 (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo

For these purposes, Marco Polo really can't be quoted as a WP:RELY source to testify where Thomas was or was not buried. He is like Herodotus, the recorder of myths wherever he encounters them, without question. Having said that, we do have to quote him; but it just can't be regarded as very reliable as to what he saw, if anything. Student7 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians

This subsection seems to long to me. Goes on about different denominations and their size, etc. much longer than necessary. I think one or two sentences should suffice in a "legacy" subsection someplace maybe. Not sure about the chart.Student7 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. There could be mention that Thomas is said to have evangelized India, with a link to the right page, and nothing more here is needed. Tb (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Would agree with both Student7 and Tb, we are moving away from the main topic which is St.Thomas. Fyodor7 (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I deleted all but a core paragraph. See if that works for you. Student7 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Student7, for removing the unnecessary, and sticking to the main topic of St.Thomas Christians.Now its to the point . Fyodor7 (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BENEDICT XVI

The article states that Pope Benedict XVI denied that Thomas journeyed to Southern India. It further goes on to mention several groups that were offended by these comments. The article offers no reference to support either claim.

In fact, the Vatican document referenced says no such thing (unless you believe that calling something "an ancient tradition" is the same as denying it - I think it is just a cautious statement when there is a paucity of documentary evidence):

BENEDICT XVI,GENERAL AUDIENCE, Saint Peter's Square, Wednesday, 27 September 2006

"Lastly, let us remember that an ancient tradition claims that Thomas first evangelized Syria and Persia (mentioned by Origen, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3, 1) then went on to Western India (cf. Acts of Thomas 1-2 and 17ff.), from where also he finally reached Southern India."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060927_en.html

Perhaps the pope said one thing and the Vatican says another - if anything that would imply that they recanted the original statement without any embarassing apologies :)

BirdieGalyan (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Blatant anti-Hindu POV on this page

Hi,

Here are some lines:

"Apparently his renewed ministry outraged the Brahmins, who were fearful lest Christianity undermined their social structure, based on the caste system. So according to the Syriac version of the Acts of Thomas, Masdai, the local king at Mylapore, after questioning the apostle condemned him to death about the year AD. 72. Anxious to avoid popular excitement, “for many had believed in our Lord, including some of the nobles,” the king ordered Thomas conducted to a nearby mountain, where, after being allowed to pray, he was then stoned and stabbed to death with a lance wielded by an angry Brahmin. A number of Christians were also persecuted at the same time; when they refused to apostatize, their property was confiscated, so some sixty-four families eventually fled to Malabar and joined that Christian community.^[1]"

Why is this peddled? It looks like though there are many myths about death of St. Thomas, it is indeed certain that he was martyred by Hindu upper caste Brahmins, for legitimizing grievances over time against Brahmins, Hindu Kings and in general against Hindus. The second reference is less clear than the first one. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one mention of the word "Hindu" and two mentions of "Brahmin". How can that possibly be "blatant anti-Hindu POV"? Especially since you say he was in fact martyred by Hindus? What other myths are there? (I am not a Christian, btw, so am neutral) - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why this is anti Hindu POV. Why is "Anxious to avoid popular excitement, ... the king ordered ".. "A number of Christians were also persecuted at the same time; when they refused to apostatize, their property was confiscated, so some sixty-four families eventually fled to Malabar and joined that Christian community." are all POV against the King. So are "outraged the Brahmins, who were fearful lest Christianity undermined their social structure, based on the caste system..." & "stabbed to death with a lance wielded by an angry Brahmin" are POV against Brahmins. How is all this about 'anxious King', 'prosecution', 'families fled', 'outraged fearful Brahmins', 'stabbed by an angry Brahmin', peddled on Wikipedia?

When did I say he was martyred by Hindus? I said this POV of martyrdom and prosecution is POV against Hindus. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. It is the tone that you have a problem with, not the POV. You may have a point but I'd have to read the sources. In answer to your follow up "when did I sya he was martyred..." - you said "it is indeed certain that he was martyred by Hindu upper caste Brahmins". D'uh? - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You could remove the word "angry" and lose nothing by doing so. The idea that Brahmins were concerned about Christianity due to the social structure concept is indeed true generally but whether it was so in this instance I could not say. As for the rest of your comments, to be honest they just sound like the words of an upset Hindu: the phrasing could be fiddled with but it would not change the meaning. Would you prefer, for example, to say that the "families left"? - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how the legend goes first of all. You have missed the reliability part, though I would point out that hardly anything is clear in this instance at all, in which case changing text and keeping the meaning as before would serve no purpose.

What I mentioned earlier is that though there are legends on his life, a Hindu would be upset regardless considering how Hindus have been maligned over a legend, and how all this POV finds a mention. This legend is peculiar for not only it makes a martyr but also connects that to Hindu upper cast Brahmins, the King and his atrocities, etc. etc.

I don't think such blatant POV pushing should be allowed. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry if you or any Hindu is upset. I am sure that a lot of Jewish people are upset about the articles on Hitler etc, a lot of Serbs upset about Bosnian articles, a lot of Christians upset about atheist articles etc. But so what? Wikipedia is not censored. You have been told this before. Indeed, it is your own POV that is getting in the way, not merely at this article but at practically every talk page you visit. You appear to be on a mission and in a permanent state of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not my problem.

I have no idea how reliability works in religious articles but can tell you straight off that if this goes then a phenomenal amount of stuff in articles about Hinduism will also be up for deletion. All of this is mythical, and the article makes that clear. Equally, the stuff on Hindu articles is mythical. So, do you still want to remove? - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence of everything I say anywhere as some kind of POV is phenomenal. You are comparing this with Hindu articles which is incorrect. In fact, whether there are some Hindu saints 'martyred' by European Kings / Christian clergy in Europe and whether it is all considered as part of 'Hinduism' and Hindu POV could be of little consequences to articles on Hinduism.

Please let me know where do you find Anti-Christian POV in articles related to Hinduism.

As I mentioned, this case is peculiar as it makes a martyr out of the Saint, and then goes onto blame Hindu Brahmins, Kings, etc. in detail, as I mentioned clearly above. That is why it is Anti-Hindu POV. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have pov concerns about this, I did take a look at the paragraph presented by Thisthat. It has no discernable RS for the claims it makes, and I would support removing it on those grounds. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I specifically pointed out that I have no idea how RS works in this area. To my mind, for example, the Bible is not RS but I know for a fact that I would struggle to get through without major trouble. My point remains that if this paragraph goes then a hatchet can be taken to Hindu articles, whether on the grounds of POV or of RS. I am prepared to do it if consensus forms here, on the grounds that a precedent has been set. As explained above, all of this stuff, in most such articles, is mythical and most of it is unsupported. It makes sense to clean it out everywhere. Thisthat2011 can deal with the fall-out from that exercise, since it would be he who set the ball rolling. The only reason why I am not saying it should stay or go here is precisely because of the sourcing issue & my lack of experience regarding how articles on religious subjects deal with these. I do strongly suspect that there is a lot of leeway given, despite the five pillars. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything on WP needs RSs. I will remove the content from this article, but what happens on this article does not mean one should go on a rampage against other articles. Do remember to edit in good faith. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush, please lets not go on ego trip here. If you want to add RS, please add it so the matter becomes concrete, which would be more clear than present reference http://kuzhippallil.com/nsc.html. I think that is the shortest way to solve this matter. Another way is to reword the same thing without POV words( the words mentioned above according to me) is a suggestion.

"My point remains that if this paragraph goes then a hatchet can be taken to Hindu articles, whether on the grounds of POV or of RS. I am prepared to do it if consensus forms here, on the grounds that a precedent has been set..." - as per comments by carl bunderson, I think that part should be clear to you now. There is no such consensus and this behavior better be avoided on this page too. As I mentioned earlier, my pointing out was not against any points other than against anti-Hindu substance. Better present RS/reword/mention it in round-about manner.

As also you are neither Hindu not Christian, I would request to state your religion clearly now as you have repeatedly pointed out how I am/other Hindus and therefore upset. You have mentioned that you have no interest in this matte as you are neither Hindu nor Christian, or you could altogether consider the matter closed.

About "my lack of experience regarding how articles on religious subjects deal with these. I do strongly suspect that there is a lot of leeway given, despite the five pillars.", I think that is how it is. This is not just about Hinduism/Christianity, but about any religion, and I would suggest even Atheism. Why take any concessions off Atheists for any reasons, especially from believer's standpoint?

About "Thisthat2011 can deal with the fall-out from that exercise, since it would be he who set the ball rolling." I guess it is not more than a side comment, which I would rather avoid to hassle about. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Specimen for Propaganda Literature

This article is is an example of how Wikipedia articles are used by people for pure propaganda and religious conversions. Vandals are removing valid references from this page. They are erasing every evidence which make it clear that St. Thomas died in Iran and never came to Mylapore, Chennai. They are disregarding the evidence present in the Acts of Thomas itself and the statement of Pope Benedict that St Thomas never visited India, especially southern India. The sole purpose of this article is to serve as a propaganda material, to facilitate religious conversions.

Jijithnr (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Buddy, you are taking this way too seriously. The Acts of Thomas are not an accepted historical document any more than Church tradition that has Thomas going to India. This is now the third thread that you've gone on about the same issue so I'm not sure why you are ignoring my comments. If you can make a rational, Neutral point of view, non-Original Research argument for why we should remove the comment about the Church's 2000 yr oral tradition, I'm sure we'd be all ears. I certainly have no stock in either story or personal axe to grind - I'm just trying to make sure this page meets Wikipedia guidelines. Ckruschke (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke, I appreciate your comment and concern. But the issue is not trivial. This article not just an academic piece sitting calmly in Wikipedia. It is being used in India for religious conversions. A belief or a tradition may be tolerated as long as its impact is confined within the community (here Christianity, more specifically, the south Indian Christians) that holds that belief. But here that is not the case! Christian belief that St Thomas came to Mylapore, Chennai, India and was killed by a Hindu, Brahmin is an allegation upon Hindus and Hinduism. This belief is given wide publicity in Chennai while the Church ignores the stronger tradition of St Thomas getting killed in the kingdom of Mazdai in Iran / Baluchistan. This is then used to arose a feeling of guilt among Hindus and finally convert them to Christianity. I am an editor in Wikipedia for more than 7 years and I am deeply worried by such abuse of Wikipedia for religious conversions. Let me put it in the words of Dr Koenraad Elst, who raised the famous question to Christrians:-

A question to the Christians

In the 4th century AD, Christianity became the dominant and then the established religion in the Roman Empire. The Sassanian rulers of Iran wisely foresaw that the Syrian Christians within their borders would develop into a fifth column of their powerful neighbour. Their solution was to persecute the Syrian Christians. Some of these Christians fled Iran and one group, led by Thomas Cananeus (whose name would later get confused with that of Thomas Didymos the apostle), arrived on India's Malabar coast and asked for refuge. The generous and hospitable Hindus granted the wish of the refugees and honoured their commitment of hospitality for more than a thousand years. The Christian world has no record at all of any such consistent act of hospitality: the only non-Christian community which they tolerated in their midst were the Jews, and the record of Jewish-Christian co‑existence is hardly bright. The Hindus, by contrast, have likewise welcomed Jewish and Parsi communities. Unfortunately, the Portuguese Catholics gained a foothold on the Malabar coast and started forcing the Malabar Christians into the structure of the Catholic Church. Even so, the Christians, who had gotten indianized linguistically and racially, tried to maintain friendly relations with the Hindus. This attitude is not entirely dead yet, a recent instance is the statement by a Kerala bishop denying the false allegation that the BJP was behind the gang-rape of four nuns in Jhabua, a lie still propagated by the missionary networks till today. However, many other Malabar Christians have been integrated into the missionary project, and are now gradually replacing the dwindling number of foreign mission personnel. My question to them: don't you think that working for the destruction of the very religion which allowed your community to settle and integrate, is an odd way to show your gratitude? Jijithnr (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a Christian, but I'm not Catholic and I'm not Indian so as I've continued to state, I have no stake in this argument. Again you don't seem to be listening to me.

However, I just read your changes to the page and it looks at least acceptable. I'm not sure why you just didn't do that a month ago... Ckruschke (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Jijithnr, The Acts clearly mentions that Gondophares was the King of Indo-Parthian Kingdom. Please stop vandalizing the article with your little and absurd knowledge. At least take some time to study before you blindly come to a conclusion of your choice. And Acts of Thomas clearly mentions about a Second Indian King from South India. No more arguments on this topic. And in order to not to harrass any other religion I have replaced the term 'local priests' with 'local people' so that it does not blame any other religions. I guess your concern is met. Please stop reverting.PalakkappillyAchayan 02:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PalakkappillyAchayan, the Indo-Parthian kingdom, for all practical purpose is today's Pakistan, as its easternmost stronghold was Sakala (Sialkote, Pakistan). If you are of the openion that the Acts was referring to Indo-Parthian territory, then better rephrase the sub-section St. Thomas and India to St. Thomas and Pakistan. The Acts does not mention any king from South India. You are probably mistaking 'south' to mean 'south India'. From the reference point of Sialkote, for example, south India would mean Karachi. West Asians and European explorers had the habit of calling any brown skinned people they encounter anywhere in the world as 'Indians' and their land as 'India'. That is how we now have American-Indians, West Indies, Indonesia, Indo-China etc. Please look at your copy of the Acts of Thomas. The 'India' referred in it is a generic term for all the eastern territories beyond Roman empire, not to be confused with modern Indian territory. This will be even more clear if you read the names like Mazdai (meaning a worshipper of Ahura Mazda, the Zoroastrian supreme Godhead), Gondophorus etc. These are clearly Iranian names. They have no semblence with Sanskrit or Tamil names. Besides, the acts mention that Thomas went to a desert like country totally different from the green shorelines of south India. It is plain and obivious that St Thomas was executed in Iran or at the most in Baluchistan or a territory west of Indus, which were under Iranian rule during 1st century CE. There is nothing in the Acts which connect St Thomas with Mylapore (the place of peacocks) of Chennai. Equating Mazdai with Vasudeva or Mahadeva is a mockery of scholarship and also an insult to Hinduism. As long as such sentances are there in the article, we cannot remove POV. Jijithnr (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Page protected

Discuss here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

-You have protected this page with all its falsehood! You have not bothered to correct its POV or remove the offensive content inside it. Now matter how hard you try, truth will reveal itself and falshood will fail. Jijithnr (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We need to come up with WP:RS to support the tradition of where he was killed.

There is likely to be more than one place, and therefore more than one WP:RS. Remember that St. Thomas was conflated with a later evangelist named Thomas several centuries AD. He is therefore buried in six places, the last time I counted which has been a few years. So being killed in only two places is almost a welcome relief! Student7 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"He is therefore buried in six places" -Wikipedia does not give any importance to such careless statements. So if you are stating something please also provide a WP:RS supporting your claim. Unless you come up with such a reference , no new material can be added to or removed from the article. The reason why the tradition of his martrydom in Mylapore is given in the article is that it is supported by several WP:RS and here is just one among them - [2]. Now, do not come up with the argument saying Britannica is not reliable. As per wikipedia criteria it is reliable. And it is just one among the many reliable sources given in the article. So please understand that writing essays in this talk page without PROOFS will not be sufficient to make changes in the article. So please stop fighting (edit wars and reverting) and adhere to the wiki rules. This talk page certifies that several users have repeatedly expressed this point several times and now I am stating it again for the one last time. Unless you can provide a WP:RS, there is no scope of editing or discussion.PalakkappillyAchayan 04:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britanica is the elder sister / mother of Wikipedia when it comes to hosting biased entries in favor of Christianity! See the below correspondence of Ishwar Sharan with Encyclopedia Britanica:-

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

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

Now even if some of the Acts is accepted as probable, the composer of this entry still hasn’t got the story right. He uses the word “allegedly” for the visit of St. Thomas to the court of Gondophernes — assuming that Gondophernes is the same as Gundaphorus — when he could correctly cite the Acts for the reference.

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

We decided to call the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s bluff and on 19 September 1996 sent a letter pointing out the errors in the St. Thomas entry, and a copy of this book (second revised 1996 edition) to the Encyclopaedia’s editor-in-chief in Chicago. The editorial division representative Anthony G. Craine replied to us on 18 October 1996. He wrote, “We have received your book, and we have subsequently reviewed our coverage of Saint Thomas. While the Saint Thomas article that appears in the current printing of the Encyclopaedia Britannica differs slightly from the 1984 article to which you refer in your book, the current article does convey the same basic information. We have concluded that the portion of the article that refers to Thomas’ later life places too much emphasis on the unlikely scenario of his traveling to, and being martyred in India [emphasis added]. We have referred this information to the appropriate editor so that the article can be revised in future printings of Britannica. We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.”

We did not pay any more attention to the matter until February 2010 when we began updating The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple and had a look at the St. Thomas entry on the Encyclopaedia Britannica website. It says very little about St. Thomas and there is no article, only a link to a reference, but it begins like this, “… born, probably Galilee, died AD 53, Madras, India …” The entry for Kottayam, the centre of Syrian Christianity in India, says in part, “The town is a centre of the Syrian Christian community, which traces its origin to the apostle St. Thomas, who is believed to have visited Kerala in 53 CE and to have established seven churches on the Malabar Coast.” The entry for Christians of Saint Thomas reads, “The origins of the Christians of St. Thomas are uncertain, though they seem to have been in existence before the 6th century and probably derive from the missionary activity of the East Syrian (Nestorian) Church — which held that, in effect, the two natures of Christ were two persons, somehow joined in a moral union — centred at Ctesiphon.”

None of these entries are correct but the reference to Kottayam and Madras, giving the specific date of 53 CE for St. Thomas, is just a reworking of the Encyclopaedia’s 1984 entry. The various dates for St. Thomas’s arrival in India and death in Madras are inventions that were added to the legend in the nineteenth century. The editor has not kept his promise and has maintained the same information about St. Thomas and India in different wording. The charge that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a Catholic encyclopaedia intent on promoting a traditional Christian point of view remains. It has always been that way with the Encyclopaedia: Joseph McCabe the great linguist and historian of early Christianity, could not get it to correct and change its wrong entries for early Christian history either.

Read it full here:- http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com/appendix/encyclopaedia-britannica-wikipedia-their-counterfeit-st-thomas-entries-exposed-ishwar-sharan/

All of these are recoreded for the future historians to see for themselves how Christianity is propagated by forcefully planting lies in the minds of people, in Encyclopedias and Wikipedias even if it means abusing the tolerant Hindus who gave assylum to Christians persecuted in Iran by Zoroastrian rulers!!!

Jijithnr (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas' going to "India" in the 1st century, would have meant to the area of the Indus River, now in Pakistan. There seems to be no credible reason to place him further south than that. Student7 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

List of crucial points missing from this article affecting its neutrality

The points are:-

1. The Acts of Thomas, (http://www.gnosis.org/library/actthom.htm) makes it very clear that the domain of activity of Thomas was not South India but Indo-Parthia, which is now part of Pakistan. Hence accusing Hindus that a Hindu Brahmana killed St.Thomas in Mylapore, near Chennai in South India is plain wrong. It is un-historical as well as an unnecessary insult to Hinduism, which has given asylum to Christians persecuted in Iran under Zoroastrian kings.

Indo Parthian Kingdom of Gondophares

1. Judas Thomas (St. Thomas), as per the Acts of Thomas, was the brother of Jesus and his appearance was very similar to that of Jesus to the point that people can mistake him for Jesus.
2. Judas Thomas (St. Thomas) was sold as a slave to an Indian merchant Abbanes, by Jesus himself, according to the Acts of Thomas
3. It is acceptable to consider St.Thomas's visit to South India and his martyrdom in Mylapore Chennai as a very popular Christian belief (but not as History) and it must be presented with similar tradition of St.Thomas visit and martyrdom in other places like Brazil.

Below are the extracts of relevent portions from the Acts, to substantiate these points:-

Jesus make St.Thomas a slave to Indian merchant Abbanes

The following passage from the first chapter of the text describes how Jesus sold his slave Judas Thomas (later St.Thomas) to Abbanes, the Indain merchant, for three litrae of silver:-

There was there a certain merchant come from India whose name was Abbanes, sent from the King Gundaphorus (Gundaphorus is a historical personage who reigned over a part of India in the first century after Christ. His coins bear his name in Greek, as Hyndopheres), and having commandment from him to buy a carpenter and bring him unto him.

Now the Lord seeing him walking in the market-place at noon said unto him: Wouldest thou buy a carpenter? And he said to him: Yea. And the Lord said to him: I have a slave that is a carpenter and I desire to sell him. And so saying he showed him Thomas afar off, and agreed with him for three litrae of silver unstamped, and wrote a deed of sale, saying: I, Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, acknowledge that I have sold my slave, Judas by name, unto thee Abbanes, a merchant of Gundaphorus, king of the Indians. And when the deed was finished, the Saviour took Judas Thomas and led him away to Abbanes the merchant, and when Abbanes saw him he said unto him: Is this thy master? And the apostle said: Yea, he is my Lord. And he said: I have bought thee of him. And thy apostle held his peace.

And on the day following the apostle arose early, and having prayed and besought the Lord he said: I will go whither thou wilt, Lord Jesus: thy will be done. And he departed unto Abbanes the merchant, taking with him nothing at all save only his price. For the Lord had given it unto him, saying: Let thy price also be with thee, together with my grace, wheresoever thou goest.

Jesus identifies Thomas as his brother

The following passage make it clear that Judas Thomas (i.e. St.Thomas) whom Jesus sold as a slave to Indian merchant Abbanas, was none other than the brother of Jesus and both Jesus and Judas Thomas looked alike:-

And the king desired the groomsmen to depart out of the bride-chamber; and when all were gone out and the doors were shut, the bridegrroom lifted up the curtain of the bride-chamber to fetch the bride unto him. And he saw the Lord Jesus bearing the likeness of Judas Thomas and speaking with the bride; even of him that but now had blessed them and gone out from them, the apostle; and he saith unto him: Wentest thou not out in the sight of all? how then art thou found here? But the Lord said to him: I am not Judas which is also called Thomas but I am his brother. And the Lord sat down upon the bed and bade them also sit upon chairs.

This above passage is also the basis of considering Judas Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus and explains why he was called Didymus, the twin, in Greek. The name 'Thomas' also means 'twin'.

Death of St.Thomas as per the Acts of Thomas

The following passage, describe how St.Thomas was executed by a Zoroastrian king named Misdaeus in his Indo-Parthian Kingdom (a part of modern day Pakistan):-

Misdaeus saith unto him : I have not made haste to destroy thee, but have had long patience with thee: but thou hast added unto thine evil deeds, and thy sorceries are dispersed abroad and heard of throughout all the country: but this I do that thy sorceries may depart with thee, and our land be cleansed from them. Thomas saith unto him; These sorceries depart [NOT, Syr.] with me when I set forth hence, and know thou this that I [THEY, Syr.] shall never forsake them that are here.

When the apostle had said these things, Misdaeus considered how he should put him to death; for he was afraid because of the much people that were subject unto him, for many also of the nobles and of them that were in authority believed on him. He took him therefore and went forth out of the city; and armed soldiers also went with him. And the people supposed that the king desired to learn somewhat of him, and they stood still and gave heed. And when they had walked one mile, he delivered him unto four soldiers and an officer, and commanded them to take him into the mountain and there pierce him with spears and put an end to him, and return again to the city. And saying thus unto the soldiers, he himself also returned unto the city.

This narration is at variance with the dominant Christian myth that St. Thomas was martyred at Mylapore near Channai in South India which was then under the rule of Cholas and not under any Indo-Parthian king or Zoroastrian rulers. This narration also contradicts the portrait of St. Thomas martyrdom illustrated inside the church of St.Thomas in Mylapore Chennai, which shows a single Brahmana Hindu back stabbing St.Thomas with a lance while he was engaged in prayer.

Below is the information on the tradition of St.Thomas arriving and getting martyred in Brazil:-

Acts of Thomas

There were a number of "late arrivals" to be considered for the New Testament canon. Two were the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, among others. There were nothing heretical with either of these writings, but they came "too late" to be considered as inspired by the apostles. The Acts of Thomas is a 3rd century work, and came way too late to be reasonably considered as passed down by oral history. There is nothing in the New Testament that was written after the first century. Which is why the editor is pointing to a non-Wikipedia article for support above. It is not supported by Wikipedia editors. This work was apparently written in support of the Gnostic heresy in the 3rd century. It's not so much that it is religiously incorrect, but that it is historically unlikely, as well. Student7 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas in Brazil

Jesuit Fr. Francis X. Clooney, in his essay on missionaries, writes:-

If, as Xavier found, non-Christian peoples were not entirely bereft of God’s wisdom and inklings of revealed truth, the cause of this knowledge had to be explained, and later generations spent a good deal of time reflecting on the matter. There were numerous theories early on among the missionary scholars. For example, Antonio Ruiz de Montoya, writing in Peru in the mid-seventeenth century, thought that since God would not have overlooked the Americas for fifteen hundred years, and since among the twelve apostles St. Thomas was known for his mission to the “most abject people in the world, blacks and Indians,” it was only reasonable to conclude that St. Thomas had preached throughout the Americas: “He began in Brazil – either reaching it by natural means on Roman ships, which some maintain were in communication with America from the coast of Africa, or else, as may be thought closer to the truth, being transported there by God miraculously. He passed to Paraguay, and from there to the Peruvians.”

Ruiz de Montoya reported that St. Thomas even predicted the arrival of later missionaries, including the Jesuits themselves: “[Thomas] had prophesied in the eastern Indies that his preaching of the gospel would be revived, saying: “When the sea reaches this rock, by divine ordinance white men will come from far-off lands to preach the doctrine that I am now teaching you and to revive the memory of it.” Similarly, the saint prophesied in nearly identical words the coming of the Society’s members into the regions of Paraguay about which I speak: “You will forget what I preach to you, but when priests who are my successors come carrying crosses as I do, then you will hear once more the same doctrine that I am teaching you.”

Jijithnr (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Names

The Greek name 'Didymus', for 'twin', is related to the medical word 'epididymus', an structure located above the testis, thus, 'didymus' may refer to the testis, that are also twins. The verbe 'Attest' comes from the times were men gave value and proved the truth of an assertion by saying it with the hand in his testis, and 'Apostol' means 'Envoy', but the New Testament speaks about 'You'll receive force to be my witnesses', in this line, 'didymus' may be a redundancy. The tradition speaks about saint Thomas travelling to India, were he met a king named 'Gondaphares', who charged him with the task of building a palace, but saint Thomas used the money to help the poor. The king 'Gundafor' sent saint Thomas to jail, and Thomas escaped miraculously, leading to 'Gondaphares' requesting Baptism. 'Gondaphares' is written in other places as 'Gundafor'. The name 'Gunvor', pronounced very close to 'Gundafor', and used in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, would mean 'prudent' or 'wise in war'. 'Gund' is an ancient germanic language word for 'war', probably conected to 'wound', and 'vor', or 'afor' may be cognates to 'afford/able'. The name 'Gundafor' wouldn't be the only name with European roots in India, the name 'Govind', of widespread use today in India, is identical to the name of an ancient Gothic Queen of Spain: 'Goswintha', meaning 'the path of cows'. It's not suprising, besides the 'Seleucids' kingdom stablished in India by 'Alexander the big', and Sanskrit language having similarities to one of the three dialects of classical Greek, the so called 'Aryan' (meaning: 'belonging to a good family') peoples that arrived to India from northern Europe, probably thru the 'Pamir plateau', had also languages connected to the 'proto-european' language. The Brahmin caste, even when the caste system predated the arrival of Europeans to India, had a preponderance of genetic markers pointing to an European origin, thus, the presence of a king in India having a name that remarks an European origin is not a bizarre fact, but fits history.--Jgrosay (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk, but what is your point and/or suggestion for the page? That's what this Talk page is for - not to discuss esoteric word roots. Ckruschke (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke