The Apostle Thomas/ Oct. 6th
nicknospamcobb
Commemorated October 6 and Sunday following Easter Sunday
St. Thomas, called Didymus, is remembered as the apostle who refused to
believe in the Resurrection unless he actually touched the wounds of the
risen Christ (John 20:25-28). There is much uncertainty about his
missionary work after Pentecost. The generally accepted tradition placed
it in India, where the Syrian Christians of Malabar claim that they were
evangelised by St. Thomas. He was martyred, by spearing, on the 'Big
Hill', about 14 km from Madras; and was buried at Mylapore, now a suburb
of Madras, in 72 AD. An ancient cross of stone marks the place where his
body rested before its translation to Edessa in 394. His relics were
later taken to the island Chios in the Aegean Sea and from there to
Ortona in the Abruzzi.
AGG
nicknospamcobb <nickn...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<Npqgb.11018$2P....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>...
learner
> The generally accepted tradition placed
> it in India, where the Syrian Christians of Malabar claim that they were
> evangelised by St. Thomas. He was martyred, by spearing, on the 'Big
> Hill', about 14 km from Madras; and was buried at Mylapore, now a suburb
> of Madras, in 72 AD.
Nice story, except that Thomas never went to India. The Christian
community of South India was founded by a merchant named Thomas
Cananeus in 345 A.D. - not Thomas the Apostle. He arrived in India
with four hundred refugees who fled the persecution of King Shapur II
of Persia and were given asylum by the Hindus because the Persian King
suspected that the Syrian Christians were loyal to Rome.
Learner
digimortal
"nicknospamcobb" <nickn...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:Npqgb.11018$2P....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
AGG
You are partly correct...there is no definitive proof that St. thomas
went to what is now India. However, it is in the Tradition of the Holy
Orthodox Church that he did, and such tradition is worth believing.
Consider this from a Syriac Christian Resources web site, which
mirrors quite closely Eastern Orthodox tradition:
One of the Twelve Apostles, St. Thomas is prominent in the Syriac
tradition. He is mentioned in all four Gospels. In St. John, he
appears in three episodes, namely offering to die with Jesus on His
way to Bethany (Jn 11:16), interrupting the last discourse with his
question, "Lord, we do not know where you are going, and how can we
know the way" (Jn 14:5) and, lastly, doubting the Ressurection unless
he were to touch the wounds of the Risen Lord (Jn 20:25-8). After
Christ's appearance he confesses his faith in the words, 'My Lord and
my God' and is thus the first to confess His Divinity explicitly.
According to an early tradition mentioned by Eusebius (Historia
Ecclesiastica 3.I) and others, the Apostle evangelized the Parthians.
According to the Gnostic Acts of Thomas in Syriac, where he is called
Judas Thomas, he brought the Gospels to India where he was martyred
and then buried at Mylapore, near Chennai (Madras). It is believed
that the Apostle arrived in India in AD 52 and was martyred in AD 72.
The Syriac Christians of Malabar, the Southwest coast of India, call
themselves 'Christians of St. Thomas'. It is believed that his body
was transferred to Edessa in the 4th century; St. Ephrem's works note
that the bones of St. Thomas were venerated there in his time. The
great hymnodist alludes to the transferral of the bones in his Carmina
Nisibena (42:1.1-2.2, Kathleen McVey, Ephrem the Syrian, Paulist
Press, 1989, p. 25):
The evil one wails, "Where then
can I flee from the righteous?
I incited Death to kill the apostles
as if to escape from their scourges
by their death. More than ever now
I am scourged harshly. The apostle I killed in India
[has come] to Edessa before me. Here is he and also there.
I went there, there he is.
Here and there I found him, and I am gloomy.
Did that merchant carry the bones?
Or perhaps, indeed, they carried him!
His relics were moved from Edessa later and rediscovered in this
century at the Syriac Orthodox Church of Mosul by His Holiness Mor
Ignatius Zakka I while he was the Archbishop of Mosul.
There are a number of apocryphal writings under his name, most notably
the Acts of St. Thomas which is of Syriac origin. This work dates back
to the middle of the 3rd century. Translations in Greek, and portions
in Latin, Ethiopic and Armenian exist.
The Church commemorates the memory of St. Thomas on July 3rd. The date
marks the transfer of the remains of the Apostle to Edessa. The Church
in India also commemorates the Apostle on the New Sunday after Easter,
on December 18th when the Apostle is believed to have been speared,
and on December 21st when he attained martyrdom.
Patriarch H.H. Ignatius Zakka I in an encyclical dated October 20,
1987, added the name of "Apostle Thomas, the preacher of the Holy
Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in India" to the the fourth diptych
(Syr. tubden) in the Malankara Church.
Source:
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (1997).
Kathleen McVey, Ephrem the Syrian Hymns (Paulist Press, 1989).
learner
> > > The generally accepted tradition placed
> > > it in India, where the Syrian Christians of Malabar claim that they were
> > > evangelised by St. Thomas. He was martyred, by spearing, on the 'Big
> > > Hill', about 14 km from Madras; and was buried at Mylapore, now a suburb
> > > of Madras, in 72 AD.
> >
> > Nice story, except that Thomas never went to India. The Christian
> > community of South India was founded by a merchant named Thomas
> > Cananeus in 345 A.D. - not Thomas the Apostle. He arrived in India
> > with four hundred refugees who fled the persecution of King Shapur II
> > of Persia and were given asylum by the Hindus because the Persian King
> > suspected that the Syrian Christians were loyal to Rome.
> >
> > Learner
>
> You are partly correct...there is no definitive proof that St. thomas
> went to what is now India.
Then why believe in such a myth?
> However, it is in the Tradition of the Holy
> Orthodox Church that he did, and such tradition is worth believing.
Why should I believe this story? History contradicts this myth, as it
does many other myths of Orthodoxy (i.e. the "presentation" of Mary in
the Temple, the "dormition", etc.... The substitution of mythology
for history is the main reason that I left the Orthodox Church.
Learner
nicknospamcobb
reject it. It's only YOUR LIFE!
AGG
O ye of little (or no) faith. The (or "a") western church is right for
someone like you where everything must be proved to be believed and
little or no faith is required of the individual. What religious
belief system did you end up with?
Al
learner
> God gave you the freedom to believe the Truth or reject it. Go ahead,
> reject it. It's only YOUR LIFE!
I am greatly concerned with the truth and would never reject it. As
for the Orthodox Church, I have some problems. The current subject -
the historicity of Thomas' alleged mission to India - illustrates my
point.
How difficult is it to distinguish the historical core beliefs of the
Church from the non-factual/un-true encrustations - such as the Thomas
in India myth? In others words: if one claims that a corpus of beliefs
[in this case, Church Tradition] contains both truth and fiction, then
we assume that one "knows" what the truth and untruth are.
When the Church claims that some event occured [in this case, Thomas'
mission to India], it is saying what it "thought" happened, not
necessarily what really happened - which can be verified by history in
some cases - such as in this case.
So, the Church's claims/teachings/doctrines contain "opiniated truth"
- which is not the same as historical truth. The inability of the
Orthodox Church to cleary distinguish between the facts and the
non-factual/un-true encrustations, which it picked up over time,
causes me to reject the organization as a whole. I do this because I
take both the truth and my life very seriously.
Learner
nick cobb
find the Truth. At the end of the day, you'll discover that the
Apostle Thomas was indeed in India!
nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote in message news:<c53bb03c.03100...@posting.google.com>...
ma...@toad-link.com
that the Apostle Thomas didn't go to India and the two additional
speculations concerning the life of the Theotokos.
digimortal
well as the parents offering a sacrifice...
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.03100...@posting.google.com...
digimortal
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.03100...@posting.google.com...
learner
> Learner, concerning the speculations you have advanced recently, prove
> that the Apostle Thomas didn't go to India and the two additional
> speculations concerning the life of the Theotokos.
That is a logical fallacy, one cannot prove that something did not
happen. Also, since the Church is the positive claimant, it shoulders
the burden of proof.
In the case of Thomas, we have early traditions that he went to
Persia, not India. We also know who brought Christianity to India and
when from Indian historical chronicals. In the case of the so called
"dormition" and presentation of Mary in the Temple, the earliest
records of these beliefs date from the mid 6th century. In fact, we
know that the source of these myths [a Gnostic text]was condemned as
heretical by Pope Gelasius in 494.
Once again, I cannot prove a negative - this is an argument of
fallacy. I cannot prove that George Washington did not throw a dollar
across the Potomac or that there are no U.S. MIAs in Vietnam since I
cannot be in all places at one time, where he may be held!
Learner
Barnabas
> Persia, not India. We also know who brought Christianity to India and
> when from Indian historical chronicals. In the case of the so called
> "dormition" and presentation of Mary in the Temple, the earliest
> records of these beliefs date from the mid 6th century. In fact, we
> know that the source of these myths [a Gnostic text]was condemned as
> heretical by Pope Gelasius in 494.
>
> Once again, I cannot prove a negative - this is an argument of
> fallacy. I cannot prove that George Washington did not throw a dollar
> across the Potomac or that there are no U.S. MIAs in Vietnam since I
> cannot be in all places at one time, where he may be held!
>
> Learner
How old are you - 12?
ma...@toad-link.com
The church has broad shoulders indeed, but in this instance it was your
advanced speculations of "encrustation" that is at issue; now on your
shoulders. Your response reveals the very heart of history as "proof" for
matters of faith. Where it has no documentation it is struck deaf, dumb,
and mute. Where it does it is eternally subject to the contingency of the
information and the stories created to account for them; all subject to
the next new document or more clever interpretation or academic whim and
fad; all driven by the lust of each next phd grad student to carve a
niche. In the perfect examples below, we know nothing about when
christians were first in india, only an account of one early group. We
know nothing about the Theotokos before accounts were written, despite
speaking from the royal "we" of hrm victoria. Thomas went from persia to
india, in one account I read, quite consistent with very active routes of
war and trade activities in that area; it was the way to go to india if
not by sea. This is the heart of making faith have a foundation based on
contingency, it must change tomorrow if the "evidence" demands it; and the
protestants have 500 years of excellent practice doing exactly that;
behold the Jesus seminar; until the next wave of a better "truth" is upon
us. Christianity is a revelation, not the most recent contingency of the
rationalistic process.
>> Learner, concerning the speculations you have advanced recently, prove
>> that the Apostle Thomas didn't go to India and the two additional
>> speculations concerning the life of the Theotokos.
>
>That is a logical fallacy, one cannot prove that something did not
>happen. Also, since the Church is the positive claimant, it shoulders
>the burden of proof.
>
learner
That is not a very mature statement, is it Evan? You still have
nothing intelligent to say. Sad indeed.
Learner
learner
> The church has broad shoulders indeed, but in this instance it was your
> advanced speculations of "encrustation" that is at issue; now on your
> shoulders.
These are hardly my "advanced speculations". Eusebius said that
Thomas' mission "field" was Persia, not south India. One either
believes the earliest traditions of the Church, or accepts the later
traditions, which have, over time, turned into encrustations of
falsehood.
In the case of Mary, there are a number of expert Mariologists, such
as Eamon Duffy and Juniper Carol [the founder of the American
Mariological Society] who freely admit that in 377 A.D. Epiphanius
specifically stated that no one knew what actually happened to Mary
and that the earliest recorded final "fate" of Mary is the apocryphal
Transitus Mariae written in the fifth century A.D.! The fact of
history is that the Feast of the Presentation of Mary was kept in
Byzantium only as early as 600-700 A.D.. In the case of the so called
"Dormition", the earliest records of this belief dates from the mid
6th century and the source of this myth was a Gnostic text which was
condemned as heretical by Pope Gelasius in 494!
Therefore, the claim that these were beliefs held by the Apostolic
Church, which was handed down to us through the channel of tradition,
is simply a pious fraud on the part of the Church.
> Your response reveals the very heart of history as "proof" for
> matters of faith. Where it has no documentation it is struck deaf, dumb,
> and mute.
One of the key premises of the Christian faith [as well as in other
"revealed" religions such as the Jewish and Islamic faiths] is that
God interacted with humanity at various points in history. We can
test the claims of various religions [who make this assumption] by
looking at history. Such claims, of course, can be open to
verification and falsification. In other words,we can look at the
Church's claims which can be supported or refuted by history.
In this case, it is not. Therefore, I cast a more critical eye at the
Orthodox Church's other claims.
Learner
ma...@toad-link.com
My formal grad education was in science, including several courses in the
history and philosophy of science, including those under a world renowned
scholar of same; so I know how the academy works. I know "encrustation" is
not your invention, but you advanced here as spectulation. You didn't
address my points about using history in matters of faith, you repeated
one of the recent versions of the story used to account for the limited
documents known" as accepted" in the school of historical theory to which
you subscribe. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, you know the
saying one trusts. You mention the first known paper recording what is
taught about Thomas and Mary, demostrating once again that in the absence
ofpater history is struck deaf, dumb, and mute; except for the
spectulations one group or another might advance as you did here.
Absence of paper is not absence of truth or fact nor does it speak to
christianity as a revealed truth based on acceptence on faith. Absence of
faith is not absence of that in which others place their faith. History
is deaf, dumb, and mute on the number of times queen elisabeth picked her
nose on fridays, from which we can speculate exactly what? Of course even
where paper exists the contingent nature of rationalism proceeds apace.
The story about the paper and how to understand it is based on who, what,
when, etc. comes down the academic pike at any given time.