Talk:Saint Thomas Christians
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saint Thomas Christians article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Please familiarize yourself with the sanctions authorized for this topic area before making further edits.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 2 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Arbitrary and illogical edits claiming that Catholics are st. thomas christians
An issue here is that St. Thomas Christians by name and by faith believe themselves to be converted by St. Thomas, Apostle of Christ in India. Catholics in India are only established after the arrival of Portuguese. and the catholics are hellbent on change of history to their favour using all their resources. If Wikipedia doesn't stop this nonsene then there is no use to referering this page for any good use. If you are so desirous of spreading the word of god then do it to the masses and not in the history books, because if you change your history you are not worth any message you spread.188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC) George 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Members Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church are St. Thomas Christians. That's what they consider themselves, and most importantly for our purposes, it's what various reliable sources for the subject consider them. Personal interpretations of individual Wikipedia editors are original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles.--Cúchullain t/c 01:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Does those sources refer to Catholics converted or aligned to Roman Catholic church as indigenous St. Thomas Christians or they used the term to generally refer to christians. Further the Original Saint thomas christians was a name give by europeans to people who were the ones who were already christians before the evangelical movement of catholics. even if some St Thomas christians may have joined them, Catholics have converted more indigenous population to roman catholics and by and large very far away from the traditions of the real st. thomas christians. If you say history of 200-300 hundred years can whitewash the history of almost 2000 years your sources may be right. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)George
Further i would like to add if what people believe is to taken as measure i believe they are not st. thomas christians, if you want proof from reliable sources, take any and read them they refer to christians who were not catholics before the arrival portugese. George18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- What the people themselves believe matter, so long as it appears in reliable sources. What you as an individual believes doesn't matter at all. What really matters is what the reliable sources say, and various ones included here (Britannica, Benedict Vadakkekara, Robert Frykenberg, etc.) do include both the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church part of the Saint Thomas Christian community.
- You appear to be seriously confused by what these churches are. Not all Catholics in India are Saint Thomas Christians; in fact most Indian Catholics are not. The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara, however, are made up of people whose ancestors were Saint Thomas Christians who were brought into the Catholic church, and now have their own Eastern Catholic hierarchies and church structures. They are just as much Saint Thomas Christians as any other group.--Cúchullain t/c 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of argument would you address white Americans or for that matter any black American by the nationality of their ancestors. They have culturally and habitually so diverged from that of their ancestors from different nations that they have attained a divergent and unique and different distinct american identity. such is the case with malabar catholics and they had joined the catholic faith (even if some people doubt, they sincerely hold their allegiance to the pope) long time back, even converted many indigenous hindus and other religions elements ( through their early evangilical work which is still continuing) into their fold. their rank and file are mostly filled with those people who have very little to do with the real st. thomas christians. Just because someone has published something it doens't become 'an authentic source'. You have corrected me twice, may i ask you how much do you know about st. thomas christians. I am not alleging that you are biased nor do i want to believe the same (to much politics in religion nowadays). Taking time out to monitor this page in itself is very big. I am a jacobite and i live in Kerala, India, and don't really care what anyone says or for that matter even less for what are published on the internet, but to see a page which many see and many more may see in future i would like the page to reflect authentic records. and to see something based on evangilical publicity materials, i don't hold it on high values. rest assured i hope the matter is settled. I have by reason of my origins never ventured into seeking sources for my origin as they were as they are to me since the time i was born. hope somebody finds relevant sources. I have nothing more to say. George22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- The ways other groups shape their identities are irrelevant to this article. And again, your personal views are also irrelevant to the article. All that matters is that we follow the reliable sources the topic. This isn't just my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy; please see verifiability and identifying reliable sources. As I showed, the sources consider the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Christians part of the Saint Thomas Christian community, so we follow what they say.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- George, I don't understand your argument. Till 1054, there was no divisions in the church, there was just ONE,HOLY, CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC church. Then how could the Christians in India be separate from them. The so called classifications like Orthodox, catholic, Jacobite etc., came to India when after a long time under the Archdeacon (as the leader of the Indian Christians was called, who were not in contact with the other churches), people tried to contact the larger church in the west/middle east. and its a long story you could read here in wiki itself. In fact the Syro-Malabar catholic church came just so that Christians could still be catholic and not under those Portuguese. Have you not ever heard about coonan kurishu oath?~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
the schism occurred around 400 AD and since then the churches have remained different, actually four different places 1 at rome,2 at constantinople, 3 alexandria, 4 at antiochia which has been the see of christians in india before the evangilical movement by catholics. ScitDei your sources are very unrealiable because there was only one church before the portugese arrived in India. people didn't have any denominations before the evangilical movement. they only went to one church that church definitely wasn't catholic. constantinople and alexandria later merged with rome but the see of antiochia has not till date. schism of 1054 had in no way altered the church in india atleast upto and until the catholic evangilical movemement in india. my church teaches there are two measning of catholisism one to meant one in christ and one that means in agreement with the pope of rome. so which catholic church are you referring to 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)George
When did Nestorianism reach India?
Quote An organised Christian presence in India dates to the arrival of East Syrian settlers and missionaries from Persia, members of the Church of the East or Nestorian Church, in around the 3rd century. Unquote
How on earth can that be true when Nestorius didn't live until the 5th century? There are similar wild statements in other articles here about the history of Christianity In India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
reference from well reputed historians are provided but then also removed and false information and hoaxes are everywhere and these stories are project as history!.made up stories of some "family historians" are used as authentic history!. There has been an awful lot of well-sourced content removed over the last month or two, and a lot of poorly-sourced content added - notably, too much reliance on nasrani.net. Unless people come up with decent explanations for the removals, I am going to add the material back. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The changes are unexplained and unsupported. I say go for it.--Cúchullain t/c 18:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sitush, would you like to go ahead with this?--Cúchullain t/c 14:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
One rogue editor, ManofManyTrophies has been attempting do the following:
1. Add claims of a large number of Jews converting to christianity, and then adding false citations. 2. Remove content written on the basis of Prof Malekandathil's published research. Nasrani.net reproduced a chapter from his book. His claim is that the source is not reliable.
Prof Malekandathil is professor of history at JNU, I believe India's most recognized History department, and his book has been reviewed in international journals. His book can be accessed here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rN69iFj1PJoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=pius+malekandathil+&ots=zC_bWvYX01&sig=fC68k0GDnxQtWn0czgDFNhWH-F0#v=onepage&q=pius%20malekandathil&f=false
Other than engaging in a discussion, he has been vandalizing my talk page with dubious warnings. I would like to ask for a third party review. Cúchullain?
- Nasrani.net is a glorification site of Syrian Christians. Are you saying that a Syrian Christians historian writing about his own people is a 100% reliable source? I never added citations or false citations to the Jews converting to Christianity and if I did, feel free to remove it. You had also reverted minor parts of the edit such as me replacing Persians with Middle Eastern. Regarding the conversions, tt is pretty obvious though. Also, do you know what vandalizing means in Wikipedia context? ManofManyTrophies (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It just sounds absolutely ridiculous as every 2 seconds in reading that article, I see some sort of comparison between Brahmins and Syrian Christians or Nairs and Syrian Christians. The sentence 'on par with Brahmins' or 'at the same level as savarna hindus' is probably the most common sentence in that article. It sounds like those from the community wish they were Brahmins or Nairs. If you say that there isn't any caste promotional things in the article that try to lift the status of the community, I would be more than happy to provide evidence for that. 'Privileged Military Role'...this is complete baloney.ManofManyTrophies (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Had you checked the source for your particular complaint you would see it is adequately backed up. The source is L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer's Anthropology of Syrian Christians, which is available online. The required page is 55 and you can look it up here: https://archive.org/stream/AnthropologyOfTheSyrianChristians/Anthropology%20Of%20The%20Syrian%20Christians#page/n93
Will also like to add, it is funny that ManofManyTrophies is accusing me for defending 'caste promotion' in this article, given judging by recent 'contributions' to other articles, caste promotion seems to be his hobby.