caldrail Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 I see in a recent v program that there's a debate about one of Jesus's followers, Thomas, wghse gospel is not included in the Bible. Apparently Thomas left Judaea in the mid 1st century AD to travel to India, where he began converting jews amongst the small communities in India that sprung up as a result of trade. Western scholars poo-poo the idea, claiming there's no evidence. Indian scholars say otherwise, that the indian king of the time has been confirmed and that the traces of these settlers and their descendants (There's a group of indians who claim direct descent from early christian converts) are documented. Also, we know the later portuguese explorers who found the Thomas Christians conducted a purge to bring them back to roman catholicism (the priests considered the Thomas Christians to be heretics). A fascinating footnote then to the early christian expanson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adelais Valerius Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 I see in a recent v program that there's a debate about one of Jesus's followers, Thomas, wghse gospel is not included in the Bible. Apparently Thomas left Judaea in the mid 1st century AD to travel to India, where he began converting jews amongst the small communities in India that sprung up as a result of trade. Western scholars poo-poo the idea, claiming there's no evidence. Indian scholars say otherwise, that the indian king of the time has been confirmed and that the traces of these settlers and their descendants (There's a group of indians who claim direct descent from early christian converts) are documented. Also, we know the later portuguese explorers who found the Thomas Christians conducted a purge to bring them back to roman catholicism (the priests considered the Thomas Christians to be heretics). A fascinating footnote then to the early christian expanson. What traces were found? Scripture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 I think we watched the same programme. Didn't someone state that there was more evidense of Thomas being in South Western India than there was evidense of Paul ever stepping foot in Rome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 What traces were found? Scripture? I'd imagine the evidence is the same as any indian archaeology. The trouble with tv programs is that they don't go into this sort of detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 What traces were found? Scripture? I seriously doubt it. Oral legend is more likely. His shrine is in Mylapore, near present day Madras. He was supposedly martyred there, and the Christians of St. Thomas have a large following in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Thomas is an enigmatic character, not least because Thomas is not a name at all. It is a word which means "twin" in Hebrew. In some versions of the Gospels he is known as Thomas Didymus which doesn't really clarify the matter because Didymus also means twin in Greek, leading to the grotesque appellation "twin twin". In some versions of the Apocrypha he is known as "Thomas, twin brother of the Lord". Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) Herge's adventures de twin twin? The programme I watched was about Kerala. It said for years it was thought impossible that Thomas could have made it there in the time (and times) suggested. Then new evidenCe showed that a thriving trade existed between the Holy Land and Kerala during this period of history and a Jewish trading colony had been established there for centuries. What is the Apocrypha? Edited March 26, 2008 by spittle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Herge's adventures de twin twin? The programme I watched was about Kerala. It said for years it was thought impossible that Thomas could have made it there in the time (and times) suggested. Then new evidenCe showed that a thriving trade existed between the Holy Land and Kerala during this period of history and a Jewish trading colony had been established there for centuries. What is the Apocrypha? My understanding of the term is that it really depends who is talking about it.. in the earliest form it was a group of writings that were kept secret but in later (mainly but not exclusively Christian) writings it tends to mean writings that have been excluded from canonical (accepted) scripture. Of course it also depends which group is being referred to as to what they consider to be "canonical scripture" and consequently what they consider to be heretical texts leading to continuing arguments. This is why the Dead Sea Scrolls which include several different versions of the gospels and other early texts are considered by some scholars to be apocrypha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 What went into the canonical version of the Bible and what didn't was a matter of lively debate among the early Church Fathers. The Book of Enoch, for instance, which tells of naughty Angels copulating with human females, was widely read by early Christians, but didn't make the final cut. The Book of Revelations was also controversial and seems to have nearly not made the final version - it is astonishing to think how different some segments of modern Protestantism would be if they had never read of that particular book (they might not even exist for that matter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 What went into the canonical version of the Bible and what didn't was a matter of lively debate among the early Church Fathers. The Book of Enoch, for instance, which tells of naughty Angels copulating with human females, was widely read by early Christians, but didn't make the final cut. The Book of Revelations was also controversial and seems to have nearly not made the final version - it is astonishing to think how different some segments of modern Protestantism would be if they had never read of that particular book (they might not even exist for that matter). That's a delicious What-If: What if the Book of Enoch had been substituted for the Book of Revelation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Then there'd be cults telling us the end of the world is nigh and non-believers will be bonked to death by naughty angels. Cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 BTW, the apocrypha ia easily available online: New Testament apocrypha: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html Old Testament apocrypha: http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/non...n/apocrypha.htm Book of Enoch: http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/enoch.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 What went into the canonical version of the Bible and what didn't was a matter of lively debate among the early Church Fathers. The Book of Enoch, for instance, which tells of naughty Angels copulating with human females, was widely read by early Christians, but didn't make the final cut. The Book of Revelations was also controversial and seems to have nearly not made the final version - it is astonishing to think how different some segments of modern Protestantism would be if they had never read of that particular book (they might not even exist for that matter). That's a delicious What-If: What if the Book of Enoch had been substituted for the Book of Revelation? To me, the much-overlooked Book of Enoch is perhaps the least distasteful of the so-called holy scriptures. And that's solely because of its coooool listing of the names of the fallen angels. What truly wonderful names to be found in Enoch! And they can be altered slightly to produce romantic-sounding, modern feminine names such as "Araqielle" and "Sariela". If I were inclined to have a child, and if it were a daughter, I would seriously consider consulting the Book of Enoch for some charming baby name ideas from amongst those demons listed there. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.