PDA

View Full Version : Orthodox Church of India



Indra
28 April 2008, 12:09 AM
Malankara Orthodox Church is an ancient Church of India and it traces its origin to as far back as A. D. 52 when St. Thomas one of the Disciples of Jesus Christ came to India and established Christianity in the South Western parts of the sub-continent.

http://www.orthodoxsyrianchurch.com/

The orthodox church of india is the oldest christian church in india and unlike islam, catholicism and protestantism they came in peace and they dont convert that much.

Indra
28 April 2008, 12:20 AM
Malankara Orthodox Church is an ancient Church of India and it traces its origin to as far back as A. D. 52 when St. Thomas one of the Disciples of Jesus Christ came to India and established Christianity in the South Western parts of the sub-continent.



http://www.orthodoxsyrianchurch.com/



The orthodox church of india is the oldest christian church in india and unlike islam, catholicism and protestantism they came in peace and they dont convert that much.


They are a little minority among the christians. Most christians are catholics or protestants.

saidevo
28 April 2008, 01:15 AM
Namaste Indra.



Malankara Orthodox Church is an ancient Church of India and it traces its origin to as far back as A. D. 52 when St. Thomas one of the Disciples of Jesus Christ came to India and established Christianity in the South Western parts of the sub-continent.

http://www.orthodoxsyrianchurch.com/

The orthodox church of india is the oldest christian church in india and unlike islam, catholicism and protestantism they came in peace and they dont convert that much.

St. Thomas never visited Kerala, South India. This has been admitted by none other than the Pope himself: http://www.hamsa.org/pope.htm.

Hindus do not buy the Christian Myth of St.Thomas, though it is well established in Kerala and Tamilnadu among the Christians.

We in HDFpuri are striving to establish that most of the Christian nobles from Moses to Jesus are only myths with no historicity about them. You might find more details of this discussion in the 'Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?' thread. Also check the Website http://truthbeknown.com/

When it comes to conversion, it is the tenet not the practice that matters, so one church coverting not 'that much' than another one that does 'so many' are no different from each other.

Indra
28 April 2008, 01:27 AM
Namaste Indra.



St. Thomas never visited Kerala, South India. This has been admitted by none other than the Pope himself: http://www.hamsa.org/pope.htm.

The pope may say that because he is anti-orthodox. The catholics and proetestants dont like the orthodox.



Hindus do not buy the Christian Myth of St.Thomas, though it is well established in Kerala and Tamilnadu among the Christians.

How do you explain their ancient existence?




When it comes to conversion, it is the tenet not the practice that matters, so one church coverting not 'that much' than another one that does 'so many' are no different from each other.

The methods also matter, catholics and protestants give money to convert as much as possible.... the pope is a supremacist, the orthodox allow converts but their aim is not to convert as much as possible with weasal methods.

saidevo
28 April 2008, 02:18 AM
Namaste Indra.

1. Malankara is a place in Kerala near Kodungallur (this name was corrupted by the Europeans to Cranganore). The Syrian Christians claim that St.Thomas landed in 52 CE at this place and established seven churches at Kodungallur, Palayur, Paravoor, Kokkamangalam, Niranam, Chayal and Kollam. They also say is the Cranganore as the Musiri the famous Port referred in Sangam Literature. This supposed antiquity of the St.Thomas myth is the reason for the touted antiquity of the Malankara Orthodox Church.

2. The Church Apologists' claims are refuted by archaeological investigations conducted in the area that establish:

• that Coastal Kerala was below Sea till 7th or 8th Century CE.

• "First Occupation of Humankind in Kodungallore Belt and surroundings happened in 8 or 9th Century AD, as Virgin Soil without Any Human Occupation came then, all researches in the surrounding areas took us to the Second Chera period of and certainly Kodungallore is not the Musiri the famous Port referred in Sangam Literature."--Prof.K.V.Raman, in his paper "Archaeological Investigations in Kerala".

• (Incidentally Kodungallore Church are also called MALANKARA.) What Does MALANKARA Mean? The Tamil word correct form is Mal-Iyan Karai, which became Maliankara or Malankara. The Land formed By God Vishnu(Mal) and God Siva(Iyan).

For more details, check these links:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1494&st=60&p=68387&#entry68387
http://www.hamsa.org/

Indra
28 April 2008, 02:36 AM
Namaste Indra.

1. Malankara is a place in Kerala near Kodungallur (this name was corrupted by the Europeans to Cranganore). The Syrian Christians claim that St.Thomas landed in 52 CE at this place and established seven churches at Kodungallur, Palayur, Paravoor, Kokkamangalam, Niranam, Chayal and Kollam. They also say is the Cranganore as the Musiri the famous Port referred in Sangam Literature. This supposed antiquity of the St.Thomas myth is the reason for the touted antiquity of the Malankara Orthodox Church.

2. The Church Apologists' claims are refuted by archaeological investigations conducted in the area that establish:

• that Coastal Kerala was below Sea till 7th or 8th Century CE.

• "First Occupation of Humankind in Kodungallore Belt and surroundings happened in 8 or 9th Century AD, as Virgin Soil without Any Human Occupation came then, all researches in the surrounding areas took us to the Second Chera period of and certainly Kodungallore is not the Musiri the famous Port referred in Sangam Literature."--Prof.K.V.Raman, in his paper "Archaeological Investigations in Kerala".

• (Incidentally Kodungallore Church are also called MALANKARA.) What Does MALANKARA Mean? The Tamil word correct form is Mal-Iyan Karai, which became Maliankara or Malankara. The Land formed By God Vishnu(Mal) and God Siva(Iyan).

For more details, check these links:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1494&st=60&p=68387&#entry68387
http://www.hamsa.org/

Namaste. How those orthodox christians came into existence? Since when they are in india. Who found their church?

saidevo
28 April 2008, 05:20 AM
Namaste Indra.

I have given you two links, why don't you check them? Anyway, on the very homepage of the Hamsa link the following text from the Forword by Koenraad Elst is given:

"In fact this apostle never came to India. The Christian community in South India was founded by a merchant Thomas Cananeus in 345 A.D. (a name which readily explains the Thomas legend)." And this first Christian community was not formed out of converted native Hindus, but from the four hundred refugees led by him, who fled persecution in Persia and were given asylum by the Hindu authorities.

If you still want to believe the St.Thomas Myth, you are welcome to be a faithful (read gullible) sheep under a good (reading cunning) shepherd!

Indra
28 April 2008, 06:01 AM
Namaste Indra.

I have given you two links, why don't you check them? Anyway, on the very homepage of the Hamsa link the following text from the Forword by Koenraad Elst is given:

"In fact this apostle never came to India. The Christian community in South India was founded by a merchant Thomas Cananeus in 345 A.D. (a name which readily explains the Thomas legend)." And this first Christian community was not formed out of converted native Hindus, but from the four hundred refugees led by him, who fled persecution in Persia and were given asylum by the Hindu authorities.

If you still want to believe the St.Thomas Myth, you are welcome to be a faithful (read gullible) sheep under a good (reading cunning) shepherd!

Namaste,

First: Sorry that i didnt checked the links

Second: If it is found in 345 A.D it is still the most ancient church in India, since catholicism arrived with portugese imperialists and protestantism with british imperialists and it arrived in peace unlike the others (as refugees who were given asylym). However the orthodox compared to catholics and protestants are the smallest christian group which is a indicator that they dont convert much, either they are not interested in converting much or they are not that succesful.

The Roman Catholic Church in India is part of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church), under the leadership of the Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope) and curia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Curia) in Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome). Although Christianity in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India) dates to the 1st century AD,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_India#cite_note-missick-0) Catholicism was introduced much later in the 16th century by the Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_India#cite_note-CEIndia-1)
There are over 17.3 million Catholics in India,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_India#cite_note-BBC-2) which represents less than 2% of the total population[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_India#cite_note-Global-3) and is the largest Christian Church within India.

Protestants in India are a minority of several millions.
Beginning in the eighteenth century, Protestant missionaries began to work throughout India, leading to the growth of different Christian communities. In 1793 William Carey, an English Baptist Minister came to India as a Missionary. He worked in Serampore, Calcutta etc as a missionary. He started the Serampore College. He translated the Bible into Bengali and Sanskrit. He worked until his death in 1834.

ohmshivaya
29 April 2008, 07:59 AM
...The orthodox church of india is the oldest christian church in india and unlike islam, catholicism and protestantism they came in peace and they dont convert that much.


Namaste:

Nearly every christian denomination has reinvented itself hundreds of times, that christians themselves, from whichever part of the world, no longer know their own history.

I don't understand what you mean by the statement, "orthodox church of India came in peace.." The orthodox church in Europe itself, from its very early inception, did not enjoy a pristine reputation, and has been instrumental in eliminating the earlier ancient faiths of Europe. For more information on the history of the various denominations in christianity and their part in reconfiguring the religious demographics in Europe, please visit http://freetruth.50webs.org/Index.htm. It is no doubt a very vast website, but provides as much information as possible, with compliations from various historical records. There is also a section on the Romas and christianity at http://freetruth.50webs.org/A6.htm

Indra
29 April 2008, 09:17 AM
I don't understand what you mean by the statement, "orthodox church of India came in peace.." The orthodox church in Europe itself, from its very early inception, did not enjoy a pristine reputation, and has been instrumental in eliminating the earlier ancient faiths of Europe. For more information on the history of the various denominations in christianity and their part in reconfiguring the religious demographics in Europe, please visit http://freetruth.50webs.org/Index.htm. It is no doubt a very vast website, but provides as much information as possible, with compliations from various historical records. There is also a section on the Romas and christianity at http://freetruth.50webs.org/A6.htm

Namaste ohmshivaya,

Thanks for the very useful links.
The orthodox church of europe integrated parts of the old faiths into their belief system. Yes they replaced the old faiths. The orthodox church of india played another role as the orthodox church of europe (i never heard that they destroyed hinduism or even tried). I think those christians and even muslims can be integrated into hindu society and philosophy, as far as i learned here and on other forums about hinduism is that they are open to many beliefs and can absorb many beliefs. I believe that jesus christ exists, i call myself hindu because of the "race" and because its part of our heritage and old culture... not because i really believe in the hindu gods though im proud of the hindu "mythology" and it is very fascinating i want to learn about it and make myself proud of my roots. Im not religious hindu but a kind of a hindu-nationalist who is not very religious. I believe in the historicity of jesus christ. I hope you can accept my opinions.:)

ScottMalaysia
01 May 2008, 08:29 AM
There is a Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church here in Malaysia, in Brickfields (an area of Kuala Lumpur called "Little India" due to the large Indian population). I visited the church the last time I was in Malaysia. The altar was similar to a traditional (pre-1965) Roman Catholic altar. They had a five faced oil lamp exactly like the ones used in Hindu temples, except their one had a cross on the top. And the extremely watered-down wine at Holy Communion was administered in a teapot!

jaggin
19 May 2008, 09:09 AM
The methods also matter, catholics and protestants give money to convert as much as possible.... the pope is a supremacist, the orthodox allow converts but their aim is not to convert as much as possible with weasal methods.

If a church isn't evangelizing much it isn't obeying God.

I can see where such tactics as paying for converts would chagrin some people but if a peson can be bought he didn't have strong beliefs to begin with. Missionaries sent by churches have to account for the money they are spending. If the sending party doesn't see any fruit it can recall the missionary. Americans tend to be result oriented which isn't necessarily a bad thing since we have managed to accomplish much but Christianity should have a more altruistic outlook. On the other hand some lazy Christian could go to India, live the high life and not evangelize much because it is too much work or too discouraging.

Lately there is a trend to fund internal evangelists. It is much more efficient because there is no need for language and cultural training. Also there is less likely to be the post-colonial bias that missionaries are apt to run into.

devotee
19 May 2008, 09:33 AM
If a church isn't evangelizing much it isn't obeying God.

Correction : If a church isn't evangelizing much it isn't obeying the Bible.

--------------

This is important to understand because God cannot be two ... one for Hinduism & another for Christianity !

--------------

OM

satay
19 May 2008, 11:16 AM
namaskar,


If a church isn't evangelizing much it isn't obeying God.


Could you share with us some quotes from church scriptures where god tells church to evangelize? My understanding is that there are no direct commands in your scriptures just interpolation of some verses of unknown origin.



if a peson can be bought he didn't have strong beliefs to begin with.


If a person can be bought do you think they will have a strong belief in the foreign maleccha cult that bought him or her?



Americans tend to be result oriented which isn't necessarily a bad thing since we have managed to accomplish much but Christianity should have a more altruistic outlook.


Americans are definitely results oriented. Since christianity offers nothing to them spiritually they are exporting the garbage to other countries. That's just good business.



Lately there is a trend to fund internal evangelists. It is much more efficient because there is no need for language and cultural training. Also there is less likely to be the post-colonial bias that missionaries are apt to run into.

There is nothing latest to this trend. This has been going on for many years. In India though missionaries 'lazy' or not have been failing no matter what dirty tactics they apply to fool the simple villagers.

I think that some villagers are smarter than the missionaires where they 'converted' to the foreign maleccha cult, took the money that missionaries gave them then either they officially returned back to their previous religion or just continued praying the way they did before, ignoring the foreign maleccha practices of their bought religion.

Sagefrakrobatik
19 May 2008, 08:09 PM
^^^ I dont have the direct verse on me now but in there is a verse that says to "go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature in all the corners of the world."

ScottMalaysia
20 May 2008, 02:04 AM
Could you share with us some quotes from church scriptures where god tells church to evangelize? My understanding is that there are no direct commands in your scriptures just interpolation of some verses of unknown origin.

Matthew 28:19-20 - "Therefore go and make disciples of (KJV teach) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I [Jesus] have commanded you."
Mark 16:15-16 - "[Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
These passages seem to be a pretty explicit command to go out and evangelize - some groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, take it more seriously than other groups like the Orthodox, who don't evangelize much, if at all.

Many Protestant missionaries go to the poorest areas of the globe, bring food, clothing and basic necessities to the people, along with "Free Jesus tickets to heaven" (many Protestant denoms believe that once a person has "accepted Jesus as their personal Saviour", they are definitely going to go to heaven, no matter what they do in life, as they believe that salvation is a free gift from God which is not earned, therefore it cannot be lost). Many poor people who face problems obtaining the bare necessities of life would get sucked in by a promise of Heaven, as death is often very real to these people.

sarabhanga
20 May 2008, 09:12 AM
Matthew 28: 18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Mark 16: 15-20
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Both passages were written long after the words were supposedly spoken by Jesus. And the lines from Mark are supposed to have been spoken posthumously by Jesus.

And, considering the explicit words of Jesus in his ‘Sermon on the Mount’, which profess that the enlightened will naturally attract and inspire others by their own perfect example, and that anyone who sincerely asks shall receive, and the warning (Matthew 7: 22-23) that:
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.it should be clear that the posthumous instructions have turned the original teaching on its head.

And it should also be clear that anyone who is eligible to convert the spirit of others must also be able to drink deadly poisons without any harm. And all those who are bent on converting the religion of others should first prove themselves by taking some deadly poison.

If a Christian missionary ever came to my door, intoxicated but unaffected by the poison, and with a venomous serpent (perhaps a cobra) in his hand, I would be interested in his wisdom; but otherwise it would be more in keeping with his own Lord’s personal instruction to make himself into a candle stationed on a hill, so that others (of their own volition) will come to him and ask for instruction.

Matthew 7: 1-8
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Matthew 5: 37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.