Talk:Thomas the Apostle

I think it would be polite to make Thomas a disambiguation page and move the information on the page to Thomas (apostle) or Thomas (disciple) or some such.

What other Thomases need to be disambiguated? Most others I can think of have well-known surnames, like Thomas Aquinas. Wesley

I wanted to do a page about the origins of the Name Thomas - But I can't. Can you not do a disambiguation page?

Part of moving a page is redirecting the links at "What links here". --Wetman 19:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did that now, and also lowercased the word "apostle" in the title. I went through all of the pages that linked to the person and made additional redirects. There are several popular forms of the name used to refer to the person, but the various redirects accommodate for this nicely. --Joy [shallot] 14:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this link to the myth of a Christian kingdom east of the India as per Prester John? Sparky

The origin of a "presbyter John" is in Eusebius' quotations from Papias. --Wetman 08:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To what extent is it a fact that Thomas the Apostle visited India, and how much is myth? Apparently, the Portuguese kept claiming they had found traces of Thomas across the globe (in India, Africa and even Brazil), maybe as a justification for their colonial expeditions...

"Fact?" The question in these cases is always, what do the texts say? who accepts these texts as dogma? etc. etc. --Wetman 08:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If only more Wikipedians had this attitude. --Goethean 18:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any debate about Thomas' missionary work to India. It's documentation might be sketchy, but no one (so far as I know) disagrees with it. Danielsilliman 03:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Better title: Thomas (apostle)--case

Although there's a redirect from Thomas (apostle), I think the main article should be titled Thomas (apostle) in accordance with our naming conventions. Demi ^T/_C 18:11, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Agreed. I was going round correcting all the broken redirects linking to "(apostle)" when I noticed this. I'd only done two, luckily, so if it is moved, we won't have to correct as many redirects. BillyH 18:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raw edit material

I have moved the following edits here. Is any of this material not already fully covered in the article? (Wetman 14:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC))

It IS now doubted an existence of a Person called THomas.

APOSTLES- 12 WHO ARE THEY? Luke has One Jude instead of Thaddaues and another Cleopas. John' gospel has another Nathenel. Apologist try to say Thaddeus is same as Jude and Nathenel could be Barthalomew; for all these there is no actual scriptural support.

Thomas means Twin. As per Acta Thoma- based on which Thomas in India stories are created; Thomas was A Twin-Simultaniuos of Jesus, form same Mother' Womb.

John 7:5, has Jesus' Own Brothers didnot believe in him. James and Jude, 2 Epistles in New Testament stands are said as the Two Brothers of Jesus. This is now falsified by Johm7:5. If Thaddaues is same as Jude same as Juda Thomas; were not Apostle, before death of Jesus, and Thaddaues did not come to India

Reorganization

I reorganized the article to try to make it clearer for the reader (such as I) who is starting from scratch. Having been reorganized, parts should be re-written to remove redundancies, improve flow, etc. — but since I know nothing about the subject, I don't feel comfortable doing that. Doops 20:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I've just had a fairly large edit reverted, on the grounds it was POV. In fact most of the edit I think was fairly safe, so I've put these bits back. Please be a bit more specific in what you regard as POV if you wish to revert, and try to preserve content, which I don't think the simple revert did at all.

The main goal of my edit was to make the whole story of Thomas available in the article, rather than base it on the one bit that everyone knows, and which most theologians now agree is not an accurate picture at all taken in isolation.

I'll have another think about the bit I've left out. It's theology, certainly, but I think it's fairly standard orthodox theology. I tried to identify it clearly as such to avoid POV. Perhaps I can do better, or perhaps it's not all that important. Andrewa 16:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I take your point about reverting too much. But give me a break: "In a sense he has priority over Paul on the key concept of dying with Christ..." What are you talking about? On what planet is that material NPOV? This is not an Anglican Wikipedia. --goethean ॐ 16:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this belief is restricted to the Anglican communion, of which I incidentally am not part. I agree it's not good NPOV phrasing; Can you do better?

I have no idea what thought you are trying to express. So no, I can't. --goethean ॐ 18:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Both Thomas and Paul talk of dying with Christ. This is a key concept in the theology of Paul. Thomas says it first. With me so far? Andrewa 21:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

14. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

15. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

16. Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

It sounds to me like Thomas is saying: '...that we may die with [Lazarus].'

I guess by the strikeout that you have second thoughts about this, but I can't see what you were hoping to prove anyway. IMO yours is the most probable reading, and then "we" would include Jesus. Alternatively, the wider context gives a less likely but possible reading that Thomas means "die with Jesus" (see verse 8), and then "we" would just mean the disciples. But these two different structural readings are identical in meaning.

You're welcome to make whatever out of this passage, just don't force the article to embrace your view. --goethean ॐ 21:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair at all. My "view" as you call it was intended to be a simple report of what the texts say, which is easily verified and does not appear to be in dispute. Your objections appear to be based on a particular view of what the texts in question mean, based on your own theological background and your inaccurate guesses as to mine. While my wording was not perfect, your reversion was at least as POV as what I wrote, and recklessly indifferent to the loss of good content into the bargain. You continue to belittle my attempts at NPOV. I suggest you examine your own POV assumptions, and also the Wikipedia guideline on good faith.

Here is part of your original edit:

In each of these, Thomas is the means of expressing key Christological statements.

This is POV. Secular scholars do not believe that the gospels were written in order to express theological statements.

In a sense he has priority over Paul on the key concept of dying with Christ (see Colossians 2:20),

As written, this is POV. Perhaps by "priority", you meant "chronological priority", but your wrote "priority", which usually refers to qualitative priority.

and he is the first follower of Jesus to articulate the key belief that Christ is in a sense God himself.

I'd like this to be backed up with a citation before I include it. It only applies to canonical books anyways.

That these accounts do not appear in the synoptic gospels is explained by the fact that these writers did not appreciate their significance. That understanding came later.

This is POV. It assumes the theological importance of your observations, which secular scholars do not accept. --goethean ॐ 22:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a sentence on the subject. --goethean ॐ 21:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have some reservations about your wording too, but at this stage I might leave this to other editors. The important thing is, the content identifying and describing the other relevant passages in John is back, along with the specific references to the apostle lists in the synoptics. I'm sorry you were flabbergasted. I'm afraid I think it was at least as much your fault as mine. But thanks for a challenging discussion, and for your interest in this article. Andrewa 22:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've now read Colossians 2:20-23 and I'm even more flabbergasted by your edit. --goethean ॐ 17:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Here Paul is of course writing well after the events described in John's Gospel. He's writing before the Gospel was written, but after the events it describes, including the speeches by Thomas. Andrewa 18:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas

There is no real reference to the Gospel of Thomas in this article, is there a reason for so little information on it?

Name and Identity

I have a problem with this line:

• Essentially, the logical inference is that the mainstream Christian tradition, as early as the beginning of the second century, has divided the person of Jude the Twin and rendered the one man as two, both Saint Jude and Saint Thomas.

This is not the "logical inference", at least from the information given. St. Jude the apostle and Jude, brother of Jesus are not always considered the same, just as some scholars distinguish between St. James the Less and James the Just. It is just as logical to consider St. Thomas and the brother of Jesus as one person, and St. Jude the Apostle as another. Or to consider the Apostle and the brother the same, but not Thomas. Or to consider them all separate.

I know that's confusing, but what are you gonna do. My point is, it's not really "logical" to assume a bunch of guys are actually the same person because they all have the same or similar names.--Cuchullain 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thomas in India

Regarding the history of st Thomas christians your oppinion is not perfect. Though the portugese forced the lattin littergy on st Thomas christians it was not true that after the arrival of them that St Thomas christians first contact with holy sea of rome began. Before the arrival of them caldian(eastern Syriac_persian)bishops where in charge of malabar and they where in communion with the sea of rome.After the arrival of portugese and only after the Diamper synod the oriental orthodox church comes in to the picture After the synod a fraction of St.thomas christians ended the communion with rome(in prottest of portugese attrocities and death of a nattive bishop send in from rome in the hands of the portugese) elected a bishop by "Blessing of 12 priests which was not canonical. Latter they wrote to the then pattriarch of syriac orthodox church of Antioch and his holines eventualy send bishops to bless the elected bisop.The major fraction of St.thomas christians were still in communion with the holy sea of rome since early centuries. A fra ction of the split away grou.p re enterd in to communion with rome in early 20th centuary.The rest Were further divided to form various malankara churchus.please refer syro malabar church,coonan cross oath (Anonymous) .

Can we get a source for the following text and present it as a report not as an essay, make it more accurate and keep it relevant to the subject Thomas (apostle)?

"However there are those who believe that St. Thomas never visited Kerala. This story comes from the fact that when Portuguese Christian missionaries arrived in southern India they found a sect who worshipped a god named “Thomas” and whose religion was nearly identical to Christianity. The missionaries created elaborate stories to explain the presence of the “St. Thomas Christians,” claiming that the apostles Thomas and/or Bartholomew had at some point traveled to India and preached and died there (there are two tombs for St. Thomas in India. The apostle also has a tomb in Edessa). There is no secular evidence for this story (not mentioned in any texts written between the first century and the fifteenth century in India). The object of adoration in this sect was actually Tamus or Tammuz or Salivahana (avatar of Krishna), the sacrificed savior-god. This Indian Tamus sect evidently had a gospel written in ancient Chaldee. Chaldee is proto-Hebrew/Syrian. These Syrian (Syria means Suria (Sun)) “Christians” were Indian Nazarene-Carmelites. They are also called Knanaya Yehudeya-Nasranis (Knanaya is Kanna or Krishna or Christ-na). The Abrahamic religions have their origins in India (Abraham is Ab-Brahma (father Brahma). His wife is Sarah (Brahmas wife is Saras-wathi). The stories of Khrist-na are identical to the stories of Christ (Anacalypsis by Sir Godfrey Higgins, Suns of God by Acharya S, and The Pagan Christ by Rev. Tom Harpur)."

Thanks. --Wetman 23:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have some doubts as to whether Thomas made it to India. This above passage seems like a bizarre take on the modern Thomasite Churches, though. I find the "Abraham was a Hindu-ripoff" theory extremely unlikely. It seems more likely that the Syriac liturgy points to missionary activity from Edessa which is probable considering the veneration of Thomas in this city and the parallel missionary activities by Edessene Christians in Armenia and Ethiopia. The word etymologies (Krishna - Christ ... This is not possible.) and the use of "Chaldee" and "proto-Hebrew/Syrian" (why not just call it Syriac or Aramaic) make these references even more sketchy to me. Christian Askeland 16:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also check out http://hamsa.org/ about thomas being in india. No real proof it seems sadly

I demand an explanation as why did Gareth remove the reference from hamsa.org in the main page.....Only an insane man would speak of all the evidence presented as nonsense....Either respect objectivity, or move out. There is no place for christian bigotry here

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.23.20.190 (talk • contribs).

Dear anonymous demander, I do not thank you for calling me insane and a bigot, and drawing my religion into the mix. If you choose anonymity you have not the right to presume such upon me. Your link to your website smacks of spam (see WP:ET) and looks like the outlet for personal issues and the selling of a book. Spamming and engaging in personal attacks will ensure quick removal of your stuff. — Gareth Hughes 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

It is believed that the mortal remains of St Thomas were removed from this place to Edessa in 232 AD as evidenced by the writings of many historians. During the life time of St Ephraim (300 to 373 AD) he wrote that there had existed in Edessa a church named after the Apostle St Thomas, which enshrined his relics. This is evident from various hymns. The relics remained there until the Turks attacked the city in AD 1144. In order to know the burial place of St. Thomas, it is sufficient to know the place of king Mazda whose Queen was Theresa and also the place of burial, Calamina. Those names appear in many historical records including Catholic Encyclopedia. Evidently they are not Indian names. The land of Mazda including Calamina confirms these names and they still exist as historical facts in Persian Gulf.

There was no king by name Mazda whose Queen was Theresa in Madras when St Thomas was martyred. Had St Thomas been buried in Mylapore the Christians in South India would have thronged to his tomb from 1st century onward. This had never happened till 16th century when the Portuguese made it important. History does not speak of any traditional Christians from Mylapore claiming their origin from StThomas time. In 1522AD when the tomb at Mylapore was excavated by the Portuguese a full skeleton of a body with an earthern pot was found. This was contrary to the belief in all the ancient churches that the holy relics were removed to Edessa in 232 AD. The name of the place where St. Thomas was buried is Calamina according to various records available with as on date. There is no such place in Madras .Calamina does not mean any thing in Tamil, where as Mylapore means place of peacocks. An extract from page 279 of the Cochin Manual by Mr C. Achutha Menon on this subject is very relevant. “Two of these writers Dorotheas, Bishop of Tire and St. Jerome make Calamina a town in India, the scene of the Apostles martyrdom. This town is identified with Calama mentioned by Nearchus on the coast of Gedrosia, which was under the rule of Gondaphorus; though this identification is disputed, it cannot be identfied with any town in South India.

The tomb at Mylapore is in North South direction as opposed to the Christian tradition of East-West direction. The Mar Thoma Cross (Bleeding cross), installed in St. Thomas Mount at Mylapore bears a white dove on the top, six petals facing downwards and six petals facing upwards at the bottom of the cross signifying light world (petals facing upwards), and dark world (petals facing downwards). These are evidences that this cross is not the one used by St Thomas. Moreover the writings on the cross are in Pahlavi language (Persian), which is neither the language spoken by St. Thomas nor the local language (Tamil). There are two such crosses of similar description in the custody of Jacobites in the Kottayam Valliyapalli,

The heap of ruins on St. Thomas mount spurred the religious curiosity of the Portuguese. Excavations conducted on the spot proved that the church on the hill was of Armenian origin constructed about 530AD. The Armenians were in possession of the shrine for a very long period. These Armenian merchants in Madras were not Christians of St Thomas origin. On clearing up to a depth of sixteen spans of the grave in July 1523AD, some bones of the skull and some of the spines were found with an earthen vessel at the foot of the tomb. The Cathedral of Ortona where the relics of St. Thomas were shifted from Edessa in 1144 AD bear testimony of a silver bust of St. Thomas which contained his skull. This skull of the Apostle enclosed in a silver casket was exposed for public veneration during the feast of St. Thomas, (Pg. 74 of the book, “In the steps of St. Thomas”). There is also another casket of his relics kept separately. Hence they cannot be excavated from the tomb at Mylapore in 1522 AD. If the relics of St Thomas were removed in the 3rd century AD to Edessa, how can the skull remain intact in the tomb at Mylapore in the 15th century? This proves beyond doubt that the tomb at Mylapore is not that of St. Thomas. The Syrian Christians of Malankara realized the importance of Mylapore only after the Portuguese constructed a church in the 16th century AD. How can such place of importance remain unknown to the traditional St. Thomas Christians from the 1st century AD? The Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the translation of the body of St. Thomas from his tomb to Edessa took place in the year 232 AD and on that occasion were written Syrian Acts of the saints. The Roman Martyrology assigns the memory of the saint’s martyrdom to December21st and that of the translation of the body (to Edessa) to July3rd. These dates surprisingly coincide with the main feasts of the saint as celebrated by the Syrian Christians of Kerala.

There are five crosses similar to the one at St. Thomas Mount, Mylapore, two in Valiapally Church, Kottayam, one at Kadamattam , one at Muthuchira ,Malabar, and the fifth at Anuradhapura, Ceylon. The three crosses i.e. one at St Thomas Mount Madras and two at Valiapally, Kottayam bear Sassanian Pahlavi inscriptions are almost identical. The Pahlavi inscriptions on these crosses were one, which existed during the rule of NarassahiShah in Persia (293-302AD). This is not evidently the language that could be used by St Thomas in the 1st century as claimed in the case of St.Thomas Cross at Mylapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BGfromNZ (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) BGfromNZ (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John & Thomas - Just a thought:

You can't find something within yourself (Thomas) unless you know what you are looking for (John).

most scholars

I think the following is not as accurate as it could be:

"the Gospel of Thomas, a noncanonical work which many scholars believe may actually predate the writing of the Biblical gospels themselves."

The dilemma here is the "many". It could equally be said that many do not affirm this statement. Indeed, many secular scholars in North America do believe Thomas to be earlier. British and Continental scholars would date it later. How about one of the following possibilities:

"the Gospel of Thomas, a noncanonical work which *many North American scholars* believe may actually predate the writing of the Biblical gospels themselves."

or

"the Gospel of Thomas, a noncanonical work which *some scholars* believe may actually predate the writing of the Biblical gospels themselves."

Also, "Biblical" should be lowercase. Christian Askeland 15:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The theology of Thomas and of John are unalterably opposed.

This is POV, and maybe a little ambiguous. Here are my issues:

1 - If this stays it should read: "The theologies of the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas are utterly opposed."

2 - Pagel's views, while very popular, are disputed.

3 - Origen's quote needs to go for sure:

"Thomas is like the synoptic gospels in speaking of Jesus as human, as Origen noticed: "none of them clearly spoke of his divinity, as John does" (Commentary on John 1.6)"

Origen's quote does not substantiate a synoptic rejection or ignorance of Jesus' divinity. Check ComMatth XII 6 : http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html

Clearly Origen DID believe that the synoptics taught Christ's divinity.

4 - John's gospel was accepted "not without reserve on the part of some Christian communities" ??

From the point of a papyrologist, John's gospel is the earliest and most frequently attested thing we have. Who did not like John's Gospel? The two smaller epistles and the Apocalypse were contested, but were finally accepted based on their apostleship and relationship to the gospel. Is this something that Pagels posited from internal evidence in the gospels of John and Thomas?

I am open to correction here. Especially on this last point. I suggest, however, that this section should probably be replaced with a link to the Gospel of Thomas page where multiple points of view can be laid out on the Gospel of Thomas.Christian Askeland 16:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the section, as taken from the article.

Thomas and John

The theology of Thomas and of John are unalterably opposed. The Gospel of John was accepted in the canon, though not without reserve on the part of some Christian communities, and the roughly contemporary Gospel of Thomas was preserved only by being hidden in the sands at Nag Hammadi. Elaine Pagels' widely-read Beyond Belief (2003) devotes a chapter to these "Gospels in Conflict": "Thomas' gospel encourages the hearer not so much to believe in Jesus, as John requires, as to seek to know God, through one's own, divinely given capacity" (Pagels 2003 p 34). Thomas is like the synoptic gospels in speaking of Jesus as human, as Origen noticed: "none of them clearly spoke of his divinity, as John does" (Commentary on John 1.6). Thomas and John give similar accounts of what Jesus taught privately, but Thomas is not embedded in a narrative: John interrupts the narrative to give five chapters of Jesus' private discourse in John 13 - 18. Both gospels characterize Jesus as God's own light in human shape.

The conclusions drawn in the two gospels are diametrically opposed: John claims that the divine light is embodied only in Jesus, while Thomas' Jesus urges the apostles to find it within each of them.

In addition to the above objections, the use of Origen's quote implies that Origen was speaking of the Gospel of Thomas as well, when in fact he was only speaking of the canonical four gospels. It also chops off the sentence without so much as an elipsis to indicate the missing text. The full sentence reads, For none of these [synoptic gospels] plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him say, "I am the light of the world," "I am the way and the truth and the life," "I am the resurrection, "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd;" and in the Apocalypse, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Though some of this text is worth keeping, all the same ideas are already found in the Gospel of Thomas article; there's no need for this section here. Wesley 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not to say that the text is irrelevant here, it should be added. Many articles in Wikipedia overlap. Perhaps User:Wesley would have the grace to begin by returning whatever of this text he personally finds "worth keeping" from his point-of-view, and we may proceed from there. Surely a comparison is permitted between Thomas and John, or must the article only report what Gospel of John has to say of Thomas? What is in the suppressed text that is genuinely outside the broad mainstream? --Wetman 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wetman: Thanks. I am guessing that Wesley would not disagree with your statement: "Surely a comparison is permitted between Thomas and John". I assume you mean GThomas and GJohn. The problem is that this section assumes that GJohn and GThomas were written by the apostles John and Thomas. People dispute these claims (on both accounts). Valantasis has, for instance, a different take on GJohn and GThomas in his commentary than Pagels. This post posited as fact the views of one scholar on a subject which are not universally accepted.

Another problem is that the Gospel of Thomas has very little to say about Thomas as a historic individual versus GJohn in which Thomas is a key character. It seems there are two possibilities for this section:

1. Compare the historical individual Thomas as he is portrayed in all early literature... the canonical and non-canonical texts. I have not read them all. GThomas will not feature in a big way here. Other than John and the Acts of Thomas I am not sure what would be appropriate here.

2. Compare the theology of GThomas versus that of the canonical gospels (no reason to restrict to John.)

The second is very difficult because GThomas can be interpreted in so many ways (I thought S Davies did a good job covering this in his Thomas book.) The problem is sophisticated to the degree that I say leave it to the GThomas wiki. Christian Askeland 15:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Reference

Thomas the apostle was mentioned in the song Jesus Christ by Brand New. The line: "And at the gates does Thomas ask to see my hands."

Merge w/ Jude Thomas

It had been suggested that this article be merged with Jude Thomas. It doesn't seem appropriate to me. Can someone else take a look and see if this article should have a reference to that one, however. I'm uncertain. GRBerry 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found that this reference is already here. Not all that visible, but good enough. GRBerry 02:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The connection between Thomas and Saint Jude (the wiki articles as well as the subject matter) needs to be made more clear, and more prominent within this article (and the other article). At the moment without working hard at finding the information it would appear that there is little relation between the two articles. Something like "Thomas, also known as... Jude", would really improve the quality of this article. Tinkstar1985 07:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

I have added the POV tag so someone can deal with the section on Shakespeare. This is written from the first person and seems to be one person's ramblings. If speculation that Jesus and Thomas were twins has some scholarly currency, or if it is a major part of the public perception of Thomas, it should be included, but certainly not in a section which quotes The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail as a source. --rustcellar 01:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I see that this is historic vandalism and as before I have simply removed it.--rustcellar 01:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas the Twin

The article says something along the lines of, "No text, whether canonical or non-canonical, says who Thomas' other twin was", but doesn't the Book of Thomas the Contender state that Thomas was Jesus' twin? I'm sure that there are other references aside from that one epistle, but maybe some of them should be discussed in the article? You see, it's not just the Da Vinci Coders that are interested in these other works. Dan Brown just ruined it for all the rest of us.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.220.201 (talk)

Good call: in the Book of Thomas the Contender is the line "Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself." Why not cautiously amend the text? --Wetman 10:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good work. I added a reference to the Book of Thomas; please review.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

ST. Thomas Tradition & the Indian sojourn in foreign sources

Please check the following page.I demand removal of Hamsa links.-

http://www.geocities.com/nmappila/D2007/1.htm

http://nasrani.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/mar-thoma-the-apostolic-foundation-of-the-assyrian-church-and-the-christians-of-st-thomas-in-india/

http://nasrani.wordpress.com/2007/02/18/influence-of-monsoon-winds/

http://nasrani.wordpress.com/2007/02/16/saint-thomas-the-apostlethe-bartholomew-missionthomas-of-cana-the-ornamental-umbrella-and-sapir-iso/

The following are some of the early references to the Indian sojourn of St. Thomas in foreign sources: (All these testimonies are of a date prior to the commencement of the Malayalam or Kollam era, i.e. A. D. 825. Many of these belong to centuries immediately following the first Ecumenical Council of 325.)

http://www.gnosis.org/thomasbook/ch2.html

I suggest a complete re writing of the article about the linkages to Hamsa comments and removal of Hamsa links. I wonder why there are two links provided to Hamsa website.In the contents of Hamsa chapter there is nothing great or new.I suggest removal of that.-Thennattu-FEB 13th 2007

Indian Legacy of St Thomas

There is a strong 4 million St Thomas Christians earlier called Nasrani's with a tradition of 2000 years old.I think the Indian legacy of ST Thomas need to re written to reflect more reality.There are many referance of St thomas evanaglisation in Kerala in foregin sources.

The Acts of Judas Thomas speaks of how Apostle St. Thomas was commissioned to build a palace for King Gondaphares. But as no such king was known to history upto the end of the 19th century the book was considered undiluted fiction. But the discovery of 1000s of Gondaphares coins changed the views of most scholars.

Again the statement of Pope.Please see the published text of the speech .This is the statement from his speech.

Let us remember that an ancient tradition claims that Thomas first evangelised Syria and Persia then went on to Western India from where he also reached Southern India

http://www.cathnews.com/news/611/176.php

I think the Indian Legacy needs to be re written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.125.182 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

POV

The "Saint thomas in India" needs to be written in an unbaised manner. Currently the article looks like a a POV-fest.I am going to add a NPOV tag to the article.-Bharatveer 12:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the section and find no such fest and removed the tag. 59.91.253.38 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Phrases like "led astray" and "alarming rate" are clearly POV. POV tag restored, but for that section only. Peter Ballard 08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See this sentence -"Many view the Pentecostals as "wolves" stealing from the flocks of Christ." .This article has a lot of Pov-cleaning to be done. I am going to restore NPOV tag for the article - Bharatveer 11:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the POV problems are with the "Saint thomas in India" section only. Since that section already has a POV tag, I'm removing it from the top of the article. Peter Ballard 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I mean the "St. Thomas Christians" section. I've given it a POV-section tag now. In fact that entire section was added recently by a single author, so probably deserves a serious edit. Peter Ballard 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The language under "St. Thomas Christians" is completely un-neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.97.214 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad redirect

Marthoma redirects here, but the word is never used in the article. 216.75.170.81 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 69.230.76.176 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I read "Mar Thoma Sleeha" somewhere in the article. Joshua Issac (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mar Thoma does indeed mean "Saint Thomas" and thus the Indian "Mar Thoma Church" is often known as the Church of St Thomas. Pastordavid (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aramiac, there we go. The church is the Mar Thoma Church, perhaps Marthoma should redirect there? Pastordavid (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)