i think we nazranis are getting parochial. not a good trend. we should stop thinking we are a grade higher than the rest of humanity in kerala. believe me-we are not.

i wuld like to see some good articles driving some sense into this conceited tribe called the nazrznis. no doubt that includes me .

I agree with thee Madam….infact I go mad attending Church ,its more like an endurance standing test(Im Marthomite).Atleast in the Orthodox and Jacobite they do the bending and kneeling,much better exercises.Joke aside,selfish priests ….more selfish Bishops.Every sect claims itself as the truth.They dont take care of their own flock and wish to add more to the flock.The priests(with some exceptions) take the Bible per word,nobody within the Churches wishes to scrutiny the Bible.The Bible is GOD INSPIRED not GOD written.Humans wrote it inspired by the Christ,Most of his disciples were martyred.People will
gladly give their lives for something they believe in.
The Churches of Kerala are becoming highly political and materialistic.No doubt a lot of good things came out of those portals.
Education in kERALA HAS become a business thanks to who??????

To George Mathew:
Ok, I don’t mind if Nasrani can achieve superiority complex with help of ‘Hebrew’ and Brahmin heritage.
Nasrani’s selfishness is proof of our Israeli lineage( Israelis are notoriously selfish).

To Kochuthresiamma:
The worst with Malayalee is his inferiority complex and selfishness. I traveled almost all over world: By God everywhere I found Malayalee being looked down upon himself, and selfish; not only in Kerala.
Lineage of the bravest is not enough, one should need superiority complex too, that only win.
Malayalee may be short, colored, and Dravidian languaged; but are brainy. They spread allover world, making best chips in Silicon valley and survive even in hell(bribing devils need brain). Nasrani is after all Malayalee whatsoever is the lineage.

See how a teenager Sreesanth’s tit-for-tat mannerisms and utterings send the otherwise ‘whitest and bravest’ Aussy Crics to Umpire-mommy, sobbing.

We need heavy doses of superiority complex. Don’t we, Kochuthresiamma ?
I cannot agree I am inferior in Kerala. On the other hand we should act as a superior and noble race (that we are) rather than simply claiming so and leading a cowardly life under the yoke of the nasty politicians.

Let us be brave, outspoken; we are second to non as a race, as disciples of brave and righteous Jesus !
If not pooling, at least Nasrani must not thrive cheating fellow Nasrani and preventing those farmer Nasranis committing suicide in Wynad and Idukki short of a few thousand bucks.
If our belief in Him and our noisy prayers do not make us model human beings, boasting in superior lineage is hollow and worst than many atheists.

Dear Anup,
In Church turn to God and not to the Priest. Priest is to help you to reach Him and one among many other objects at the Alter. At Church concentrate inwardly, that’s prayer.

To all: sorry for sort of sermoning. Pls don’t be offended. Just bit agitated of the plight of Nasranis.

Dear Anoop,

I disagree with you when you say that the Marthoma Church service is a bore. It is a very meaningful one but I feel that the only shortcomming is the lack of Syriac. I wish the entire service is in Syriac eventhough I may not understand 99% of it.

For a start, try listening to the Lord’s Prayer in Syriac. I enjoy it very very much. I must have listened to it more than a hundred times during the last 7 days.

Well Sir,
I was a bit negative there with respect to my comments,actually you know we are a very sarcastic bunch.
The greatest achievers ie with respect science are actually people brought up outside Kerala.
We need radical leaders who are willing to experiment,and we need receptive and interactive laities.
The Marthoma church initially showed this kind of leadership,but its kind of stagnant now.Most of the emphasis is trained on people who defect to pentecostal churches.
Humans lean towards places only when there is something positive to be gained.The same is happening when People turn to Pentecostalism.
I kind of realised that most of our churches survive in the same modus operandi as Islam (bashing the other churches).Nobody and no religion has the patent to heaven.
Just a sick proposition held by the Israelites and transferred on to Christians.Time these thing were understood and such oneupmanship stopped.Other religions themselves arent innocent of such oneupmanship

Dear George,

Regarding the lack of enmity between Malabar Jews and Christians… don’t be so quick there! I decided to go into Dr Nathan Katz’s work (which you informed me of) and read some of the body of literature that exists on the subject—there’s quite a bit! I haven’t found any great connection between the Nasrani’s (or St Thomas Christians as they refer to us) and the Jews … but I’ve found a wealth of info on the Black Jews and their ancient presence in Kerala.

Anyways, a lot of the papers seem to talk about the fights that the Malabar Jews, Muslims, Christians (and less often, the Hindus) used to wage against each other in ancient times over such timeless issues as trade monopoly and land. But, certainly no genocide!

(And a small point: I doubt that many people on NSC revere Martin Luther ! After all, to the Syro-Malabar and the Orthodox/Jacobites, Luther was a heretic at best.)

Dear Sunny,

I’m not in favor of any sort of complex (superiority or inferiority or otherwise) but you’re being a little too grandiose… the best chips in Silicon Valley? Yes, Intel/etc employs *some” Malayalis who work on *some* chips but those sorts of things are team efforts. If Malayalis are so superior, then why is Kerala in the state it is in? I love Kerala, but it is not paradise by any stretch—even with our super-intelligent (as you claim) Nasrani politicians at the helm.

Anyways, the point is, when you get into these complexes you start to get sloppy. And fews things are more sloppy than the history of the Nasranis. The last thing we need are more complexes! Even from people who have managed to accomplish the rare feat of “travelling *almost* all over the world”!

Dear John,

Dr. Katz himself wrote to us that he has only lighly touched upon the Nasrani’s Jewish/Hebrew/Israelil heritage matter ( I have forwarded that letter to the Admin and others and I think it is on this forum too…) But from other soucres since the last 3 decades I have been continiously hearing about the excellent relationship between the Nasrani and the Jew. This is an undisputed fact accepted by all.

Dear Anoop,

Your quote ‘The Bible is God Inspired and not God written’. You are a brave one and I fully agree with that. Trust you fully understand the significance of what you wrote. Yes! our Marthoma Church has started decay.

Don’t be too harsh upon our preists and bishops. who are they? They are none other than your father, uncle, brother and son. They are a reflection of ourselves. We get what we deserve.

Friends,
Isn’t it good we all introduce ourselves to know each other ? At websites people wont divulge even gender, for varied motives.
Since our main motive is ‘becoming model human beings as Nasranis through Christianity to be eligible to be part of Sacred Heart of Jesus’, should we need to hide our identity ?
We are proud of called Nasranis and want to preseve and pass it to generations. Right ?
Now will somebody tell me definition of Nasrani ?
Marthomite, Jacobite, Orthodox, Knanaya, Syro-Malabar, Catholic, Latin, Pentacost, Yahova, CSI, Malankara Syrian, sincere atheist Communists and pseudo communists with Christian name(eg: MA Baby, the minister), anybody with Christian name, Christian name retained converted to Hinduism/Islam …………… or all of them ?

Let me introduce myself to start with: I am Syro-Malabarian, born at Ramapuram, near Palai, married, with 3 children, now in Cochin in industry, a practicing Christian, a theology student, respect priests with their limitations, work for my Parish but in the for-front to criticize it of its institutionalization and the money-motived mafia in guise of “palli pramanimar’.
Respect atheists, communists all religions.
But firmly believe Christ is magnificent and adorable and Christianity the best of all as a way of life, which teaches how one can be a best human being.

With this biodata am I eligible to be called a Nasrani ? (well, Im serious about it)
Will somebody/ admin tell me ?

I like George Mathew’s wisdom, John Mathew’s criticizing talent, Anoops bold questions, Kochuthresiamma’s ‘Nadan’ blogs in decent language and the site a timely step.

Dear John Mathew,
You are actually agreeing my point while disagreeing ! Malayalee at large never respect, take credit or acknowledge his own achievements, and worse he estimate himself good for nothing. It is inferiority complex. Malayali have to overcome this.
There are many reasons why he is so.
And why he is the No. 1 drunkard.
And why Kerala is slow in progress.
and why he is migrating like skylarks
Need days to discuss. Got time ?

John: I said nasty politicians, not super-intelligent. Pls donot misquote.

Dear Sunny Alanoly:

Aren’t Nasranis, by definition, the descendants of the original community of “Syrian Christians” in Kerala which, after the 16th century, split into the Syro-Malabar, Church of the East, Jacobite/Orthodox/MISC, Syro-Malankara, and Mar Thomite Churches?

I guess, by extension if Nasrani is taken in a “genetic” sense, that might include also the members of those communities who moved to the Latin Catholics, Protestant/Evangelical, and other sects. (Of course … I don’t think it should include them! If Nasrani=Syrian Christian then those apostates from the Syrian Way are definitely not Nasranis!)

If Nasrani is taken in the genetic sense, then it should also exclude recent converts to those sects that have come via missionary activity (i.e., those Catholic/Orthodox/Protestants in the above denominations who do not descent from the original community but who converted in the last few centuries).

But I guess this definition is imperfect since there must have been instances in the past (pre-16th century) where local non-Nasrani’s converted to the Nasrani way.

That’s my stab at an answer…

(My personal motive for learning about Nasrani history is because I want to learn more about my origins. Personally, I don’t have as much interest in the religious aspects of the Nasranis, and the talk of how Nasranis are a chosen people, and how various elements of our identity were/are divinely ordained doesn’t really resonate with me.)

Dear Sunny,

I can tell you/and all something about mysefl. I am from Kattanam, a village in Allapuzha Dist, born there but raised in Tamil Nadu and Kattanam. Married and we have a son who is now 20. I am 50 and she is 4?.
I hold a Mcom. I have a very wide job experience base. I have been in plantations, farming, Accounting, business, unemployed, retail sales, now work with engineers, almost as an engineer. I have had a very interesting life and a very happy one too!!! I should add that I have seen a lot of this world.

Though now in Canada, I plan to go back to Kattanam for good and live there.

I am a Marthomite with members of other churches in our family. I am a terribly talkative person and very extroverted. Many say that I am a good teacher and I love to teach. I am religous and conservative in nature. I don’t consider gay people as sinners without considering most hetrosexuals as also sinners. I have love for Hinduism, Buddhism and particularly for Jainism. Though many call me intelligent, I do not think I am intelligent. I wonder if Xavier agrees to what I have written about myself.

Dear John,

I think we should ‘give’ people a good chance to ‘return home’. By your strict definition, those who have left the ‘Syrian Nasrani fold’ are not Nasranis anymore.

We all make wrong judgements. If too much strictness is applied, then atleast 50% of today’s ‘Nasranis’ are not Nasranis. This is because most of our families in the recent past denied our Hebrew heritage and claimed high case Hindu heritage.

We have now realized the mistake and calling a spade a spade, we have returned home. Around 700BC the 10 tribes soon after Solomen also left Yahoweh but some of them returned ‘home’, which may include our forefathers. It is all about ‘Reformation’.

Let us hope that the Pentecostals and Evangilists and the Protestants who have left the Nasrani Syrian fold will return. I am talking to a good freind of mine who is Pentecostal to return to the Suriani Nasrani fold but he is after making me a Pentecostal. This is what is reality.

Dear George/ fellow Nasranis,

Thanks for the self intro and explanations.

Though we like to be of Nasranis with the Semitic- Hebrew heritage we must be aware that this is a highly criticized, disproved, disagreed issue by many historians and anthropologians. The burden of establishment is out duty, we cannot escape from this.

Pls see below excerpts from such a source and let me/us know the points and counter points to prove our claim as descendants of Semitic.

Anybody who got valuable info on this crucial issue may come forward to contribute so as to educate other Nasranis who doubt otherwise and stay away from the fold.
I think such enlightening info is the valuable contribution of them for the cause of Nasrani heritage.

Sorry for the long contents, but cannot help, it establishes what Nasrani claims is false systematically.

Sunny Alanoly
===============================================================
Excerpts from
www. Christiansofkerala.com
Kerala, the Gateway to Indian Christianity
[Published in Vivekananda Kendra Patrika, Expressions of Christianity with focus on India. Vivekananda Kendra Prakashan, Chennai, Vol. 34]
Dr. C. I. Issac

Introduction.An historical narrative of Indian Christianity would be complete without the study of Christianity in Kerala. Christianity is believed to have reached the shores of Kerala in the first century of C.E., though this is not supported by documentary or authentic evidence. The emergence and spread of Christianity in Kerala is shrouded in such myths and legends.
Kerala’s Christian past is essentially the story of the Church building its history on the fragile foundations of theology and belief. Therefore, historians encounter many problems in deconstructing its past. First is the question of the arrival of St. Thomas and subsequent conversion of upper-class Hindus to Christianity. Second is the date of origin of Christianity in Kerala.

To do justice to the study, it is convenient to divide this vast period of time under consideration into pre-colonial, colonial and postcolonial periods.

I The Pre-Colonial Phase.
The St. Thomas legend.

The native Church’s claim of the story of Saint Thomas [one of the twelve direct Disciples of Christ] and the early origins of Indian Christianity is not a universally accepted one. In the year 1952 CE, the native Catholic Church approached the Papacy in Rome for Pontifical approval to celebrate 1900th year of proselytism of Kerala since the arrival of St. Thomas on its shores. The Papacy declined the request of the Kerala Catholics on the ground that the claim has no historicity. In spite of this denial, the Catholic Savarna, the Syrian descendants of those said to have received baptism from disciple Thomas, celebrated the 19th centenary of the arrival of his arrival with much pomp.

The only historical record pertaining to the arrival of St. Thomas is the book ‘The Acts of St. Thomas’, a historical romance written in Syriac towards the end of second or by the beginning of third century C.E1. However, there is no mention of the Malabar Coast in this book; the only relevant reference is that Thomas died at Mazda. The advocates of Saint Thomas tradition of the Christianity in Kerala believe that Mazda is Madai in Malabar [Kerala].

Before the arrival of the Portuguese, there was no Christian population in the north of Kodungalloor, i.e., the Malabar region of Kerala. According to Ward and Conner, even after two centuries of the birth of Christianity, the number of Christians on the Malabar Coast shrank to eight families2. Another church historian of Kerala, P. Cheriyan, remarks that, “ ………., there has existed on the Malabar Coast from the earliest centuries of our era a body of Christians, quite isolated from the rest of Christendom, as beacon of light, however dim, in the midst of a vast non-Christian population.” 3. “It was only when Portuguese came, conversion started in India”4.

In the year 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued a Bull/Bulla by which he granted to the king of Portugal the right to conquer the kingdoms of heathens and Mohammedans. The king of Portugal also obtained from the Pope Calixtus III [1455-58] the exclusive right of all kingdoms of Asia, America and Africa by which he styled himself as the temporal and spiritual leader of all Eastern countries [for further information see, D. Ferroli, The Jesuits in Malabar, Vol. II].
By ritual and custom, Kerala Christians were Hindus; by faith they slightly differed, but this difference was conspicuous5. In short, the Christian society of Kerala was not much different from their Hindu counterparts except for the upasan moorthy [deity of worship]. No doubt, the members of various upasana systems mutually respected each other’s upasana moorthy.
The Church believes that St. Thomas reached the shores of Kerala in the first century C.E. and established seven and a half churches – seven big and a small one. The debatable story of Saint Thomas’s direct mission activity in Kerala is a later addition is targeted at protecting the vested interests of the Church. The origin of this story goes back to the days of Portuguese.

Their objectives were:
1. To establish Roman ecclesiastical authority over Kerala’s Christianity;
2. To destroy all its Hindu practices, rituals and traditions that were retained by the native Christians;
3. To extend the Latin Christendom to the soil of the Hindus.

Before the arrival of Europeans in Kerala, a nominal Christian presence was seen only in the Travancore and Cochin regions of Kerala. The antagonism between Christians and Muslims in the wake of Crusades of 11th, 12th and 13th centuries prevented Kerala proselytism enterprises from planting their roots in the Malabar region, where Islam had entered much earlier. [It is only during the British period the Christian society became significant in Malabar region]. That is why the Kerala legendary belief of seven and a half churches has not extended to Malabar. The fact that all the eight churches of the legend are located either in the Travancore or in the Cochin regions is an irony in the St. Thomas legend. From the arrival of Portuguese to the early decades of the nineteenth century, there were fewer than three hundred Christian churches of all denominations6.

Did St. Thomas convert Nambootiris?

The problem does not end here. There is a general belief amongst the contemporary Syrian Christians of Kerala that the Disciple Thomas converted certain Nambootiri [Native Brahmin jati] families into Christianity and parenthetically the Christian society came into being here. One has to examine the veracity of this conversion theory. Now, the Central Kerala is the abode of a major chunk of Syrian Christian population. Let us see their food habits: no doubt, they are no exception to the Christian practice of non-vegetarianism; large-scale cow slaughter takes place in Central Kerala, the chief consumers being the Syrian Christians. The ancient beef eating community, prior to the arrival of Christianity, was the Parayas [Candalas] of Kerala. Tradition says that the Parayas were a noble class of ancient Kerala and the sons of Saint Vasishtha; their craze for beef led to their ostracism by the rest of the jatis. Above all, because of their beef eating habit, the Nambootiri Brahmins who arrived in a later age did a lot to isolate them from the Hindu mainstream. Even though these stories bear no historicity, they can give some hints to the process of societal polarization.

Moreover, in the two thousand years of their fabled existence, Kerala’s Christians produced no literary piece of excellence and showed no dazzling talent in the cultural field, except in the colonial-missionary discourse and the post-colonial period. The two millenniums of Christian life in Kerala were only a passing episode in the artistic as well as the intellectual history of this land. The only prominent art form in the credit of the entire Christians of Kerala is Margamkali,7 a dance performance which, cannot compare with traditional art forms of Kerala like Kooth, Koodiyattom, Patakom, Kathakali, Kalarippayattu, etc. The songs of Margamkali, the only art form specific to the Syrian Christians, are composed in modern Malayalam; they are not an old art form as claimed, but date from after the Portuguese. In the Margamkali presentation, the influence of subaltern [minor] art forms of Kerala like Velakali, Pulikkali, etc, 8 can be seen, but none from the elite art forms of Kerala.

Therefore the Nambootiri conversion theory has no historicity; it is an imaginative exercise later years. Historians of Kerala swiftly rejected or accounted for it as a legend, but the Church hierarchy of all factions has retained it as an alternative history. Moreover in the history of social formations of ancient Kerala, up to the fourth century CE this land was occupied by the non-Vedic settlements only. So the Nambootiris as a Vedic Brahmin jati in Kerala were seen only after the fourth century C.E9. Prominent historiographers of Kerala like William Logan or Elamkulam Kunjanpillai are of the opinion that the Kerala Brahmins or Nambootiries reached this land in the seventh and eighth centuries of C.E10.

The question arises how a man called St. Thomas who never reached Kerala converted non-existent Nambootiries in the first century. Is this a proselytizing rationale? The theory of the Nambootiri origin of Syrian Christianity will be useful to the penetration of the Church into the jati oriented Hindu community.

A nonexistent copper plate.

Since the Portuguese days, the Church has laboured to enhance the frontiers of the Christendom in Kerala and produced some forged documents in support of the first- century origin of Kerala Christianity and its aristocratic foundation. No doubt all these will help the proselytism agenda of the Church in Kerala. One such document is known as the Kanaai Thomman Copper of 345 C.E, which was obtained from one of the Kerala kings of the days. The customary belief amongst the Kananaya11 Syrian Christian community is that in 345 C.E one Perumal or king (name is not known to them) 12, who ruled Kodungalloor, gave a Copper Plate Grant to Thomas of Canaan, by which the King bestowed a set of trading as well as socio-religious prerogatives [72 Prerogatives] to the Kananaya Syrian Christian community. But there is neither such original Copper Plate Grant nor any reliable evidence in their possession to prove this claim13. It was only a fabulous story orally transmitted through generations and has no historicity. Instead of the original document, they are keeping the copy of a forged document originally written in Portuguese14. But there is no probability of such a document being issued in a European language by a fourth-century Kerala ruler.

In a different context, king Bhaskara Ravi Varman I issued a Copper Plate Grant to the Jewish community in the vernacular (Malayalam) in the tenth century, which is still in the possession of the Jewish community. The Kananaya Syrian Christians’ excuse that their copper plate was misplaced in the deluge of time is therefore not justifiable. Details of the vanished copper-plate grant are amusing; it is highly paradoxical that all the dates in this Copper Plate Grant are in the months of Kollam Era [of the Malayalam Almanac], which was introduced much later year – in 825 C.E15. In addition, “till about 800 C.E. Kerala was almost a part of Tamilakaom and the language of the region was Tamil with its own peculiar local characterstics”16. But the language of the fourth century C.E Copper Plate Grant is the Malayalam of late medieval period and Malayalam became a transactional language only in the nineteenth century: before that, all documents of Kerala were prepared in the language of Tamil with Granthashram or Vettezhuthu script17.

One cannot but conclude that the story centred on the Copper Plate Grant is imaginary. It is the handiwork of the Portuguese missionaries [like of Robert de' Nobili 1577-1656], who were notorious for fabricating stories and documents. The text of the so-called Copper Plate Grant of 345 C.E is therefore unreliable, both judiciously and in the eyes of history.

The beginnings of Christianity in Kerala.

How did Christianity reach Kerala? It is a genuine question and comes to the mind of every student of history. Christ, like Buddha, is associated with caravan merchants; his disciples and apostles followed the path of their master and in their task of spreading the message, accompanied the merchant community. The age-old mercantile relation of Kerala with the Western world paved the way for Christianity.

The first Christians of Kerala may have been the members of the merchant community hailing from the new faith who overstayed for their business. To substantiate this argument, let us look at the birth of Black Jews. Jewish merchants travelled far and wide as part of their mercantile activities since the very beginning of the long distance trade. In their short stay at distant parts of the world, they usually married local ladies and the progenies of these affairs formed the Black Jews. In this regard, we have the account of Francois Pyrard de Laval, a French traveler to Kerala (1607), who testified that ancient Kerala women of certain jatis practiced unrestricted sex18. So the first Christians of Kerala may be the offspring of the concubines of such merchants. The social system of Kerala justifies this social process19. Especially, the native Christians’ interest in agriculture and trade signifies this inter-racial origin. The facts that till recently most Christians used foreign languages in their liturgy also support this argument.
Real Christian migration happened here in the seventh and eighth centuries of C.E as part of the refugee inflow from Eastern Roman Empire. The defeat of the Byzantine regime at the hands of Umayyad and the Muslim expansion resulted in the end of Christianity in Jerusalem, Syria and Persia to Morocco. “As the trading operations were lost for ever, the Christians who refused to convert to Islam were forced to again migrate to India”20.

The threat posed by the religion of Islam in Persia from the seventh century CE onwards caused an influx of Christians as refugees to this land; this added to Kerala’s Christian population. Even after the Persian Christian migration, the Christian population remained as a marginal group [jati] in this tiny region until the European occupation. Several travelers’ accounts and early Christian documents refer to the emaciated conditions of the native Christians. It is certain that the first batch of Christians reached here as refugees like the Parsis in Gujarat. That the early Christians were confined to Kerala’s port towns and followed Syriac liturgy is sufficient proof. Above all, the earliest documents relating to Christianity in Kerala date only from 849 C.E onwards. Christianity reached ancient Kerala not through a purposeful effort or conscious attempt, but as an accidental event.

The Christians of Kerala never claimed any letters, gospels or epistles of Thomas as evidence of his visits. The epistles of the New Testaments cover instructions to the newly formed churches in various regions, but none mentions the existence of an Eastern Church or a Christian society in India.

The St. Theresa Church Copper Plate Grant (Terisapalli Cheppedu) executed in 849 C.E by Ayyan Atikal Tiruvatikal of Venadu during the reign of Emperor Sthanu Ravi (844-855) is the oldest available historical document linking Christianity to Kerala [India].21 Another early bona fide reference is the sixth century [C.E] travel account of an Egyptian Christian monk, Cosmas Indicopleustus 22.

In the case of Kerala, Chaturvarniam [four fold caste system] as seen elsewhere in India was not completely applicable. Here, the social stratification was limited to two broad orders of Brahmins and Sudras; this social stratification, together with the addition of sixty-four jatis and several avanta jatis [later additions based on new occupations], constituted the ancient Kerala society23.

The savrna feeling of Kerala Christians derives from the wealth they had acquired through the spice trade during the European period, and the Portuguese pre-eminence in the Church. The Syrian Christians got a special status in the history of Kerala’s history only after the arrival of the Europeans, particularly the British. Till then they were functioning as one among the Sudra jati, like the Nairs or Ezhavas24, occupied with trade, agriculture, ‘uliam’25 work to the temples, etc.

The testimony of sixth century C.E traveler Cosmos Indicopleustus is sufficient to determine the social status of Syrian Christian in early Kerala26. The hardworking Christian community gained much through the increased spice trade and European support from the time of the Portuguese interlude. The wealth acquired through the cultivation of cash crops and the European pressure on native rajas created a social position for Christians in general. Thus they began to think of tradition and aristocracy. The result was the birth of the legend of St. Thomas and the conversion of Nambootiris. The story purposefully catered to the needs of native as well as alien Christian interests in the changing social scenario.

while i am not ashamed of being a nazrani, and in fact am happy to be one, i dont share your adulation for our tribe.
i have posted a couple of blogs on nazrani .
please visit and post your comments.
no offence meant- just what i honestly think
my blogsite: http://pareltank.blogspot.com

Dear Thresia,
I have not read your blogs. But be assured that I was also not a ‘fan’ of us Nasranis. Ampravil Achayan will vouch for me that about a year or so ago, I refused to have anything to do with the Nasranis, because I found them the most selfish, bad community/sect/caste I knew of.

However, it was Ampravil Achayan’s advise to me saying that all people have their pluses and minuses and that I should see the Nasrani as my brothers, that made me change my thinking and ways. I don’t know why, but what he said made sence to me.

I think that we dislike ourselves because we know a lot of ourselves, while we no very little about the Ethopians, or Brahmins or Chettiars or the Agarwals etc.. As the saying goes, the jasmine flower in the neighbours yard has a better aroma than our own…’

Even now, I am well aware of our shortcommings and I am learning to live with it.

Several years before Israel ambassador to India Mr Yehoyada Hym and his wife ( she is a history scholar) visted kerala ,they visited Changanassery bishophouse and told to the Mar Joseph Powathil that the ancient christians in kerala may be jews and it is a researchable matter. I read this news in mathrubhumi daily at that time . They also participated in an inagural function of St. Basil bible college of Orthodox church in sasthamkotta.
Our hebrew heritage is definitely a researchable matter .
The result of this study will define the True Nazrani

Dear Benney,

That we are of ‘Hebrew’ heritage is most likely. Most of us totally believe it but as we are ‘egoists’ and for ever like to not to agree to anything originating from others, we discuss and discuss and discuss. Just the same way we discuss and discuss and discuss about St. Thomas’s arrival in India.

There is enough and more proof/evidence in this, particularly after the DNA developments. But the most important thing is ‘are we willing to accept our Hebrew heritage’? This will mean that our recent forefathers have been ‘fools, idiots and liars’. Even after much sugar coating, are we willing to accept this when ‘family history books’ have been thoroughly proof read, funds collected from the even poor, far and distant family members. In several cases the year and temple in w hich our Namboothiri Appachen’s was working/serving as priests has been clearly specified.

The Catholic Church will have some problems to fully acknowledge our Hebrew heritage because it will mean acknowledging an extremely legitimate claimant of Christian heritage outside her own doctrines and heritage.

The Marthoma Church will pretend she is too busy with other ‘Important and Pressing matters’ for the simple reason that she does not have the ‘Vision’ and ‘Maturity’ to deal with such a matter. Her diplomatic ‘Pauline’ reply will be ‘There is no Jew or Gentile, we are all one in Christ… period’.

For both the cases, Yeshu’s story of ‘You can’t pour new wine into an old wine bottle applies’.
But this should not deter us. We can go ahead and get some documents’ in support of what the Isreaeli Ambassidor said.

I think our resonable hope will be in ‘The Church of the East’ taking leadership in this. She is naturally the most suited for this…. and I think no one will dare oppose her. And interestingly, I think I saw the head of the Church of the East in India speak in the last Maramon Convention. I saw it as a clip from ‘Utube’. Good developments in the right direction!

Dear George,
Yes, u are correct saying no existing Christian churches and those Hierarchies are bothering to dig into the Nasrani heritage and origins. They (mostly)are satisfied with the fruits they are enjoying of Christianity. They don’t want to take any thing controversial, unless it brings money.
It is ours, the Lay apostolate’s need to research into origins.

The single most reason I value for our Hebrew origin is OUR TREKKING AND MIGRATING TENDENCY. The word Hebrew means ‘one who emigrates’.
We could be inherited this urge from blood relatives- the Hebrews.
No other race in all India are such wanderers like Christians of Kerala !

Namboothiris are worst cases in this matter. They stay put at Illams, and maximum travel is upto Ammathu or at those ‘Veli’ houses. It was forbidden for Brahmins to cross seas.
This disproves the theory of our Namboothiri origin.

I read about a claim that the Blacks of Americas are true Israelites (Black Hebrews), since they put to sufferings, exile, slavery etc. and many so called proofs.

1. Did we ever conduct a through research into this to prove our heritage?
2. Its not easy, still possible to find those missing links. We may have to give much importance to the current archeological excavations underway at ‘Patanam’, the ancient Malabar port where Musiris was existed, near Paravur. I visited last week and found many foreign artifacts : building foundations exquisite in shape, bricks etc. Many ancient wine jars, ornaments etc alien to Indians. Such enquiries into our past only can prove what we believe is correct. When there are many available links proving our claim, why shouldn’t we research and ‘find’ those missing links for a creditable Hebrew origin ? Why we just ‘claim’ based on beliefs ?
3. We cannot expect ‘anybody other than we’ will do this. We, we can only do this. The coming generations will be so engrossed in existential chores, they cannot do this. And sadly we, the ‘proud Nasranis’ are an extincting species. How many of our offsprings need to know origins rather than $$$$, Hotdogs and such worldly pleasures ?
4. When we do this its our Lay apostolate, our contribution and duty to God. How may of us think this is what we are created for ?

Sorry for the time.

Dear Jackson,

I have been trying to open and get some info. from the following site but I have failed. Can you please try?

The following is the Title of the article
‘Possible origin of Syrian Christians in India on the basis of distribution of blood groups and other genetic characters.Parikh NP, Kulkarni KV, Jhala HI.
PMID: 5509439 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

RE: ‘Possible origin of Syrian Christians in India on the basis of distribution of blood groups and other genetic characters.Parikh NP, Kulkarni KV, Jhala HI.

I read this article a long time ago …

It contains some statements which I believe are inaccuracies (i.e., the authors claim that the name Syrian Christians originates not due to our Syriac religious origins, but due to our origins in the mountains … Serra being the Portuguese word for mountains, and Syrian being a corruption of Serra — I don’t think anyone here would buy that!)

But the scientific claims are: there are “marked similarities between findings amongst the Syrian Christian and Audich Brahmans of Saurashtra (Western India)”.

I don’t know what copyright laws are for the Indian Journal of Medical Research, so I can’t post the full article. But I can email it to anyone who wants it.

I don’t know how 1970s genetics compares against 21st century genetics but I’m sure that the Syrian Christian DNA project contains far more up-to-date info.

Dear George and Sunny,

The term ‘Hebrew’ is from ‘Eber’ the ancestor of all Hebrews. Abraham was very much a Hebrew but never a Israelite nor a Jew. Let me show you the ancestry tree to trace who are the Hebrews. Arrows indicate progeny or next generation. Ref: Genesis Chapters 10 and 11.

Noah -> Shem (Ancestor of all Semites) -> Arpach’shad -> Shelah -> EBER

Eber the ancestor and all his descendents called Hebrews henceforth.

Eber -> -> -> Terah -> Nahor and ABRAHAM.

Abraham -> Ishmael and Isaac.

Isaac -> Esau and Jacob

Jacob (named Israel) -> 12 sons, giving 13 (thirteen) tribes of Israel.

Of all the 13 tribes only the southern kingdom tribes mainly of Judah and Benjamin are the literal ‘JEWS’. Other Israelite tribes are simply called ‘ISRAELITES’ and they were never Jews.

All groups starting from ‘Eber’ in the above tree are Hebrews which also includes some non-Israelites. Now Eber is an english name and the actual name is ‘Habiru’ or ‘Abiru’ or ‘Eberu’. Thus Habirus or Eberus is the term Hebrews. The sound ‘H’ is a Semitic sound addition in pronounciation.

Thus ALL Israelites are/were Hebrews but all Hebrews are not Israelites (or descendents of Jacob). Similarly we know, all Jews today are not Israelites (becoz sporadic conversions of pagans to Judaism did occur in ancient times) nor all Israelites are/were Jews. Please do not get confused.

Similarly ‘Aram’ was a son of Shem and brother of Arpachshad and thus a Semite. Aram is the ancestor of the ‘Arameans’ or ‘Assyrians’ and thus Assyrians are Semitic people but not Hebrews.

Dear John Mathew,

Kindly mail me that research article on the genetic findings you have stated, on our community and the Audichya Brahmins. My mail Id is mjjackson_12 (at) yahoo dot co dot in.

Dear George:

Regarding the Mar Thomites as followers of Saint Thomas.

Sure … all of us, the Orthodox, Catholics and even the Protestants in Kerala (like some of the CSI) say that we’re followers of St. Thomas. It’s the instant reactive comment of any Nasrani.

However, if the Mar Thomites are followers of Saint Thomas then why do they use the liturgy of Saint James? Why not use the liturgy of Adai and Mari which the Assyrian Church of the East—the other *major* Saint Thomas-oriented Church—uses? If Abraham Malpan and your fathers *really* wanted to go back to the original Malabar Church, then they would have connected with the Assyrian Church of the East (like the so-called “Chaldean” Church of Kerala) and *NOT* with the Anglican Church!

George, the Mar Thomite Church is engaging in revisionist history by claiming that Malpan was trying to go back to the original Church. The fact of the matter is, he was influenced strongly by Protestant missionaries and was kicked out of the Orthodox seminaries for that reason. Then, he tried to get control vicariously through his nephew (who was consecrated—and later excommunicated—by the Patriarch of Antioch, under false pretenses) who tried to get control of the Malankara Metropolitanate. The British stopped him (justice!) and a schism between his followers and the larger community of conservative Orthodox followers arose. After several court cases (and much violence), the schismatic faction was ordered to leave almost every Church in Kerala (except for a handful that were either given to them or shared with them).

Now—two hundred years later—since many are ignorant of Church history, the Mar Thomite Church has decided to spin a tale about “going back to the origins of Christianity” etc. This is a common tactic of all Protestant Churches! They can’t get over the historical fact that they are *younger* than the Catholic/Orthodox Church, so they spin a tale stating that they are in fact *older*. It’s bogus to anyone who understands history.

But again: George, rather than getting the corroboration of some Mar Thomite bishop that you are followers of Thomas, why don’t you ask them why you are still using St. James’ liturgy and not that of Mar Adai and Mari? Or why your teachings are Protestant (or, at least, strongly influenced by Protestants)? Or why you are instructed to attend Anglican and not Catholic/Orthodox Churches when you go to new areas? Or why you don’t remember the dead, when Christians right back to the Jews did that?

Dear John & George,
……the Jews gave “birth” to Christianity, so to speak ……
I vehemently oppose the above statement of George and agreement of John.
You think Jews given birth Christianity ?
Ok. Then pls explain what is the roll of the one called “Christ , Jesus or Yeshua” ?
Just a prophet, John ???

George,
Pls explain a little on the below statements:
No Roman—No Christian ??
Farming when done as it should be done is great. There is no other human occupation more noble than this…………
Agreed 100%. I was a farmer, know the pure farmer is like a sheet of clear glass: you can see through him!
Im dead sure if there is place on right side of God the farmer will sit there, even without Confession, and the Holy Eucharist.
These are things which age and experience alone can teach………….Yes, true. The saying goes like this: By the time you practice how to lead a good life, life ends.

Dear John,

Theoritically, the Marthomites may be requiered to attend an Anglican/CSI/CNI Church when there are no Marthoma Churches. But in practise, the majority of the Marthomites, including myself will attend a Jacobite/Orthodox Church. I was in Qatar for 9 years, the first 6 was me attending Orthodox Church (not very regularly) with my brother in law who was Orthodox and the last 3 was Marthoma. Even while attending Marthoma, my wife and me would often go to the Orthodox church in the evenings on Saturdays for personal prayers. I might be slightly on the extreme side, but there are many Marthomites who would any day prefer to go to a Suriyani church than go to a gorah church.

Many of thes Orthodox guys can be seen in Pentecostal fellowships on a very regular basis and faithfully listen to tirades against the Pope and St. George/Mary and the indifference of the Marthoma clergy towards their flock.

What I am trying to say is that there is now ‘no black or white’ and the boundry is grey/weak for thousands of people like me. Something is evolving. In Calgary there are several Jacobites/Orthodox who make it only to the gorah churhes. One CSI Appachen is the most influential leader in a Syro Malabar- Potta fellowship. He is in full support of the Catholic church, yet he is CSI.

What was written on paper many decades ago are no more given importance. People will go to any church they want to while maintaining permanent membership in their original mother church. Times and traditions have changed very much.

Dear John,

I will reply. So far I have kept away from ‘hitting’ away and wil continue to do so. But you must know that I am now like a wrestler fighting his opponent with his hands tied.

… but will reply with sugar coating and all that.

Dear Sunny:

Re: “The Jews gave birth to Christianity”

My analogy was not precise. Christianity, as a religion, is a descendant of Judaism. That’s what I meant. Sorry for the imprecision!

Dear Sunny,

‘No Nasrani – No Roman Arena – No Christian’.

As you very well know, the first Christians were Jewish, the Way followers were a sect within the Jews. During those days, It was very unpopular being a follower of Jesus, yet the numbers started increasing.
The Roman empire was generally tolerant of her residents relgious belief provided that Ceasar was acknowledged as ‘Divine’ and Rome as a power divinely willed to rule the world..

But there were always Christians who were condemned for various fictitious or (real)crimes. Our forefathers in thousands are believed to have been led into the arenas (places of entertainment conducted by politicians/sponsored by govt./popularity seekers etc. where men, women and children were condemned to death in ways that our present senses can not even imagine. These were regular happenings, even extreme pornographic and sadistic movies can not mimic the reality of those years/centuries). Peter is believed to have been crucified upside down.

While in the arenas, our fathers used to chant ‘Death, where is your sting?’ and then die terrible deaths. The saying goes that the blood of those martyrs gave birth to Christianity. The arenas are not mentioned as such in the Bible, because this happened some time later, but possibly also happened at the time when John wrote the Revelations. Suggest you see the movies, Beh-Hur, Spartacus, Gladiator and The Robe.

These early martyrs showed to the world that their faith is indestructible. They signed their own faith and belief with their own blood. This contributed for others to believe in their intergrity. Often, all they needed to get out of the arenas was to deny loyalty to Yeshua. But they refused for our sake. They realized that self sacrifice is neccessary and without self sacrifice there is no Christianity. They practised what they preached and believed.

Hence ‘No Jew, No Nazerene, No Roman Arena, No Christianity.

Dear Sunny,

From a certain perspective life does not end, it goes on and on and on. When I share my spirit with you, I live in you. Don’t you think?
I am glad that you share my views about farming. YOu are one of the rare ones. Most laugh at this. There is some dignity in being a farmer in Kerala, but in Tamil Nadu, farming folks are considered ‘Hilly Billies’.

I also reqeust you to say in this forum, if the Nasrani way of life can be preserved without a farming centered lifestyel. Your views please? This is important!!

Dear Sunny,

Who was Jesus? He was a Jew and so were almost all the people around him. He was the fullfillment of the Jewish scriptures.
I think your issue is that one of not looking at these early Jesus and his freinds as Jewish but as Christians only. Perhaps, you like millions or bilions of others look at ‘Jews as Christ killers’.

These early ‘way folks were Jewish to the core. At this time, many Jews did not follow the ‘Way’.
That does not mean that the Way crowd were not Jewish!
I am afraid there may be a mindset in you which you will have to get out of.

YOu may be suprised to know that we are the last few people who are of Jewish Christian heritage. It was basically the extreme HIndu based castism of India that has preserved our heritage and identity. The curse of rigid castism in India, has atleast one positive fallout.

Dear Sunny,

Whether we do it intentionally or not, we are reviving the almost lost ancient Jewish Christianity. In the west the Messainic Jews are getting more and more stronger. So we are not alone.

I personally feel that the Nasrani and the Messainic Jew must get together. This fusion has not so far happened and I doubt whether it is in anybody’s head as yet. We are years ahead of this happening.

But on the lighter side, I think Jacob our DNA coordinator with his Cohen DNA can make the first approach to meet them. My ordinary J2 may not be impressive enough to discuss ‘fusion matters’.

Dear Jaisanker,
1. “…but to be honest, having a person like Christ to inspire in hopeless situations makes living a bit easier.
2. I realise that the Muslims are my brothers and pray that they see the goodness in all human beings.”

Above content of your last posting itself replied your many accusations against Christianity. Your word numbered (by me) 1 is a gem of a statement on Christ and that adhere us to Christ. And that’s his major contribution to mankind– solacing those crying of pain !!
Can any one unless God say “Love your enemy”????

Jaishanker, if you are a Hindu really, you are welcome to this forum, for you may change your many misconceptions like Christians in India are convertionists, anti-Hindu, Christianity is a western religion etc.
1. Conversion: We Christians in India are not converting forcibly or by seduction. NEED NOT have to, honestly. Your above sentence testify why. We simply have to make people know that “…but to be honest, having a person like Christ to inspire in hopeless situations makes living a bit easier.” That does it….because many non-Christians crushed under the wheels of poverty, Zamindary, castism in India become attracted to Christ’s revolutionary words of “Come unto me all who are weary and burdened, I shall give you rest”,
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”
By opining the above sentence are you an anti-Hindu ?
2. Christians Anti-Hindu? We Christians in India acknowledge that we are here thanks to the majority broad-minded Hindu community. We don’t want to hurt the Hindu sentiments, infact we are Hindus with Hebrew origin and Christian in faith. We are Hindu with culture in India. We are here for more than 2000 years, may be from the Ramayana era. Why should we hate Hindu ?

Both we are brotheren Indians to fight with the invading extremist Islamic groups, the real threat to the mankind, which fast over-powering the peace-loving real Islam.
3. “How many real scholars do you have in your Church. You lack intellectuals in your clergy…..” . Our clergy not intellectuals ? Survey educational institutions in India: The majority are Christian run, managed and taught by our clergy. They not only teach Christianity, but everything under sun. 2.5% Christians cannot force-feed education to the 97.5% non-Christians in India !
There are so many false propaganda against Christians by vested interests: one is the zamindars who don’t like the downtrodden lower castes embrace equality based Christianity, for they lose generations of slaves !
Please evaluate facts and try to hate us: you cannot.

No, dear George, Im not with that mind set. Contrary, I don’t hate Jews even though some of them sent Christ to Cross. For those fellow Christians who hate Jews as Christ killers, I got the below opinion:
1. Jews cannot be blamed since human nature is against change. Christ’s words and doctrine itself was revolutionary, and anti-Jew. Any normal Jew will be dead against him, and monotheistic law has nothing less than gallows to blasphemy. The did it to obey law and God. Anybody blaming them is ignorant and biased.

Dear Sunny:

I don’t think Jaishankar has posted anything that is anti-Christian; his earlier posts were against Islam and not Christianity. Read them again.

But regarding his statement that Christians don’t have intellectuals among the clergy: that point is excellent! Christians may run educational institutions but that is not proof of “intellectualism” among the clergy. Education does not equal intellectual! One can be educated by absorbing information, yet not question the source of that information. On the other hand, an intellectual questions the source: he questions everything in order to arrive at the truth. Jaishankar is talking about true intellectualism—one who questions to arrive at the truth. Christian clergy (Orthodox/Catholic, Protestant, etc) generally do not exhibit such intellectualism: they are dogmatists that repeat the ideas they’ve been taught. Now, there are some intellectual monastic and other orders (e.g., the Jesuits) but those are in the minority.

That is why (for example) our ridiculous legends (“St. Thomas came and converted X Brahmin families” … and so on) have survived, unquestioned, for so long.

However, it should be noted that (unlike the Abrahamic religions) the Hindus have an intellectual tradition within their religion (Jnana Yoga, and the various inquiry-based modes of salvation).

Finally, your statement that 2.5% of Christians can not force feed education to the 97.5% of non-Christians is a highly ignorant, ridiculous and almost offensive statement. With people like you making such claims within our community, it is not surprising that some extremists from other religions like to target us! 2.5% of India’s population may be Christian, but they are all NOT educated. And the 97.5% of non-Christians are not all un-educated. Christianity (or conversion to Christianity) DOES NOT mean “education” nor does it mean “intellectual”. In my opinion, India’s salvation is not from Christianity (I dislike conversion and missionary activity, and am never sympathetic to missionaries in India who get attacked by extremists: they should clean up their own house and remove the speck from their own eye before trying to “fix” others) but from general raising of economic levels. Look at Europe, North America, and every other affluent nation: they progressed *after* they cast away Christianity and started to embrace secular pursuits! Sardar Patel was on to something … too bad he didn’t become PM of India…

Dear Sunny:

Jesus’ teachings were not “anti-Jew”. Re-read the Gospels and try again.

Dear Sunny,

In my opinion the Jews who wanted Jesus to be ‘terminated’ were the ‘vested interest group’. In their hearts, they did not dislike Jesus because he ‘seemed against Yahoweh or the Law, but wanted Him terminated because he was a threat to their living and life style.

The Chief priests and all other powerful men in the Sanhiedrin etc. were ‘puppets of Rome’ and so was the political ruler like Herod. Jesus was getting increasingly popular with the masses and he was on the verge of becoming a king/ruler.

The High preists and the other vested interest groups decided to strike Jesus and they struck. They struck Jesus because he was a threat to them and NOT BECAUSE THEY LOVED YAHOWEH OR THE LAW. They knew very well that Jesus was special and possibly the messaih.

The part ruler of the Jewish people, Herod was not even Jewish, but pretended to be Jewish. They all successfully twisted things and convinced the ‘masses’ that Jesus was not a godly or divine man. Ofcourse, the reason they put forward for striking Jesus was ‘he was against Yahweh and the Law’.

You are great Anoop, but more insights into human nature is needed. You seem to me an innocent man with love for God. The world is full of wolves in sheep clothing or with sheep who have empathy. Keep on debating, that way we will learn.

You or anyone can write things negative about me, so go ahead but do it in a matured and reasonable way, or else this forum will become a ‘fish market’.

Dear George,
Human being is created (or just happened by evolution- let atheists be happy!) for farming, rather I will say “eating from forests” and not for sitting staring on a PC, for earning 3 plates of McDonalds and as much heavy metal loaded concoction called “cola’ ! (Now they realize after centuries of research that intestines are made to accept fibrous food: Food straight from forest !)
On a forest based life maximum you need a stick to ward off your enemy; no Hydrogen bombs !
You never pollute. (Think of the junk produced at one McDonalds a day !)
Urbanisation made human revert back to barbarian- more barbarian per barbarian- ‘cause he is educated, most modern, technocrat barbarians. Killing just for pleasure, and not even for food( Cannibals are simpletons: killing just as much for food, the basic need).
Worst: one has to be a barbarian to survive in the ‘jungle’ of modern cities. (or he get killed.).
But why modernization and urbanization happening? Is it by God? Well, must be. Why?
He may be thinking of multiple farming of Earth, The present inhabitants are mismanaged earth beyond cleansing by themselves, hence He allow them to perish by their own way: by bombs, epidemics, floods…(It is very much in the Bible, many places)
After such holocaust/destruction Earth will be back to its pre-historic barren age. Again He will sow seeds of life. No way, after all He cannot be without his lab of experiments. Al last one day one mankind will evolve as per his liking: Loving each other on the lonely Planet, knowing the Creator- Thy kingdom.
(Stephen Hawking never refused a possibility of a Creator; he blundered “if a God he had no choices” , for such a dimension of a Creator is devoid of choices !
To sum up; if we satisfied with forests or to the max farming and re-farming, we may never be cause such destruction of earth; but in the simple way of life we would have evolved / attained “ Thy kingdom”.

Still time is left. Hence I mooted elsewhere earlier that all Nasranis come back to Kerala(or any cultivable land), start community farming, with minimum needs, love each other and show world it is still possible.
That’s when we be the real Nasranis- disciple of Nasrayan, the chosen race.

Dear John, you think nobody will come back ? everybody will.
Mankind is already in disillusionment trying satisfying unending desires. All found it is futile leading “modern life”. All are worried, crying, unsolaced, disillusioned, clueless what way to progress; for what was thought of progress is proven on the contrary. They are looking for a way out for solace: Nasrani is no exception. Liar will tell he is.
It is time for ‘us’ to show world: go back to your core occupation, go back to woods than to extinction (with all your modern gadgets).

Well, dear George, eliminate fantasies and crapsif any: see if the plot is viable and tenable.
If yes, can we start somewhere ?

Dear George and Sunny:

Good luck with your decision to move back and start farming — but somehow I don’t think either of you will go through with it! It takes a lot to translate words into actions…

And no need to reinvent the wheel: plenty has been written about going back to farming: you can read Thoreau or Tolstoy or any of a variety of anarchists, hippies, and members of Jewish kibbutzes. How do I know this? I was into this idea about ten years ago, and read a lot about it. Then, one day after reading Ecclesiastes or Proverbs (I forget which), I woke up and realized that God gave man a brain, intellect, and the interest to learn and develop things for a reason: man must rise, leave this planet, colonize the galaxy and beyond … and *evolve*. God probably did not intend man to remain an animal, stuck on this earth, concerned with the base instincts—I believe he intended us to go beyond a simple existence and advance ourselves.

When the next asteroid comes to destroy the earth, it is not your prayers or your farming or your simple life that will save us (to be brutally honest). It is an engineer aiming some form of warhead at the asteroid and blowing it away, or designing some autonomous rocket engine to deflect it. God gave man a brain for a reason—and made it significantly larger than our genitalia for a reason too: to rise above our base, simple existence.

Life in cities is no more or less complicated that life on a farm. You seem to think it’s all misery, divorce, and sexual immorality. Where do you live? I live in a city and I don’t see what you see. If I lived beyond my means and tried to compete/compare with my neighbor perhaps I will see what you seem to be overly concerned with: but I don’t. I do my thing, am concerned with myself and my family, and restrict my problems to the problems that naturally crop up in any life. By the way, even in societies with a low divorce rate, there is sexual promiscuity. And there is unhappiness too. Those things are a function of the individual and not the lifestyle.

I think the problem is that you both were not born and raised in the West, so you both are like fish out of water here: unadapted. Perhaps that is how the first Jew or the first Assyrian felt when they came to Kerala. But — when the second generation popped up, they most likely adjusted and adapted—and thrived.

Again I stress: if the first Jew or Assyrian to come to Kerala decided to stick to farming in the Middle East, we—the Nasranis—would not be here. You should be happy and thank engineers and businessmen (and not decry what *you* perceive to be their immorality…): not only have they enabled you to learn new things via the Internet, but they were your ancestors! They built ships and established trading enterprises and immigrated to India long ago—*not* some anonymous Mesopotamian farmer who most likely got raped and slaughtered over and over again by the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Persians again, Mongols, Muslims, and now the Christians (the Euro-American invasion of Iraq).

Dear Sunny,

I trust you understand that the people were about to crown Jesus as King. Ofcourse, Jesus was not itnerested. Sorry for the error.

Dear Sunny,
I am making too many mistakes. Will be careful in the future.. The ‘sheep have no empathy’ and not not ‘sheep have empathy. Lack of empathy is as bad as cruelty in action.

Dear Sunny,

Satan had hijacked God’s intial plans. As long as Satan is around here and his puppets are running the world in the name of ‘Yahoweh’, we can’t do much.
But let us see!

Aside, I often tell the joke that my forefathers could ‘escape to the forests’ until 150 years ago and live as hermits inside a cave or tree trunk hollow. But now, if you are seen inside a forest, the Forest Gaurds will get you and various charges like ‘tresspassing, stripping barks, leaves and roots from trees and plants, wantom destruction of the forests etc. will be put on you. So mordern man does not even now have the last option our forefathers had about 150 years ago, ie. escape to the forests.

However, let us make some money and then buy land. Did you read about ‘Fukokawa’ the father of Natural Farming? Farming is not just a life style, it is a PHilosophy of life and the only way to preserve our Nasrani life style.
With every cell in my body, I believe that plants too have feelings and they respond to human emotions too. Read more about this. This is more or less established scientifically. What I mean to say is that their is enormous scientific potentiality in farming, far beyond what we can today imagine. Farming is not for hilly bilies only.

Dear John,

“Look at Europe, North America, and every other affluent nation: they progressed *after* they cast away Christianity and started to embrace secular pursuits”

Your above is fantastic!!

They (the west in general ) are happy, I agree, as their sensual pleasures like sex, food, sleeping, health etc. are met in full. But deeper and crucial things like ‘Family Life, Religion, God, Compassion are at a very low level. I have dwelled on this subject often in the past, so I won’t go there again.
The west are like pigs in a pig sty, happy and contend in wallowing in filth. They have succeed in placing wool over our eyes so as to make us believe that we are the ones wallowing in filth.

Is there anything called ‘marraige in the west?, is there anyting called sefl restraint, compassion, romance, general knowledge etc. in the west? They are rich and enjoying today, not because they had a ‘questioning mind’, but becasue they could produce more guns and use them and sell them. With these guns and power they could colonize vast ancient and virgin/new lands like the Americas (the giant north, the medium central and the giant south America)

They are exploiting carbon fuel from the earth and in the process they have done irrepairable damage to the earth. We Indians have faithfully followed and admired the west. They are doing all they can to corner the black gold. This is what Iraq is all about, not that Saddam Hussein was a bad man who had to go.

The day they threw out Christianity, they were doomed. Nothing can replace Christianity. The few inellectual in the West know that they have erred in throwing out Christianity. They know that the count down to their disaster has started. The family is the most basic and valuable thing on planet earth. The west do not have a family.

Dear John,
If you can be an engineer or a rocket sceintists and still maintain your values (in my case, values mean the Nasrani values), then I am for people to adopt whatever they are good at.

I will not advocate farming as done now. Anoop and me are for farming because we feel from our experience that farming alone makes us dignified and independent to pursue our heriage and traditions. If heritage and tradtions are not important then farming is less attractive.

Dear Sungeo,

I tend to agree with Jackson about the ‘Namboodhiri/Brahmin’ heritage. In Tamilnadu, the Gods and Brahmins are addressed as ‘Sami/Samy’. But I would hear Tamil Christians often address their pastors/priests as ‘Sami’.
The same could have happened with our forefathers Levite/Cohen = Brahmin.
It is also possible that Nasranis wouuld have bought land of the Namboodhiries, in which case they would surely be addressed with the family/house name of the Namboodhiries.
Actually my father and me have often been addressed as ‘Ramapattil ‘so and so’ in my home village, for the reason that our house is built on once Hindu property. It is with great perserverance that my father and me insisted that we be called by our own Nasrani family name and not by a Hindu name.

The Hindu name is aristocratic and I suspect that many Nasrani would like to be addressed with aristocratic family names than with unknown family names like our own. Many of my cousins are still strongly called by the Hindu family names though the properties changed hands about 80 to 100 years ago.

50 years from now, our grandson may say that his forefathers were Hindus based upon his family name based upon the Hindu God Ram.

Also, I am not very sure that our forefathers were not ‘fools’. I see many foolish/crooked Nasranis around these days and there is no reason to believe that Nasranis of yesteryears were not like these present ‘foolish/crooked’ ones. It is very difficult to admit, but it should be admitted.

And by the way, I am now seeing the movie ‘Fiddler on the Roof’. Please all of you see it. It is strongly about the Jews and their strong traditions. This is a must. 100 wippings with wet noodles for all those who do not see the movie.

Dear George,

The point that you mentioned that many Nasranis bought/got land from Hindus is very true. In my own native there are quite many Nasrani families who acquired such land under the EMS Namboothiripad communist Govt’s policies wherein feudalism of rich Namboothiris/Naduvazhis was ended and much of their land was either divided off/ sold or whatever. As I told u many Nasranis got/bought land at my native wherein they were once just workers on wages there. Today they own the same lands and have recently started making such family histories and creating kudumbachrithrams claiming Namboothiri descent on the above vague basis. What a copy-paste method ! It’s all sudden wealth and fame that resulted in this recent urgent “need” to invent claims and thus when social acceptance in terms of caste superiority is also established then a political/social clout emerges and then everything seems so rosy, so very comfortable and superior. Big jokes for those not so foolish as to not understand what’s happening.

But the faster we realize we are fooling ourselves we will know the truth !

Dear George,

Your view of the West is distorted. The concept of family, compassion, etc, are not restricted to the East. Perhaps your sample points are messed up, but I’ve seen plenty of examples of virtue in the West among people who have no interest in religion. And the same in the East: there are excellent atheists or agnostics (in addition to religious people) there as well. And there are plenty of corrupt religious people. One only needs to look at the opulence of Kerala bishops and Churches juxtaposed with the poor people who live on the streets right outside. Your view that religion=compassion is total and utter nonsense in my opinion.

It’s good for you to (finally) see Fiddler on the Roof: it shows that regardless of tradition, culture and religion, when you are in a weak position in society (i.e., a farmer) you are always vulnerable.

That is why our ancestors were well-versed in the “technical” arts such as business and warfare. They just didn’t pull the wool over their eyes and say “I’m going to follow tradition and live the way my ancestors lived” — they developed and progressed.

Finally, you say that the west dominates because of guns. That’s very short-sighted and yet again illustrates your ignorance of history: how do you think they got the wherewithal to actually *design* and *build* those guns? By science — which comes from a questioning (i.e., an intellectual) mind, and not a dogmatic one. When the West started to question things (in the tradition of the Romans and the Greeks—i.e., non-Christian pagan civilizations) they started to develop and eventually shed religion. The destruction of the “family” that you dwell on, happens due to the greed of individuals — NOT due to a technological, educated, intellectual society. For example, in my social and professional circles (professors, scientists and researchers), I don’t see a lot of religious people (many are atheists, agnostics or simple don’t even care) — and most people I meet have very solid families and good kids and don’t (generally) commit adultery (at least, not openly). You are seeing only *one* minute side of the West.

The problem the west facing now is lack of religion . They are totally secularised . But in the east religion is playing a dominant role in politics except communist regimes .
the west simply changed clashes of religion with clashes of civilisation
if these nations not turn to yahweh they cannot succeed in the clashes of civilisations

what happend in the west is that they totally seperate religion from politics
for Muslims they have OIc , for christian nations nothing
because now adays there is no christian nation
only political leadership can give solution to political threats
look in to our community we have spiritual leadership but no political leadership like nss or sndp
spiritual leaders have limitations for dealing with political matters

Dear John,

One can’t live in the west if he or she holds on to values like chastity. It is practically impossible. A women if she is a virgin at 30 will be laughed at by her lover. For saniy reasons, she has to loose her virginity, or else she can’t function in the west.

There are not ‘solid families’ as such, maybe very rare. The family is dead. The grandmother goes ‘srewing, the daughter goes srewing and the granddaughter goes out screwing. Everybody is after sensual pleasures. The philosophy is ‘It is your life, live it the way that gives you happiness’.

I do agree that there are aetheists who are nice and good people. But wait a moment, they are nice and good only upto a point. Beyond that point, they do not have empathy or compassion. They reach the stage ‘I have done all I can, now I have to look after myself’. They do good because they may be born naturally good or else they may feel good doing certain ‘good things’, just the way some white supermovie and other stars go to Africa and adopt black children and have photograpshs taken of the adoption. They get a kick out of doing something ‘sensational’. Just the way you would like to occassionally sleep out in the woods in summer.
There are people from Canada who go to Sudan to do ‘charity work’. They are sometimes aethiests or only have faint idea of God, yet they go, because they feel good to do so at this ‘season’. Next season they may be in Switzerland or Paris. it is now medically proven that when you feel good, your body produces some ‘pleasure hormones’ which in turn boosts your happiness. It is all material.

The above goodness are like houses built on sandy soil, the moment the floods come, they are washed off.
I am not against pragmatism but am against too much of it. We need a balance of ‘pragmatism and dogmatism’. Both are needed but if you ask me ‘dogmatism brings happiness in the family’ which is the most important thing. One can never fully trust a pragmatic person.

A questioning mind is useful and good, but the problem is that often the man does not know his limit. The Nazi medical doctors had a very questioning mind. They used gypsies, homosexuals and jews for various medical tests in order to find ‘answers’ to their ‘questioning mind’. Everything must be tamed, including the ‘questioning mind’. One needs ‘WISDOM” and not ‘INTELLIGENCE’. Wisdom is very rare, it takes years of wisdom (read traditons) from generation to gerneration to be passed on to the the next generation. But intelligence is cheap, you can buy it from the market with money that you stole from a widow/orphan.

I am happy your freinds are highly educated and are proffessionals. Hope they have a termbiling fear of God. 9 times out of 10, they will not have any fear of God. I notice this as a charestertistic of the western man.

It is petroleum alone (repeat petroleum alone) that holds up the western nations. Nothing else. Mordern society by a quirk of fate is petroleum based and hence it is now the ‘Gorah Yugam’.

Vast areas of North America and Europe can not be habitated without heating from petroleum resources. Once the petroleum resources dries up, these areas in Canada, Sweeden will revert back to the olden days of rabbits and grasses.Luck is with the West for now. It is not their ‘intelligent questioning mind’ but pure luck.

Dear John,
**I think the problem is that you both were not born and raised in the West, so you both are like fish out of water here: unadapted. Perhaps ……………. they most likely adjusted and adapted—and thrived.**
West ? where in West ? Europe, USA, Canada, Israel where? Crown of West is America, so say people. My experience ? The 15 year girl seated with Mom and Dad near my seat in an Amtrack to California, accustomed with a Romeo, eloped from the laps of her parents, came back morning ‘garbaged’, sat just like that with her parents, waiting for her all night. I cannot forget the ‘dead’ look of her mother in my life ! By God I felt ‘fish out of water’! Should I ask my daughter to get adapt to this West and thrive?? Will you do ?
West is so ‘material’ human do anything for some $$$$. My erstwhile Tapioca farm and thatched hut in Malabar was 100 times a better habitat for human; West is great for wild animals, I am not one, never want to be adapted to.
**Again I stress: if the first Jew or Assyrian to come to Kerala decided to stick to farming in the Middle East, we—the Nasranis—would not be here**
John, this is what we propose or reason with our 1 kg of soft mass(prefrontal cortex ) called Brain… but how He disposes it we can’t say, not even imagine…
If He so decide, the simple farmer Sunny at Assyria(of 2000 BC ?) can dare all oceans and embark at Musiris ! (His ways are beyond imagination !)
I too was a strictly ‘reasoning based’ once (especially at thirties) but when studied further, found the whole affair of universe is beyond our reasoning. We can invent a lot…. But whatever we invent are just kept there for us, to invent ! Its like your two year son ‘inventing’ the pen in your pocket !
The study of “ Quantum mechanics’ proved much: the universe is beyond fathom, and worsr it is expanding ever at a speed of some 10000s of miles. Even we know how galaxies with 100000000000000s of Suns and earths born…….. T
The simple thing they do not know is: Why all this ? what for ? Why and Why?

Dear George:

You suffer from a highly distorted view of things. Who are the people you hang out with? I’ve never seen such people.

RE: “A women if she is a virgin at 30 will be laughed at by her lover.” Somehow I don’t see you having direct experience with this. What you’ve written, beyond being a hypothetical exaggeration, is also hypocritical: *in your own society in India* a women, if she is unmarried with children at 30, will be ostracized and laughed at *by the whole bloody community*. Please George—try again and come up with a better example.

You are probably watching too much trash TV, because I don’t think you have *any* direct experience with the above. What you’ve written is a poorly-done sitcom plot, not reality—unless you live in a trailer park.

Modern society uses petroleum because it is available and an infrastructure has developed around it. There was society before petroleum and thanks to engineers and scientists there will be society afterwards: progress will occur, mankind will adapt. Beyond petroleum modern man has one important thing that facilitates adaptation: a mind, science and ingenuity. Religion offers none of the above.

Finally, you decry the attempts of some “atheists” that go and do charitable works. Whatever George. An atheist who goes to Sudan or wherever, or an atheist who donates a couple thousand/million/billion dollars, etc, has done far more for the poor than you (I suspect) or any of the thousands of slimy missionary charity workers. You can go on and on about how your acts and your faith is better than the works of some Hollywood star (who probably does a good deed for publicity, or probably does it because of interest or some high that he gets — I and you don’t know) but the fact of the matter is the Hollywood star has actually *done* something, while you *talk* about things. Big difference: if you can’t see that you should step back from the Protestant “faith is greater than works” concept and look at things more objectively and rationally.

Dear Sunny:

As always my omission of a seemingly obvious word has led you down a wrong path (I should have said “successful adaptation). Your example of the Amtrak girl is laughable! The point of adaptation is to *thrive* … which means one much choose a good example of what is *successful* and *thriving*. Your example and your silly counter “Should I ask my daughter to get adapt to this West and thrive??” is wrong-headed: *clearly* the Amtrak family is not an example of a thriving family.

There are plenty of good examples of how to live in the West, including our own Nasrani way of life which is not incompatible with live over here. I was born and brought up over here, yet was raised according to my family’s Nasrani’s standards. I also learned to ignore bad examples from the West (and East) and select good things that enable success. What I noticed is that many of my non-Indian friends, despite different backgrounds and religions (including atheism), often lived very similar to me. There is nothing superior or inferior in Eastern society: at the end of the day, blind adherence to any ideal (Western or Eastern) is foolish—one must adapt to the circumstances and choose conduct that enables a successful and happy life. The Easterners are good at it, and the Westerners are too: both are also bad at it (as can be seen by the manifold bad examples from both societies).

My objection to you and George, is that you are out of place here: you watch too much TV and find all the negatives with life in the West, while I’ve lived here all my life and so know that there are many positives too—it depends on one’s personal choice.

Next, regarding you examples on science … you really shouldn’t delve into areas unknown: your examples are over-simplistic. The study of quantum mechanics has proved much — that study and science is fruitful at dispelling the many things we don’t know. Have you even studied quantum? (I don’t think so … quantum is not the study of large-scale phenomena like the universe, it’s the study of the small … you should have said “relativity” if you want to include the universe).

Dear George:

Before you respond, I meant: *in your own society in India* a women, if she is unmarried or married and with out children at 30, will be ostracized and laughed at *by the whole bloody community*.

Dear John
I kept on reading your comments, feel its worth. The problem here is many arguments are on screen just for the sake of chipping in and many don’t know what they want or need to say. If I say x is good, some want to say x is bad even they don’t know anything about x. Mean while I could now see some realistic arguments, which wasn’t there before(it was like an alheluuyaa, stothram.. stothram.. and the whole group says stothram stothram).

I too just thought will spend time on something else (got a new 52inch LCD, watching blue rays and HD broadcasts, cool bit away from the computer).

Again the forum is warming up; it’s cool to see that.

About the west, I just adore the way they live, the way they speak, the cleanliness, the education, the transport, emergency services, police and social security, their compassion to even animals, financial support, opportunities, infrastructure…

George Achaya some of your points are so realistic, for example once you mentioned about the low profile nursing husbands, that’s true. Another one is about the Christians from more intense areas like Kottayam and others from the south. Me being from south, I know the harmony, we never talk religion and move along with nairs, ezhavas and even low cast Hindus. But when I was doing my masters in Madras I had some unfortunate encounters with my brethrens from Pala and Kangarapally; nasty and crooked. A tiny example, it was the time when coke was introduced in “tin can”. I had some Pala friends who carried the empty can for the whole day, just to illustrate their usage of a thirty five rupees drink.(1995). We have a similar story about Nairs in south. During a wedding feast Nairs would be the first to occupy the seats (11.30 -12.30 pm). They just want to prove that lunch will be ready in their homes at this time (many don’t have 3 times meal a day)

About the cultural issues, just travel by a train to Madras or Bangalore and you will be horrified, it’s worse than west. Just can’t imagine what our 18 or 20 year girls are doing!!!

Dear BG and John,
I know that I can be very boring regarding the topic of the West, as I do get a good feed back from my 20 year old son.

I only intend good for you and all when I say ‘watch out for the West’. Whether BG really meant it or not (because people may sometimes say something without meaning it), he has proven my suspicion right when he admits that he loves the west. Good traffic, ambulance, parking, etc. in the West is fine but that is not what is life is about. Life is about God and family. These two vital things are not there.

All who come to the West who have good jobs are sastisfied with the West, this means almost all are. But there are some who can’t stomach the west. They are usually people who has had a ‘good freinds circle and relatives back in Kerala’.

Some have no choice other than to inwardly and outwardly admit that they love the West because they can’t go back home because they have burned the bridges.

Finally, just look at the statistics of the unmarried Nasrani men and women here. Many are not married, though they are well above 30. I understand that 80% of Canada Nasrani girls/nboys who marry from INdia/Kerala are heading into divorce. The divorce rates in Canada are fantastic, beyond the imagination and this does not include ‘living together, which lasts for hardly 2 or 3 years’.

Would you blame me for warning you?. Children raised in the Gulf are heading too often to the divorce courts. I have said all these before.
I suppose I made my points clear and thanks for you folks for commentingI

just want you folks to be happy. God Bless us all!

Dear BG,

We all make mistakes. Young girls are also human. If you look into the background of these young girls, they are often from familier that are under stress. Where father lost his job or doing jobs that are exploiting others.

Values are breaking down and hence young girls (boys will be boys) become lost. We have to give our daughter better homes with more tradtions and religion. Then the situation will improve. Who in year 2008 is interested in traditions and heritage other than George and Sunny and a few others?
We see the disaster looming ahead and we warn!!

When Noah built his ark, the world laughed and scorned.
We in India have not so far lost everything. The west has lost everything.

Before I left to Canada from Kerala in May 2006 my uncle sent me a warning (he was living in the USA for about 2 years) that never to go the the Americas. My wifes uncle and aunt all West experienced and residents of Canad/Gulf seriously warned of bad consequences for our family if we travel to Canada. At that time, I did not know what they meant. Today I know what they meant.
I don’t want you folks to be unhappy in the West. but please be careful and maintain your traditions and your heritage. You may have to maintain it at a much higher level than the Keralites in Kerala do.

Dear Sunny,
I believe I like you.
Please keep in touch. My email address is . Sent me an email rightaway.

I am one of those Nasranis who has the average awareness with rough reading of the ancient faith and about a glorious united church before the arrival of Europeans.

How can we call our gods own country as East ? If it is based on our culture and traditions then that’s a mis representation. All the people, churches, clergy and society are miniatures of west in Kerala. Its name sake East. There many more practicing Easterners in West than in Kerala.

Some headlines – More than Sixty churches still closed by Jacobite faction fighting. Syro Malabar some priests on street against government and some again on street for Indianisation or what ever of the church. Small churches like Mar Thoma has become association of protestant units.

Sorry, if I am mistaken but as some one who lives in Kerala I really don’t understand what great tradition exist here to be this nostalgic.

Anyways I have a question. I read few things about Mar Sabor and Mar Proth and Mar Abraham. I haven’t read about any other bishops pre the Koonan cross Oath. Well, atleast some names to be known to hail our great tradition.

Dear George,
Thank you
I am extremely happy to hear somebody from this site like me “specially”, though all in this site love between; (our spending valuable time on this site is proof that we have brotherhood between, in spite of difference of opinions on issues, but general unity on core issues and ideals). Yes, liking one another is our first step.
How heartening it is to hear somebody like and prefer you.
Thank you.
But I think the email address is missed on the message, pls message once more.
Mine is signergyprints@yahoo.co.in

Dear George Achaya,

From your statements these are the issues around you.
1. First is your age and a very late migration
2. You are pretty new to the system
3. don’t seem to have any white friends circle (your usage of “Gora” confirms a sort of hostility)
4. obviously that makes you spent ages before this forum
5. you are not happy with your career nor is ready for any input to enhance your profession
6. your 20 year old boy’s perception is expected, since even he is fresh
7. presumably you are a migrant on point system(64 points or something when even a diploma guy could jump to Canada)

I just want to say that, even I struggled a lot in this white country. But got through all those distress, upgraded my studies and to some extend I am doing well. That doesn’t mean that I have burned my bridge back to India. The truth is that I need a solid and sound balance sheet to go back. My kids may choose to live here, it’s up to them.

Achaya my love for west is their discipline and way of life and a good part of their culture which is very impressive. Just tell me what’s life about? Don’t you like those sophistications which I have mentioned in my previous comment? Or do you still want to travel on bullock carts, use a stinking medical system, spent long time on religion, think graciously about the Brahmin ancestry and end up as a loser?

Anyway I decided not to do that. Up to you bro!

Please don’t say about family and love back in India. Adultery and lying has become a fashion.

Coming to the west and east scenario, Westerners typically see categories, prefer abstract universal principles and has a focal point, where as we see typically relationships and, bother each and every ones bits and pieces(that’s why we put up factions very fast)

cheers

Dear BG,

Thanks for you comment!
I am a very happy man!! Lots of white, muslim, Chineese, Indian and even Jewish freinds.
From my writings, you are trying to understand my personality. Good luck!
I will reply to your comment asap but I will bear in mind that this forum is not for ‘personality clashes’ but for healthy debates.

Dear George Achaya
Honestly I don’t have time to dig into any ones personality or private life. I was just interpreting your hate towards west. We have a saying in the south “chor ivideyum koor avadayum, means eat here, loyal there”. If you hate them you shouldn’t be there at the first place. Hey you need their money, enjoy their brilliantly build infrastructure yet criticise them. Just one more question, what’s so great with our friends and relatives back in India? Once you are penny less, believe me you wont have any friends or relatives. That’s doesn’t mean I am an introvert. You may not believe the numbers I am associated with.

As John mentioned it’s easy to speak and preach but hard to transform it into action. How many of us here are supporting charity machineries back in India. How many are giving a hand to the oppressed in our church jurisdictions. None! I have seen people attending Sunday masses, cruising in Skoda and accent, who donates 50 and 100 rupees to the church exchequer, yet turn away hungry lepers and ones with mobility constraints.

Even the clergy keep a squat attitude, eg some poor is addressed this way
“evide pokuvada ravile”
the same with a rich
“Paul engotta ravile, palliyil onnum kanunillallo”.

After all this is a free talk show.

Happy talking…

Dear BG,

We are imperfect, nobody denies that. You may say I am anti western, another said in this forum that I am anti muslim. There are many people who say I am anti Pentecost and anti Protestant and even anti Nasrani. Who am I? Sorry I don’t fit into your ‘data base’.

The ‘about us’ page of this site says the cause of the site is Nasranis. Hence it is a theme based site where discussion may be related to Nasranis, and not seems an Orkut kind of site anything under sun(?) can be discussed endlessly just for time pass.
Obviously the promoter’s aim is the preservation and betterment of Nasranis socially and spiritually; as such the discussion must be focused and progressed to the core subject, the participants are duty bound to do so. Said so, is there scope for a Theist – Atheist debate at these forums ?
Now the question is ‘who is a Nasrani?’
Minimum there can be two types:
1. Nasrani by birth:
By birth one is a Nasrani who is born with Hebrew lineage. But what happens when the born Nasrani disown his ‘Nasranism’ by declaring being Nasrani has nothing to do with God, and doesn’t give regard to Nasrani values, heritage or as a race to be preserved ? What if the born Nasrani chose to be Hindu, Muslim, atheist or agnostic ? Is he still a Nasrani ? Yes, technically he is, a genetic one and not an ethnic one. An ethnic group is defined as a group with distinctiveness and common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral and biological traits.
2. By acceptance: (Yes, if not a Thomas Christian of Indian origin cease to be a Nasrani, while a Hebrew origin but atheist or converted to Hinduism becomes a Nasrani which is paradoxical !)
One with Hebrew parentage is an ethnic Jew rather than a Nasrani unless he chose, continue to be a Nasrani with all its implications: with distinctiveness and common cultural, linguistic, religious traits and also aspirations, duties & dogmas, above all a staunch believer in Yahweh to prove his religious and cultural unity with the group. He is duty bound to be proud, upholding Nasrani values, work for preserving the heritage and the betterment of it. The member should be an Ambassador of Nasranism, wherever he is: at least shouldn’t disown or contempt/depise/ scorn it as a way of life. He may do self-diagnosis, but not critical openly.
3. A Nasrani is much more than just Hebrew lineage; who is a Christian(irrespective of it’s divisions and sub-division),believing in God and holy Bible, irrespective of its seemingly erroneous phrases (justifiable considering the near-barbaric culture prevailed at the time of penning it by men, though God inspired.) and believe Israel is chosen by Him and with Hebrew lineage Nasrani too chosen and to follow a life as per Bible and Christianity defines. ‘Nasrani’is more by conviction, acceptance and choice than by Hebrew lineage.
4. True Nasrani is not aspiring for technology-dominated, materially prosperous world, but a mystical spiritual world. He is satisfied with the given, available. A PC is not an ‘invention of men’ but God given tool for better communication for the glory of Him, for spreading Gospel, for what he is made for.
Let us evaluate ourselves: AM I A NASRANI in true spirit ?
(sorry for the time and ‘Gospel tone’ if felt)

Dear Sunny,

I think finding a defintion for ‘Nasrani’ is more difficult than we think. Because it certainly can not include ‘birth as a Nasrani’ as a pre-condition because this will make us Racist.
I think it should mean those who believe that our faith has been established by Apostle Thomas and who have a Jewish/Hebraic heritage

I would also include ‘All are welome to join the family of the Nasranis’.
I am often reminded about Yeshu’s statement to the Jews ‘.. God can make these stones into Jews….’ meaning there is nothing to be meaninglessley proud of being a Jew.

One of the most important persons at the Messainic Jewish worship place here is a non Jew (and his wife). HIs personality is strong and humble. If we want the Holy Spirit to be with us, we must welcome non Nasrani’s into our fold. A Nasrani should not be defined by DNA alone. I know it is difficult, but this is the correct thing to do.

Dear Sunny,

Further to my comment on ‘Defining a Nasrani’, I thik we should also define who is a Jew/Hebrew. Without proper understanding of who these ‘people’ are, we can not define who is a Nasrani.

Me think, t his is a very weighty subject and many would not be interested in it.. but I am.
I am going down to Kerala early next month and you bet, I am taking a Menorah with me. I already have one at home here in Calgary, the other one is for home at Mavelikara. Jewish/Hebrew traditions need the deepest commitment born out of conviction.
‘
I have lived for several years in Tamil Nadu, grew up with Brhamin Iyer and Iyengar children and I have seen traditions in real action. I have not seen Jewish traditions until later in life. I now know the immense good tha traditons can contribute. We Nasrani’s do not have much traditions left. We can’t borrow Namboodhiri traditons, for that will be shameful, we can’t borrow Anglcian traditions for that would also be shameful. We can only take what is ours. We can with pride, dig into the treasury of Jewish/Hebrew traditions and live life abundantly. The treasury is ours to take and we don’t have to worry about ‘scorn’ from others. Knowing Keralites, I am sure that others will laugh and call us ‘cuckoo’. Remember, they will say it out of jealousy and nothing else.

Since you are a Syro Malabar, I do not know as to how you can proceed with Jewish/Hebrew traditions without going against the Catholic Church. and I am not saying it is easier for Marthomites (I think the Catholic Church acknowledges the Jewish/Hebrew heritage and traditions of the K’nites. . I see Syro Malabar guys like Xavier and Jackson one of the first to very boldly acknowledge their Jewish/Hebrew heritage, ie. years before I did. I marvel at their boldness.

Chew upon what I have written and let us discuss. If the above is outside NSC, we will discuss through Hotmail. But we will try our best to keep it within NSC so that others may/should read and crticise us.

very nice, how about a story on the person who advertised the dead sea scrolls in the wall street journal back in the 40′s who was a christian priest in jerusalem?

james kahelin

George,
How can Catholics deny Jewish heritage?
After all their ancestors are all Jewish.
Early Christians including Christ’s disciples are all from Judaism converted.
Hebrew/Jewish heritage: I acknowledge and cherish a fair possibility of our Jewish origin. Apart from that we are yet to prove it scientifically.
Also there is a loose thread: St. Thomas might have converted local Keralites too apart from Jews at Kodungallur.
Who are their descendant Christians possibly ? How can we prove we are not these descendants ?
George, I am not against or challenging the Hebrew origin. But when we claim it there should not be any loose threads left to be challenged. That’s why my question.

George,
Again, eventhough Jews caused Christ’s Crucifixion, no Christian cannot blame or diown Jews for that reason; that’s double talk.
They just did what their faith and belief asked them to do.
They were strict monotheists, staunch believers of what is written in Torah.
Couldnot accept one who claimed son of Yahweh. Its blasphemy for them.
Punishment in law is death.
They just obeyed, and did their divine duty to God. And that’s it.
Later on they realized what they did and converted many to Christ.
How can one blame them or hate them ?

Shalom Sunny,

We have more or less established that we are of Hebrew/Jewish/Isreaeli heriage. Please read the very long comments and discussions and articles in this forum. Admin. will start screaming if we go back to this issue.

Without DNA tests many were convinced that we are of HJI heriage and now with DNAs to the rescuse, it is more than 80% certain as to who we are, and I am a conservative person.

I think more than genetics or history, we should know human nature to understand who we are.

Dear Sunny,

When you say that the Jews killed Jesus, you are playing into the hands of the Muslims and the Nazis.

When I am faced with such a situation, I say ‘Jews created Christianity and I am a descendent of those Jews who did so. Those who killed Jesus were puppets of the Roman Empire, which was very true. it was Rome what ultimately kiled Jesus. I believe even Historians taking a very rational view of things will agree that it was Rome. Remember our Nasrani forefathers in Malabar continously said it was not the Jews who killed Jesus. But I admit this matter should be debated, but ‘am unsure if we have the maturity to do so.

The ‘giant inner power and spirit’ of Rome can be experienced in the very great movie ‘Ben -Hur’ when Beh-Hur’ says that it was the ‘power of Rome’ that changed his best friend ‘Masalla’ into a tyrant against the Jews.

I am not naive to believe all Hollywood dialouges, but sometimes Hollywood helps.

Rome never dies, it lives on in good health, happy family, religion, good jobs or anything that makes one cast aside virtues for the sake of security and comfort. Rome is a symbolism.

Dear George:

When you assign blame for the crucifixion of Jesus on anyone (whether the Jews or Rome), you are playing into the hands of either (1) people ignorant of history or (2) bigots. You are demonstrating your inability to read history books or the Bible!

Sorry, but the idea that the Jews killed Jesus is not restricted to the Muslims nor the Nazis. Go and read John Chrysostom (aka “Mar Ivanios” in the West Syrian tradition) and some of the early Church fathers (i.e., fathers that are common to the Orthodox, Catholic and—gasp!—even the Protestant Churches). That was way before Islam or the Nazis. Anti-semiticism started with *them*.

And the idea that the “Romans” killed Jesus is just plain ignorant. I understand that you may not be aware of ancient history (or don’t want to read history), but really George this is incredible. Go and read the New Testament! The instigators of the crucifixion were the Jewish high priests and others jealous of Jesus’ popularity or hateful of his teachings. The Romans didn’t give a damn about it! Read about Pilate’s role—he, at worst, was a weakling, unable to counter the anti-Jesus sentiments of the mob. If Pilate had a backbone and at least executed Roman law (which was *fair*) as opposed to giving the mob what they wanted, there would be no crucifixion.

At any rate, it wasn’t *all* of the Jews that were responsible, but a certain subgroup. It was a case of individual Jews asking for the death of Christ. And since I (or most rational people) do not believe in assigning the blame for the crime of the individual on the community, it wasn’t “the Jews” … it was “a (or some) Jew(s)”.

But, at the end of the day, everyone who decries the crucifixion of Jesus has a very screwed up understanding of mainstream Christianity. The crucifixion was *supposed* to happen; it was prophesied in the Old Testament and Jesus himself told his disciples about what was to come. So whoever “caused” the crucifixion was just playing the role destiny gave them.

Point by point refutation of your statements:
1. “When I am faced with such a situation, I say ‘Jews created Christianity and I am a descendent of those Jews who did so.”

No. Jews did not create Christianity. Christianity was formed over a span of several centuries, and the teachings were formulated by a group of peoples, including Romans, Greeks, Syriacs, etc.

2. “Those who killed Jesus were puppets of the Roman Empire, which was very true. it was Rome what ultimately kiled Jesus. I believe even Historians taking a very rational view of things will agree that it was Rome.”

No way. There are no “historians” who subscribe to this view. It contradicts everything we know about the crucifixion. Go and read the Bible, and if you feel you can, read actual history as opposed to speculating about what historians (who you don’t even bother to read!) say.

3. “Remember our Nasrani forefathers in Malabar continously said it was not the Jews who killed Jesus.”

Show me where our Nasrani forefathers said this. Stop reading Wiki and point to some actual documents or scholarly material that says this.

4. “Rome is a symbolism”.

No. A Roman, a Jew, a pineapple, and a screw are all definite things in this world. You speak of the “maturity to debate”. Well, something else is necessary beyond that: the “intellectual capacity” to make a rational statement based on something other than one’s own prejudice and opinion. Or, since we’re debating religious history, *at the very least* the ability to read the Bible and use that as an example.

I don’t care what anyone “says” (including my Nasrani forefathers who, by all indications, were so ignorant of theological matters that they switched from Nestorianism to Catholicism or Jacobitism in a heartbeat without understanding the deeper issues). The issue of who killed Jesus is clearly found by reading the Gospels. And the unimportance of it is too: Jesus was supposed to die according to prophecy.

So the Jews asked for the death of Jesus. And the Roman governor of Judea, Pilate, obliged—without even obeying the precepts of Roman Law (proper trial, evidence, etc. — Roman Law is the basis of English, and hence most modern, Law).

Dear Sunny,

‘How can Catholics deny Jewish heritage?’

I hope what I am writing is wrong. Please don’t misunderstand me.
I believe that in the past the Catholic Church was generally against the Jewish people . The period around the ‘Nicene Creed’, the Inquisition are examples. Today the Catholic Church is one of the finest churches in the world.

Because of the past, I kind of fear that the Catholic Church may deny a “jewish heritage’ or anything Jewish. I see from you that it is not so. I am only happy about this.

Salutations John,

But I beg to disagree with your views.

I will stand by what I have said, except regarding that part regarding ‘Nasrani forefather’s went about believing and saying that the Romans killed Jesus’. I have read about this in a few places, I may be wrong or I may be right.

Right now, I don’t have proof that they said it. But I will remember to get that piece for you when I again come across it.

Dear John and George,

Here is a small essay, which gives a clear idea of the death of Jesus

*******Who killed Jesus?******************************************
The story begins when the Galilean rebel Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey, deliberately fulfilling a prophecy in the Hebrew Bible about the coming of the Messiah. He’s mobbed by an adoring crowd. The next day Jesus raids the Temple, the heart of the Jewish religion, and attacks money-changers for defiling a holy place. The leaders of the Jewish establishment realise that he threatens their power, and so do the Romans, who fear that Jesus has the charisma to lead a guerrilla uprising against Imperial Rome. Jesus is arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, tried by Caiaphas and then by the Roman Governor. He’s sentenced to death and executed.

*********Caiaphas**************************************************
Caiaphas had a privileged position. Caiaphas was a supreme political operator and one of the most influential men in Jerusalem. He was the de-facto ruler of the worldwide Jewish community at that time, and he planned to keep it that way. The case against Caiaphas is that he arrests Jesus, tries him in a kangaroo court and convicts him on a religious charge that carries the death penalty.

********What were Caiaphas’ motives?****************************
Jesus threatened Caiaphas’s authority

********Jesus threatened Caiaphas’ relationship with Rome******
Caiaphas’ power base was the Sanhedrin, the supreme council of Jews which controlled civil and religious law. It had 71 members, mostly chief priests, and Caiaphas presided over its deliberations. It was hard work but it had big rewards – modern archaeologists have discovered that Caiaphas and his associates lived lives of luxury with large and lavishly decorated houses. But, of course, the Sanhedrin only ruled because the Romans allowed them to and the way to keep the Romans happy was to maintain order in society. Caiaphas himself was a Roman appointment, so he needed to keep cosy with the governor, Pilate, if he wanted to stay in power and preserve his luxurious way of life. So if Jesus was making trouble, he was making trouble for both Caiaphas and Pilate – and trouble for Pilate was still trouble for Caiaphas.

Jesus was undoubtedly a threat; the public liked him, indeed they may have been paying more attention to Jesus than to the priests, and the public were listening to his condemnation of what he saw as wrong in the religious establishment.

*****Jesus threatened the Temple’s income*********************
Jesus was also threatening a useful source of income for the Temple priests. The Temple apparatus brought in huge revenues for simple matters like purification and the forgiveness of sins. Archaeologists have discovered 150 mikvehs around the Temple. Mikvehs are ritual baths which Jews use in order to purify themselves before any act of worship. Caiaphas had to do something to show that he was still boss, and he had to do it quickly; Jesus was on a roll, and who knew what he was going to do next.

********What Caiaphas did*****************************************
You don’t get to stay High Priest without being able to take the tough decisions and follow them through.
Caiaphas decided Jesus had to be stopped and he called a meeting of the chief priests. Matthew’s Gospel tells us that Caiaphas told them that Jesus had to be killed. The priests weren’t at all sure about this. If Jesus was killed, there might be riots. But Caiaphas got his decision and put it into effect at once.

******The rigged trial************************************************
At this point Caiaphas crossed to the wrong side of the law. He rigged the trial.
Caiaphas took on the usually incompatible roles of chief judge and prosecuting lawyer.
The trial went wrong for Caiaphas. He needed to prove that Jesus had threatened to destroy the Temple, which would have been both treason and an offence against God. But the witnesses couldn’t agree on what Jesus had said. So that charge failed.

Caiaphas decided to see if he could induce Jesus to utter blasphemy. He asked Jesus, point blank, “Are you the Son of God, the Son of the Blessed? Are you The Messiah?”
The Gospels vary a little, and only in Mark’s account does Jesus answer that he is. It’s enough. Caiaphas announces that Jesus has spoken blasphemy. The rest of the Court agrees. Jesus deserves the death sentence.

*******Just one problem; the court didn’t have the power to execute people. And that’s where the Romans come into the story *********

Actually, there are two problems: blasphemy against the God of Jews was not a crime under Roman Law, and unless Caiaphas could think of something better, it might not be enough to persuade the Romans to execute Jesus.

********Caiaphas’s fate********
Caiaphas was removed from office soon after the death of Jesus and lived quietly on his farm near Galilee.

As John (The only one here who uses rational and apply logical thoughts to his writings) has explained it in a beautiful way, no one killed JESUS.

Many experts believe that, more than anyone else, the person responsible for the death of Jesus was Jesus himself. There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that everything he did was planned and that he knew what the consequences would be.

Dear John,

I read BG of New Zealand’s comments. He seems to admire you! Why does he not like me?

Ofcourse, Jesus was fulfilling the prophesy. No body killed Jesus, Jesus gave up hiis ghost willingly and took it up on his own. This is only from a certain perspective and I find myself very inadequate to grasp this wonderful truth. I just believe… to be honest.

As Billy Graham once said (not verbatim) ‘.. at the point of Jesus’s crusifixion, the Arc Angel Michael and his legions of angels were poised with swords drawn at the border of heaven to sweep upon earth to annihilate mankind, all they needed and waiting for was a look towards them from their God Jesus….’

The ‘Caiphas’ in BG of New Zealand’s story is pretty smart and capable. But one thiing crucial which was not said about Caiphas was that he was a ‘Puppet of Rome’. BG paints Caiphas wonderfully and colorfully dressed, wise in the ways of men, very powerful Jewish leader and what not. BG did not mention a word that ‘Caiphas’ as a stooge or puppet of ROME would be prepared to sacrifice his own son to Ceasar, Caiphas would do it. This is the ultmiate stooge. No body takes a posistion of great power and responsibility under Ceasor unless that person is prepared to unquestionably obey Ceasar.

Caiphas was only the worm that fed in the garbage dump in Ceasor’s backyard. Caiphas did what Rome wanted him to do. However, there were shows of ‘individuality’ and ‘independence’ put on now and then. Caiphas would also have been jealous and fearful of Jesus. No doubt about it but the arm that struck Jesus was not the arm of a real Jewish high priest but by a puppet of Rome who will kill his own son for Ceasor.

The present ‘Dalai Lama of Tibet’ is a puppet of China while the real Dalai Lama resides in India in exile.
The Dalai Lama in Tibet will do anything for China, or else he can’t hold on to the throne.

Our forefather’s (The St. Thomas Christians) knew the detailed inner ‘Real-Politik’ of Jerusalem and did not acknowleded Caiphas as only a stooge. Hence they would have refused to admit that it was the Jews who killed Jesus.
Can you show me proof that they did not say ‘Jesus was killed by the Romans’. Indeed the most natural thing for them to say was that the Romans killed Jesus because all powerful Rome permeated into everything.

In the final count, Jesus died for the sins of the world.

Question: Did BG of New Zealand’s comment touch upon the ‘stooge’ matter?
John! it is not enough for us to read what is written but also to read what is not written!

Dear John,

There is no ‘absolute one Truth’. Truth is different from each perception.
There is however one Law and one Punishment. And “Law” is not equal to “Truth”.

Dear BG,

Reading your wrtings, I will bet that you are not a Christian. Not that it is wrong not to be one, but that your writings lack the conviction of one born or reborn a Christian. No insult meant.

Dear John,
Sorry for intruding.
“But, at the end of the day, everyone who decries the crucifixion of Jesus has a very screwed up understanding of mainstream Christianity. The crucifixion was *supposed* to happen; it was prophesied in the Old Testament and Jesus himself told his disciples about what was to come. So whoever “caused” the crucifixion was just playing the role destiny gave them.”
Well, the above sentence is unwarranted. Every “Christian” at least know it. Unless He is killed we are not here as Christians ! Crucifixion was not supposed, (sorry to correct you) but DECIDED to happen, who are we to challenge His plans ????
But that doesn’t mean those caused his crucifixion justified. Both are two different issues. If they pardoned scot-free, all killers have the similar justification !
You said “–At any rate, it wasn’t *all* of the Jews that were responsible, but a certain subgroup. It was a case of individual Jews asking for the death of Christ. And since I (or most rational people) do not believe in assigning the blame for the crime of the individual on the community, it wasn’t “the Jews” … it was “a (or some) Jew(s)”.
I agree but with doubts. It was the establishment of Jews including their high priests and leaders ‘planned and executed’ it. (Pilate was compelled by Jews as an establishment, and not ‘some jews’ (Luke 23:13-25). No Pilate can supersede the strong Roman law for pleasing some Jews. Just mother Mary, disciples, Jesus’ kith & kin and one and only Joseph(Luke 23:50) were ‘with’ him. For the world it IS Jews who did it.
But as you agree my view that Jews(errr.. not all Jews but some Jews) crucified Jesus:
1. Shouldn’t we ( Nasranis, as descendants of Jews) be fair enough to accept the sin of His crucifixion ?
2. Or are you saying we/you are the descendants of the ‘other’ Jews that were not part of the mob chorusing for His sentence ? How can we prove since many culprit Jews later converted to Jesus and came to India, and…….. we are NOT ‘their’ sons ?
Pals, not for just arguments sake: we have to dissect factors to evolve/ find the truth.

Dear George
I am a Christian (B. George) and not a pagan one. It’s not the instinct in me which questions authorities and beliefs, hopefully I am from a forward state like Kerala, second to west Bengal where superstitions and philosophies are always questioned.

I am not prejudiced or mislead in my life, nor did my parents induce their religious thoughts into me. I had the independence of thinking by my own and I am known as a forward thinking Christian (sometimes known as a successful NRI). Even I don’t induce any mislead information about Christianity or St. Thomas into my kids. They have a subject in their school on catholic beliefs and they have their own interpretation of the religion [they are just in year three and top in each academic subjects as well RE (religious education) you cant see religious study in western schools, yet I am trying to make them learn the great teachings of Jesus Christ].

I don’t feel anything offensive just because you told I am not a Christian. If some one says bible was an adaption of pagan literature, of course I will look into it (I did see numerous resemblance). If some one says there is a bleeding cross and thousands of people are flocking around it, I would rather look into the contents of the blood. I often think St. Thomas has blessed me because I have these basic logical doubts on everything which don’t seem natural. Thomasleeha had that doubt of resurrection; logical way of thinking how a dead man can subsist on the third day. 8 Long years I have climbed the St. Thomas hills on bare foot “ponnum kurishu muthappa, ponmala kayattam” have you done that? I have also gone to sabarimala, still don’t have any lineage to Shasta, just out of curiosity.

Christianity did not start in Mavelikara or kottayam. It’s a worldly phenomenon and a paraya converted to nasrani community has his own good beliefs about Jesus. For me many of the glory claiming nasranis are from the lower caste Hindu converts or those who have become settled over night from government policies or those who had illegally acquired land from various hilly regions, when there were no tough rules on pattayams and documentation. Think about your ancestry, it may be nested somewhere here. The real traders and aristocrats never bother to propagate their well being to others.

Cheers, BG

Dear George

Coming to the Roman side.

*******Pontius Pilate***********
Pilate was the Governor of Judea, a province of the Roman Empire. He had 6,000 crack troops with him and 30,000 more on call in nearby Syria. Pilate was effectively a dictator; so long as he kept Rome happy, he had absolute power, including power of life and death. The case against Pilate is that he found Jesus not guilty, but had him executed in order to keep the peace.

No one knows what Pilate was like. The Bible story paints him as a weak but innocent man who didn’t want to execute a man he believed innocent, but who gave in to political pressure.

Some historians disagree. Philo, writing at the time, said that Pilate was calculating, cruel and brutal. He probably had a typical Roman’s disdain for any other culture, thinking the Jews not nearly as civilised as the Romans. Pilate was well known for having executed prisoners even without trial, so it would not be out of character for him to be responsible for killing Jesus.

But afar from that Pilate was desperate to keep the peace in Rome. His career in the Roman Empire depended on his running the province smoothly and efficiently. He had 6,000 soldiers on hand to keep the peace in a city bulging with 2.5 million Jews. The religious authorities, whose cooperation he needed for a quiet life, wanted him to execute Jesus and there was an angry mob baying for Jesus’ blood. To release Jesus would have been likely to cause a riot; Pilate could have lost control of the city, and possibly the province.

*******************Logical interpretation would be this way********************************
Pilate sacrificed Jesus to preserve Roman rule and his own career. But its only a climax role.

Dear Sunny:

Regarding your comments:

First: “1. Shouldn’t we ( Nasranis, as descendants of Jews) be fair enough to accept the sin of His crucifixion ?”

No. The sins of the father do not belong to the son. Being Orthodox and an Oriental, I don’t believe in Original Sin, nor do I believe in the genetic arguments that underlie it. Of course, if you believe in Original Sin, and that the sins of one’s distant ancestors somehow make you guilty, then you can go and accept whatever blame for past misdeed you like!

Second: “2. Or are you saying we/you are the descendants of the ‘other’ Jews that were not part of the mob chorusing for His sentence ? How can we prove since many culprit Jews later converted to Jesus and came to India, and…….. we are NOT ‘their’ sons ? Pals, not for just arguments sake: we have to dissect factors to evolve/ find the truth.”

No way Jose. I’m not going to enter that discussion. I don’t know whether my ancestors were Jews, Assyrians, or Munda-Aryan-Dravidian hybrids. And either way, I don’t care. And even if I found out my ancestors were Jews, I wouldn’t be able to tell to which group they belonged. And even if they belonged to the group that had Jesus crucified — that’s their problem: not mine.

Finally, regarding your earlier comments on my comments … I don’t know what you’re getting at. You weren’t crucified were you? No. It was Jesus. It’s up to Him who gets pardoned or not—not you!

Dear George:

I don’t know where you are getting this stuff about the Roman role in killing Christ. As far as we can see from the documents available, Caesar probably didn’t even know anything about Jesus, nor would he have cared. He was building and solidifying his empire (and perhaps indulging in the occasional orgy). I don’t see anything in the NT about Caesar’s role.

Moreover, Jesus would not have been a problem to Rome. The Romans were polytheists, and so wouldn’t care about yet another God. They were constantly adding Gods to their pantheon, and entertaining pagans and diverse religious teachers from around the world. However, the Jews, with their rigorous monotheism (like their brothers, the Muslims) would have been highly offended by Jesus—and they were, judging from the Bible.

I don’t know what you mean about “reading what is not written” … but I suspect it’s a sign for me to stop arguing with you since it’s going to enter the realm of the mystical and arational.

Finally, quoting Billy Graham (an ignoramus supreme!) on a Nasrani site! Now I’ve seen it all… Are you sure you’re not a Protestant?!?

Dear John,

One can like Billy Graham/Protestants and still be a good Nasrani.

There is a Protestant Chineese of whom you will know very little, he is Mr. Watchman Nee (try Wiki) .He suffered many years in communist prisons. If you want to see the Bible in action as in the first century, then in my opinion knowing about him is a must. He may become the tool whom God uses to convert mighty China to Christianity.

Our Nasrani forefather’s made attempts to baptize China but failed but in the end it may be the Protestants who will Christianize China.

Dear John,
I am not for arguments! Stopped that since 30 years.

Ofcourse, Ceasar would not have even know about Jesus. That is basic understanding.
You must have certainly seen the movie Ben-Hur (funny, but it is a Nazerene/Nasrani movie and it still holds the record for the number of Oscars though it is over 50 years old.)

If you have not, please see it. I must have seen it about 50 times. Ben-Hur clearly shows the power of Rome working in the hearts and minds of men. If you understand the movie, you will understand what I say.

Dear John,

I read your reply to Sunny. I think understanding your stand one must understand the ‘concept of original sin’. I personally believe that I carry within me the sin that Adam committed in Eaden.

From a certain perspective, Adam is not dead, he lives on in his children and that I am very seriously tainted by Adam’s sin. With the result I can never ever do anything right or be justified except by the blood of Jesus.

Really John, I can never imagine a human being calling himself a Christian not agreeing to my above views, which I think is basic to basic of Christianity.

Let me imagine that I am mistaken and that really you don’t disagree with the above views stated by me. Perahaps, we agree, but don’t realize that we agree.

What is the Catholic Church’s stand on this matter?

Dear BG,
Good Day!
Why should it bother you of what we believe? If we are racists or discuss vile things, then I can understand.
I don’t understand why Admin. is not blocking you out but I leave it to Admin’s judgement. Will support him in full.

Dear George,

It’s a pitiable attitude in you which tells to block me out. You did say Romans killed Jesus, do you mean we have to listen to it. This is a public forum we all have rights to raise our points. Some times it may cross the parameters where Admin plays his role. This is universal. I also think you are fresh to computers, internet and forums. Your heavy participation in this forum does not earn any privileges either.

Don’t get upset when you are challenged. Try to support your points, do research and come with valid views.

Cheers, BG

Dear George:

In response to your comment:
“Really John, I can never imagine a human being calling himself a Christian not agreeing to my above views, which I think is basic to basic of Christianity.”

Sorry George: you need to further develop your imagination, not to mention your understanding of the Christian religion. To say what you’ve said means that you obviously have a very limited understanding of Eastern Christianity. The Eastern Christians (i.e., those that maintain their Easternness, not being influenced by Western Catholicism or Protestantism) do *not* subscribe to Original Sin. Read up, and try again.

The Catholic and the Protestant Churches believe in the concept of original sin which started with Augustine of Hippo (an ex-Manichaean that lived a very decadent life until he turned to Christianity).

Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches do *not* subscribe to these views. The Orthodox Churches (both) believe that Adam’s sin does not “genetically” propagate to all mankind. Rather, Adam’s sin *introduced* sinfulness to the world. To put it simply, I am not sinful because I am a son of Adam. I am sinful because the world became sinful via Adam’s disobedience to God.

Again: the stand of any Orthodox Christian (knowledgeable of his religion, of course!) is that a child is not born into a state of sinfulness. Rather, he enters the world without sin, but is later *prone* to engaging in sin due to Adam’s introduction of sin into this world.

If you truly understand and believe in Original Sin, then George, you are not an Orthodox Christian (*by definition*). You are either a Catholic or a Protestant. By the way, the reformation of Abraham malpan introduced these sorts of teachings into the Mar Thomite Church through his influence from the Anglican Protestant missionaries (who do, like all Catholics and Protestants, believe in Original Sin). They are not “first century Christian” ideas nor are they Eastern Christian — but are introductions to Western Christianity by Augustine (a non-universal father of the Western Church).

Dear George:

Regarding Ben-Hur: I’ve seen Ben-Hur plenty of times, as have I seen a plethora of movies on the ancient world, Rome, Christianity, etc. So what?

I don’t base my understanding of the world, or of history, nor of the Bible on movies. You may choose to do so—in fact, if you do, that explains your glaring oversight of some fundamental things (i.e., what it means to be Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant)—but at the end of the day, Hollywood, Bollywood, and the movie producing industry in general is in the business of turning stories (true or fictional) into something worth watching. They don’t dwell on details nor are they concerned with the truth. The truth and details are the business of historians and authors. Actors, directors and script writers create *product*.

Please understand the difference and why one can not rely on *movies* of all things for history.

Dear George:

By the way, It was the Church of the East (i.e., the Assyrians) that converted many Chinese to Christianity, not us (the Nasranis of India). Stop taking credit for other’s works! The Indian Nasranis, according to many historians (perhaps bigoted), were rather lazy and didn’t do too much to spread the faith.

Also, the Protestants are not doing anything new … they are merely spreading a distorted, heretical form of Christianity to the ignorant people of China. Christianity came way before them.

The Roman Catholics have done much in China, and at least they were spreading the “true” Apostolic faith—not, like I said, Protestant distortion.

And before the RCs, were the Church of the East. They were so successful that there were Chinese patriarchs of the COE—something us Nasranis were never able to achieve. (We don’t even have evidence of Indian bishops in the Church of the East).

Finally, I know who Watchman Nee is. I have a copy of the Bible he and his partner produced. (I ordered it out of curiosity). Unlike you (based on your statements), I’ve read a lot in order to learn about my opponents and their teachings. I’m very well versed in Protestantism and Evangelical “Christianity” (including your own Church)—which is why I feel comfortable making statements critical of them.

Dear John!

The Malabar Manual speaks of Eusebius, bishop of caesarea, about 264-340A.D.,mentions that Pantaenu of the Catechetical school at Alexandria visited India and brought home with him a Hebrew copy of the Gospel by St.Matthew about the end of the second century A.D and that one of the apostles(Bartholomew) did visit India.

Expect your valuable comments on this.

Dear JOhn,

I have been in close touch with Christianity since several years. In fact it is now for the first time I am aware of the ‘differences’ in various churches regarding ‘Original Sin’. Thank you for leading me to this.

But I personally think it is more of a ‘Theological issue’ than a faith or deeds issue. I personally think that when a child enters the world he is with sin. Let us hear what the Jews have to say!

Dear John,

I am aware that it was the Church of the East who went to China. But we St. Thomas Christians were also under the Churh of the East until about the time when the Portugees came in. Since we were all under one church, I took the liberty of ‘we’.

Dear John,

‘….the world became sinful via Adam’s disobedience to God.’

If you don’t mind, please would you explain the above?

Dear George:

Well, there are way more differences than that. Perhaps your “experience” with Christianity ought to be supplemented with some knowledge of it. (In the same manner you suggest that my knowledge be supplemented with experience!)

Original Sin is not a theological issue: it is a fundamental issue. The whole repressive Western Christian attitude with respect to sex is included in it. Note: the Eastern Churches have no such repression. Sexual Intercourse in Eastern Churches is *not* just for procreation: it is also for recreation. The only stipulation in the East is that it be between married (and I believe heterosexual) persons.

On the issue of Original Sin, the Eastern Churches (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox) stand together on one side, with the Western Churches (Roman Catholic and Protestant) on the other.

On the issue of faith and deeds, the Catholic/Orthodox Churches (Eastern, Oriental and Roman Catholic) stand together on one side, with the Protestant Churches and Evangelical Churches on the other.

There are several other cutting lines. But the issue of Original Sin can’t simply be cast off as being a minor issue. Your flippant attitude belies your lack of knowledge of this issue! One side says that a child is born in a state of sinfulness, whereas the other side states that a child is born *sinless*. I find it to be a fundamental difference of attitude.

I could care less of the Filoque insertion, or even the acceptance/rejection of Petrine/Papal authority. But I have a big problem with Original Sin.

And although I don’t care what the Jews say (since I’m a Christian and not a Jew) I can say this: since the Jews had a similarly non-repressive view of sexuality (the Muslims, the Eastern Christians, and the Jews are all unified on their rejection of the sinfulness of sexual intercourse: in all three faiths, sexuality is seen as a gift from God that can be used for many purposes). Again, go and find a real Jew (i.e., an Orthodox Jew not a heretical Messianic Jew) and ask him. He’ll likely tell you the same.

Regarding your question about ‘….the world became sinful via Adam’s disobedience to God.’
My answer:
The Orthodox position is that in Paradise while Adam obeyed God’s word, everything was perfect: all obeyed God, and the concept of disobedience to God was *NOT AN OPTION*. After Adam sinned, disobedience (i.e., *SIN*) became an option: Adam’s disobedience introduced the option of disobedience to mankind.

Hence, Adam’s actions introduced *SIN* as an option for man. It is an OPTION, George, not a burden. If I choose not to sin, I am sinless. A child has made no choice when it was born, hence it did not sin nor is it in a state of sin. The Orthodox do not believe in any genetic propagation of sin! The sins of the father belong to him: they do not belong to the son!

Fundamental differences, George. Think about it some more …

Dear BGfromNZ:

Well, I have no real comment, since I’m obviously not an expert.

I’ve read about that too. Interesting—too bad a copy of the Gospel of Mathew doesn’t exist for us to confirm!

There’s also some controversy on whether “India” refers to our Maha-Bharath or to Arabia or Ethiopia.

I think the oldest Bible in India (that we have knowledge of) was the so-called Buchanan Bible. Although the Orthodox and the Jacobites like to claim that it had been in India for a really long time, I believe the common response by others is that it was brought by one of the post-16th century Syrian Orthodox prelates. Having not seen the original, I have no clue: but since most of our manuscripts date to (at the earliest) the 12th century or later, I think that either indicates something fundamental or that no earlier manuscripts are likely to have survived the centuries.

Why? Do you have an opinion about this?

Finally, regarding Bar Tulmei.

I’m very interested in this because I, frankly, don’t believe the evidence used to “prove” that St. Thomas came to Kerala. I think the St. Thomas legend was an import from our Assyrian forefathers. Sungeo mentioned in an earlier post about a common legend between the Thomas Christians of Urmiah (I think) and India (something about making the water float in air, I think).

But Bar Tulmei might have come…!

I think our community is certainly old, however. It may even stretch back to the early centuries (if not the first century AD). But … I want some better proof before I fully subscribe to such early dates! In the meantime, I’m content with the genetic evidence that at least a handful of my forefathers were Assyrians (and perhaps Jews … since some in my family claim Pakallomattom heritage, and at least one purported Pakallomattom has purported Cohen genes)!

Dear george mathew..

This is what my understanding as Syrian Chriatian.

If you are born of a traditional chritian family in kerala and If your parents or grandparents were of the origin of orthodox/marthomite then you are one of them. I am CSI (formerly CMS) and when my forefathers migrated to a certain place where easiest access was to a CMS church, they went there! If you read history, many syrian christians joined CMS in the 19th centuary due to various reasons and one of them was above as I described. remember, in rural kerala where migrations used to takes place due to various reasons, access was important.

To make it short, I will tell you about me.. My maternal grandma was Orthodox/Jacobite. My maternal grandpa was a orthodox turned marthomite turned CMS and my paternal family orthodox turned CMS and they claim their origin from an Orthodox family in south kerala and inturn they claim their origin from an orthodox and catholic (I have seen many catholics in kudumbayogam) family from kunnamkulam.

I am married to and orthodox girl and my sister is married to an orthodox boy.

I don’t know anything about syrian rites but still I beleive and everybody says that I am a Srian Christian (not that I care if somebody says that I am not , as, my interest is to sudy the history or nasranis and origins and not anything related to any rites or religious stuff. )

To sum up I am an xian and my cast is nasrani and denomination (sub cast) as explained above..

How do you go about the ftDNA from India? I am just curious of this as I am a science enthusiast.

As John Mathew mentioned once, I am curious about my origins and history..

i cannot change the liturgy in my church, which, I have not attended for several years

Check this book in google books about the politics and evolution of xians in kerala/south india from an anthro-socio-scientist. Its is an interesting reading (many of you might have read that since you are all so well informed)..

Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society … By Susan Bayly

Dear All,

Notice the depth of arrogance and hatred hiding in most of the comments. Even if one start with dear it ends up in something so drastic. I perceived this turbulence from the very beginning, which put me into the same shift. I gained nothing other than revulsions and hatred from many, paradoxical to the reality that I carry a huge circle of multicultural friends and how concerned I am.

We are not dealing with ten thousand members, its less than 10 active members who cannot come up with a minimum consensus on any level in this forum. One thing is for sure that Christ and Christian religion are distinctive. There are no divisions in Christ. There are numerous divisions in Christian religion. That’s what we are seeing here too. Prior to exploring the Nasrani tradition and foundation one has to emphasis more on brotherhood and compassion that’s what is lost among us.

Apparently I follow Christ which is unique from following a Christian religion (I don’t care any denominations). We are forgetting the fact that Christianity is being entangled in racial, lingual, cultural, national, religious and denominational fanaticism which has to be saved at any cost. Many in this forum try to shove their thoughts down another person’s throat (from subjective sources). Even some articles portrayed here are whose extreme zeal goes beyond what is reasonable.

Jesus didn’t shove the gospel down anyone’s throat. He spoke the truth and moved on until he found believers.

NJ has also mentioned about the Jewish and Hebrew lineage which is an alarm bell from a broader perspective. We are one way or other sharpening the axe for Pariwar. One day it will slash us. Believe me its not far… as a malayalam saying

“velukkan thechathu pandakum”

Cheers BG

Mr. George

Why don’t you stop spamming with your repetitive fantasies. What are you to hail protestants in Nasrani forum !

Tired with Protestant quotes and repetitive copy paste of jew talk . Why do u need to do it in everyday.

Dear John,

The driving force behind the ‘destruction of slavery’ (slavery never really stops. it continues even today but in more subtle ways) was due to the ‘unbiased’ and more ‘humane’ interpertation of the Bible by Protestant thinkers. (A Jew was far from reaching this ethical/moral point of thinking – I write this to counter the impression that I appear to be pro Jewish at all times)

While the rest of the Christians were herding their slaves into ‘mud holes’, the Anglicans and the ‘Lincolns’ were laying torch to slavery.

You or NJ may not now see this point, but hopefully you will in future. It is very difficult to see others point of view. I can understand that.

May I add, I think the era of ‘Protestant thinking – as against Oriental thinking – as against Suriayani thinking etc. is over I see this happening around me. The world is becoming smaller and people are not accepting labels. People have now freedom to choose what they want.

Archaeologists in Rihab, Jordan, say they have discovered a cave that could be the world’s oldest Christian church.
Dating to the period AD33-70, the underground chapel would have served as both a place of worship and a home.
It is claimed that it was originally used by a group of 70 persecuted Christians who fled from Jerusalem.

These early Christians lived and practised their faith in secrecy until the Romans embraced Christianity several hundred years later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7446812.stm

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=8471

http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1442650

RE: Nasrani families and splits

I’m interested in understanding the various splits in Nasrani families.

In particular, I’m interested in splits in families that occurred due to:

1. The Pazhayakoor/Puthenkoor (i.e., Syro-Malabar Catholic – Syriac/Malankara Orthodox) split
e.g., Pakallomattom, Pynadath, etc.

2. Tippu Sultan’s invasion in which some Syrian Christian families split when one side adopted Islam

(the latter splits, e.g., Syro-Malabar/Church of the East, or Orthodox/Mar Thomites/Syro-Malankara, are not very interesting from a historical perspective, I feel).

Does anyone have any information on this?

Could someone enlighten me ? Where is the origin of the concept of Holy Trinity ? Is it a Christian concept or an adoption from the pagan religion in Europe ?

The middle eastern religions- Judaism and Islam- do not have a Trinity concept of God. Then how come Christianity, the continuation of Judaism, accepted the concept of Trinity ?
I gather that the fully restored SMC liturgy did not have a “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and it was a major factor of opposition to that. I wonder whether the Church of the East accepted the concept of Holy Trinity in God ?

In the first council of Nicea (AD 325), the church fathers considered the son came from the father and the holy spirit “proceeded from the Father” (Nicean creed), and it was later that the filioque clause was added to the Nicean creed which stated that the Holy spirit “proceeded from the Father and the Son”. That means the initial church considered the father as the God and the son and Holy Spirit as “extensions” of the Father.
I think it may be the influence of Greek religion that made the church to see the God as Trinity.
(Greek have a trinity just like the Trimurthy in Hinduism. Note that Hinduism and Sanscrit have relations with Europe- consider the concept of indo European religion and indo European language family.)

Dear Thomas,

These are my observations.
In my view, the gentile Christians used the word ‘Trinity (The Oneness of Three Supreme Divine Beings and it a new era popular concept) much more often than the “Nazerenes/Nasrani’ as to emphasise that there are no three God’s but only one God but the Nasrani/Nazerenes of yesteryears were unperturbed by the complexity of the ‘Trinity’. The Nasrani has for centuries (since about BC 1800) been familiar with the words ‘.. Yahoweh, Meshiah and Ruach HaKodesh’. He instinctly knows all three as one. Hence, he seldom use/d/s a new word for an old belief.

Be sure, that the concept of the ‘Trinity’ is one of the heaviest theological issues, there is no simple answer and I think we will not know much in this life.

Many Jewish Rabbis are not addressing this Trinity issue, because if they do, they will have to come closer to acknowledging Yeshua as the Messaih. But it must be mentioned that some Rabbis are indeed acknowledging Yeshua as the Messaih and the trend is increasing. Just go to You Tube and see for yourself.

I too read that the expression Trinity was taken from pagan religion/s, but I am not personally perturbed by any ‘pagan orgin’ as I believe in the Trinity and it is a good expression of a very complex concept.

I really see a large space between ‘Nasrani development/history’ and ‘Christian development/history’. The persecution of Judaism by Christianity down through the centuries (everywhere) is far too large for us now to say that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. In fact, it will be more correct to say that ‘Christianity’ is a discontinuation of Judaism. Look at this from a fresh perspective, you may see what I saw and see…. Now, this is not to say that I am against Christianity, in fact the Nasrani is born for only one purpose and that is to serve the Christians,

Dear M. Thomas Antony:

Aren’t there references to the “Spirit” in the Gospels, and isn’t the Son and the Father equated in the Gospels? It’s been a long time since I’ve studied the entire Gospels so I can’t pull out any direct quotes.

Also, the East Syriac Daily Offices (which can be found online on Google Books) does mention the Trinity, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So I’m sure the CoE (from whose texts there were translated, with modified “Chaldean” portions indicated as footnotes) is Trinitarian (otherwise, neither the oriental orthodox nor the roman catholic Churches would ever even consider dialog with them!).

But I do believe the concept is controversial, since there were many “Christian” groups form the early centuries (we would now call them “heretics”) that were not Trinitarian.

Dear John and Thomas,

If not for these words in Isaiah 9 ‘… unto us a child is born, to us a son is given and …… he shall be called Mighty God, Everlasting Father…….’ I may not have been Biblically convinced about the Trinity.

The above is the second person in the Trinity and I think the Holy Spirit (third person) is much easier to understand than the Messaih, ie. God walking as human on earth.

How can anyone believing in the Bible deny the Trinity? Some may use the word ‘Trinity’, others may not use the word, but ultimately they speak the same. These early Christians (some) you mentioned must really have a problem in seeing thngs. Today, the Jehowah’s Witness also claim to be Christians but do not believe in the Trinity.

Dear All,

The concept or the “reality” of the Trinity is a Biblical concept not seen as “three gods” but the three expressions of the One God (Yehovah) or rather the three experiences that mankind has/had.

The proof of Trinity belief from Bible as even in Judaism (though Jews may reject):

Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age. (Mathew 28: 19)

Jesus was the most learned and wise Jew ever as He proved this even to the most learned Pharisees. So if He been a Jew, speaks of the Authoritarian Godhead in three expressions then the matter should not be controversial atleast for Christians. And had such a thing never existed in the Torah and Tenakh or Prophets, He too would have never said it been the most fantastic Jew (Yes I would call Him like that) !

Jesus speaks of having “received” ALL authority in that verse. So there is greater source He is indicating which is now equal to Him thus they two become one in “essence, nature, will and spirit”. And thats the Father ! He had that realization of been the Son of God and also taught us to call God as Our Father too ! So we too are Sons and daughters of God in Christ ! And how many of us have that realization still after declaring that ? If someone says today that he is the Son of God, he may be laughed at, even though its the truth Christ declared ! So controversies are created from blinded men howmuch ever learned they may be !

So its a matter of realization that comes from faith and experience and not just doctrines !

The entire OT speaks of the ‘Spirit of God’ (Ruah ha’Kodesh) or Holy Spirit starting from 1 Genesis ! So that doesn’t give the Jews the liberty to reject atleast a “dual godhead” ! Again we have read in OT and NT that, “God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and Truth” (Jesus to the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well). So here God the Father and the Holy Spirit are One but experinced or understood by man differently !

Again during annunciation Gabriel tells Mary that the child to be born would be “born of the Holy Spirt”. So the Spirit is made flesh here ! So again God is made flesh here by the Spirit itself that is God ! So Jesus is One with God the father through this One and the same Holy Spirit. Therefore Jesus declares that He and the Father are One because He has originated from God the Father and thus the authority is the same !

Even in case of earthly father-son relationship aren’t both considered equal ? Because the Son is inheritor and commands authority but derived from the father ! So how much greater is God’s and Jesus’s relation both been of same Spirit !!!

Yet when Jesus says in Gospel of John that “The Father is greater than I” he is not indicating hierarchy but the Source and Relevance of His Authority !

Its so simple and clear ! All One in Spirit !

Many of these words are translations and hence we do not know what is the exact meaning of spirit and holy spirit.

Jesus was born with the activity of the holy “spirit”.

Jesus said, the father will send the “spirit” as your helper.

If both these spirits are same, then, The Son was “proceded from the Father and the Holy spirit” similar to the filioque clause- the Holy Spirit was proceded from the Father and the Son !!

As Jackson has quoted, Mathew 28:19 is very clear about the Holy Trinity.

Holy Trinity is an equal partnership union of the three parts. Why those churches who do not agree with filioque clause cannot agree that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, as the Son came from the Father and the Spirit ? Why the initial church considered that the Holy spirit proceded from the Father only ?

I am just airing my thoughts.

BTW, Wikipedia has a very good article about the Holy Trinity.

The Filioque and the Churches

John 14: 26…. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom “THE FATHER WILL SEND IN MY NAME”, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This is the main verse in the Gospel or any NT book, as from the sayings of Jesus as promise of the Holy Spirit to those who believe in Him.

That says the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father or “is sent” by the Father. Now most of the controversies and theological fightings start here because we end our interpretation here.

“The Father will send”…… Jesus says that the Authority and “SOURCE” of the Holy Spirit is God the Father. He doesn’t add another authority or source. Does He ? Had it been so he would have clearly added His name too !

Further read it answers the debate: “In My (Jesus) Name”….. says that the “MEDIUM” or channel “THROUGH which” the Father sends the Spirit is the Son, Jesus.

So the Gospel Truth is: The Spirit proceeds or is having it’s Source in the Father, and given to believers “through” the Son, which otherwise till Jesus’s time was restricted only to prophets and certain Kings ! Thats why Jesus is called as the “channel of grace” too. So that shows how the Spirit flows and also establishes Christ as the perfect Mediator !

Basically when the Filioque is stated it says that “the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son”. This is also found in SMC and Latin Nicene Creeds. Now this is neither wrong nor right on its own. When closely looked at the Filioque pro- and anti- groups, they are saying the same truth in different manners in their own “human understandings”. So this one truth must unite us rather than break !

The problem arises when we place the Father and the Son at opposite horizontal platforms as if they were each having their own will and separate existence and accords ! Thats not it ! To see the flow of the Holy Spirit the Father and Son are something like in a vertical relation (not hierarchy) wherein Christ is Mediating in between God and Man !

God been the Source and Provider, Jesus the only Channel / Medium and Man the receiver !

Some more verses:

Acts 2: 33…. “Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.”

Thats the post-pentecost scene where Peter says that after Jesus was exalted and resurrected, he received the Holy Spirit from the Father. This again explains that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Source ! And then after Jesus has been exalted he poured out this “received Spirit” to his chosen believers !

So the pro and anti groups are saying the same truth !!! When will we see ?

Thanks Jackson, good explanation.

Where are the Nasranis ?
Is this site for one Sunny, Jacson, George, John, Jeevan, Thomas and that’s it?
Where are the 60 lakhs of Nasranis in Kerala ?
Is Admin put up the bold effort of this site for six people ?
Where are the 10% of them, at least 1 % of them?
In all Churches laymen are neglected though they are majority and the ‘true sheep’ of the Shepard as per Christ.
But the sheep is lethargic, pre-occupied with worldly affairs.
Why and where are those famously educated, English speaking Nasranis of Kerala ?
Many serious subjects are discussed on this forum, I never seen such enlightened Nasrani group.
I don’t care if they are NSC, Jacobite or Marthomite etc. all are same, pre-Diamper and even now.
Admin’s yeoman effort is failing, I will say, if it is a site for 6 men.

Friends,
Let us publicize the existence of such a serious site. Ask them to spare few minutes for Christ for the lifetime is given by Him.
Pls put in your opinion on this subject.

Have you noted the opinion of one Mr. Dwight Longenecker on Nasranis ? Pls se below how he value the Nasrani diaspora.
We don’t value ourselves, our creed, the majority of us.
Six are enough,(it’s a wholesome group with all denominations) to start a revolution !

Thanks for the time.

Dear Sunny,

‘….But the sheep is lethargic, pre-occupied with worldly affairs…’

I beg to disagree on the emphasis on only ‘sheep’. The sheep will always be lethargic but the fault is with the ‘shepherds’. Yeshu said ‘…. the harvest is plenty, but the gatherers are few… pray for more gatherers…’.

The fault lies heavily with the shepherds. If we who know the truth and fail to lighten others, then we are at fault and not the sheep. This is a basic and fundamental truth.

Those of us who know our heritage will have to regain our lost heritage. We have almost lost Aramaic/Syriac but remember that Hebrew was a totally dead language for 2000 years until in about year AD 1948 it became once more alive in Israel. If the Israelites could give new life to Hebrew then we can learn from them as to how to once again give life to Aramaic.

That very fundamental and basic question ‘Who is a Nasrani?’ has been much addressed in this forum, but it is my firm belief that only a few of us have been benifited by it. Most of us are sidelining our Jewish heritage by giving it only lip service. We can’t do that and still be Nasranis. The heart of a Nasrani has to be Jewish. We can go forward only from here.

Dear George,
——- The fault lies heavily with the shepherds. If we who know the truth and fail to enlighten others, then we are at fault and not the sheep. This is a basic and fundamental truth.——-
I agree 75%. But……
George, When shepherds abandon the sheep it should not go astray. Sheep itself is duty-bound to Christ not to go astray. When the driver of a Boat fallen ill halfway; the knowledgeable passengers with leadership quality is duty-bound to lead and rescue.
We are part of Christ’s body, dutybound to be alive with Him, it’s a direct one-to-one relation. Pls read the below:
“No part of the structure of a living body is merely passive but has a share in the functions as well as life of the body: so, too, in the body of Christ, which is the Church, “the whole body . . . in keeping with the proper activity of each part, derives its increase from its own internal development”(Eph. 4 :16). Indeed, the organic union in this body and the structure of the members are so compact that the member who fails to make his proper contribution to the development of the Church must be said to be useful neither to the Church nor to himself. “
This is why I orchestrate for the empowerment & volunteership of laity. It is hightime for a responsible laity when the clergy is astray and shrinking in numbers.
“…. the harvest is plenty, but the gatherers are few… “
Prayers for gatherers must follow action and volunteership to fill void. Most people consider prayer is an end in itself.
“Prayer is not an end; way to the ultimate aim only”
I wonder anybody subscribe to this statement.
Christ be with us !

Admin,

Since you are the historic creator of this historic site we are all becoming more and more enthusiastic to give our endeavours a meaning and fruit. We need leaders who can be shepherds and not wolves in sheep skin. Why don’t we have some priests and religious here to guide us which can be done surely. Whatever can be done in this regard needs to be done, those self-less and dedicated to Nasrani way of life keeping aside our differences as denominations (which needs to kept aside if we want results).

I guess almost everyone is waiting for this site and the efforts to be more substantial and “real” coming out of the virtual online world.

If we are rooted in the Gospel Truth and have the Spirit of God with us, no doubt we will succeed. Thats our Lord’s promise. Let’s give Christ a chance after 400 years of division.

WHERE DO WE START FROM outside the webworld ? Kindly speak up, the time seems ripe ! IF the light doesn’t shine in darkness what’s the use and when will it shine then ?

Dear Sunny,
When I say ‘shepherd’, I don’t limit it to priests. Laity should also produce shepherds. A co-worker in your office who is gifted with faith, should also lead you in faith.

RE: “The heart of a Nasrani has to be Jewish.” (George Mathew)

This is controversial—since Nasrani’s are followers of Jesus (by definition), and Jews do not follow Jesus. Christianity (Jewish, Gnostic, and Orthodox/Catholic) grew out of Judaism, but it also extended it. To go back to pure Judaism is to erase two millenia of Christian teaching.

Dear George,
The point raised by John is valid.
Even heaven is guaranteed to us by somebody, we have to enter there throu Christ !
And without Christ nothing is heaven. Most importantly ‘Christ is the door to Yahwe’.

When Jews believe only in Yahwe and no Christ(if at all second only) how can you explain Johns question?
John, if George correct it to “I mean the fervor (of belief) of Jews in center of our heart” is enough ?
Agree George? Or what else ………..

Dear Jackson,
Great…. Well said.
I am tempted to say something like “These souls are the cream of Christianity rejuvenation” or sort about the few active enlightened NSC ‘forumists’ and the glad fact is there are almost all denominations. Me= SMC, George= Marthomite, John= Jacobite,
Jacson= ? Jeevan= ? Thomas= ? (If you donot mind pls fill the blanks).
I prefer one each Latin, Malankara Catholic, Orthodox, CSI, say major denominations in India. Pentacosts and Jehova? How far they acknowledge Christ I wonder.
For me: So far as Christianity is divided into denominations(do not believe in so-called Universal Church”) Church is away from Christ’s body.

Jackson, are we ready? Shouldn’t we debate little more to sort out few core differences between us ?
Though all are Nasranis, all (barring me?) are still SMC, Jacobite, Marthomite etc……….
Suppose we meet for the first time what will happen? Hug or hate ??? Hug at first sight and blows when we speak (of own dogmas). Well, Im sure……Not yet ripe enough.
We may have to number the dogmas of denominations which divide them, discuss and overcome one by one.
We have to convince that divide of dogmas can be overcome. We have to grow quite lot. (Im waiting for somebody to oppose me on this statement).

When we develop and nurture a very strong feeling of Nasrani brotherhood, bond, oneness to melt, purify into a 24 carat ‘Nasrani creed’ we are ready to take the ‘Suvisesham of unity’ to world.
It is a state where “States(read dogmas) will wither away”(curtsy Carl Marx) sort of Nasrani unity.
1st step: Are all of us sure we are ready to shed dogmas for the sacred cause of Nasrani unity? Let all of us cast own vote: Yes.
Then we progress to step no. 2.

I request and invite everybody to speak-out on Jackson’s great proposal.

Thanks to all and let God enlighten us.

Dear Sunny/Jackson:

I don’t know … I think the different denominations are a good thing in Kerala. I believe that unity is good in terms of (1) ensuring our history is properly understood and uncovered, (2) defending our right to live in India (for some reason, people question this as if soil is somehow tied to one’s dogma, etc), (3) providing a larger gene pool to prevent inbreeding.

But … we need the different denominations because they represent different (sometimes incompatible) strains of thought. For example, although the Orthodox and the Catholics are largely similar in terms of faith and practice (especially now that the Christological differences are understood), we still need the Catholic Church for people who want to believe in Original Sin. And the Orthodox Church for those who want to *not* believe in that. And we need the Protestants for screwed up, misguided people — just kidding. But seriously, we need the Protestant factions (Pentecostal, Mar Thomite, CSI, etc.) as a lightening-rod to attract people who are interested in those ideas (i.e., that the dead and the saints ought to be rejected, that a perpetual Hell exists, that those who die not believing in Christ are doomed to hell,etc.)

Actually the latter point is important for me: that is a core division between the orthodox/catholics on one side, and the protestants on the other: our concept of God’s love is very beautiful, in that we believe that God loves even the sinner and is open to bringing him back—even if he repents after death. The Protestants do not believe in this.

Anyways, not trying to get into dogma, but I wanted to say I think unity can be good for some things, but bad for others. For example, I’m orthodox/jacobite. But in my Church there are plenty of people who, really, should be in a Mar Thomite Church — they are essentially Protestant (due to ancestry, influence, etc), but for some reason come to my Church and disturb it with their influence. If there was true unity among us, then we’d have to deal with this on a larger scale.

To you Catholics and Orthodox out there, ask yourselves: would you really want this?

I’d love to see a joint Catholic/Orthodox theological seminary / university in Kerala — but I would never want the Mar Thomites invited. Not out of hatred — rather, to prevent hatred. There’s only so much an Orthodox/Catholic can stomach, and prolonged doctrinal contact might result in some unfortunate outcomes.

Dear Sunny,

I think you are not aware of the growing number of Jews who are followers of Yeshu. Mainstream Judaism does not acknowledge them as “Jewish’ but these followers of Jews are called ‘Nazerenes’ or “Messainic Jews’. They are keepers of many laws and traditions. Their level of intellect and theological discussion is of a very high standard. There are dozens of ‘You Tube’ places you can visit and understand things.

I must admit that many are very confused by the above and if you are out there in Kerala, you will not get a proper picture of these people.

To sum up, you can be Jewish while strongly beiieving in Yeshu. In my view, a Jew is only ‘Complete’ only when he accepts Yeshu. Western and Middle Eastern Christianity has made us believe that once a Jew becomes a follower of Yeshu, he becomes a ‘Christian’. Wrong!!!! This may be the singular greatest error in all history. When a Jew becomes a follower of Yeshu, he becomes a ‘Complete Jew’.

Dear All,

Unity among naranis to a single denomination is not practical and may not be a good idea as John suggested. But we can have a confederation of nasrani churches with probably a single archdeacon rotated between different denominations. In the past also, the archdeacon was the leader of the community, the Bishops were foreigners looking after the spiritual things only. Again, even when there were more than one Bishops, there was only one archdeacon at a time.
Let us have our different denominations and bishops to look after our different beliefs etc but we should have a single leader- archdeacon. As catholics,orthodox, CoE, etc can share sacraments, there won’t be any problem from the church authority.

We do not know, at some point, we may have full unity. Rather than trying to become a single denomination, let us try to have a confederation of mar thoma christians with an archdeacon.

Dear John Mathew,

“Nasranis are followers of Jesus (by definition), and Jews do not follow Jesus. Christianity (Jewish, Gnostic, and Orthodox/Catholic) grew out of Judaism, but it also extended it. To go back to pure Judaism is to erase two millenia of Christian teaching.” — Your Opinion.

Firstly we are getting confused because we have “been stereotyped” when we hear the word “Jew”. What first comes to our mind is Opposition, anti-Christian and the likes of those 1st cent. AD Pharisaic Judaism. Is that what you want to call as Judaism as established by the Jamnia Council ? No, who cares for their definitions, I dont. I care for the Judaism (which we call as early Apostolic Christianity minus the later additions) which Christ proclaimed and taught/interpreted.

Didn’t Christ renew the Covenant ? Note its a renewal and act of giving meaning to the Laws of Yahweh and NOT A CANCELLATION, as said by Christ himself in the Gospel of Matthew. Hence for me, by following Christ, the Laws and Prophets, Tanakh, gets a fulfillment and meaning. Therefore I would call myself a “Complete Jew” only because of Christ. This “Judaism with a meaning” for me with Christ as its Centre, Beginning and End, is the “True Judaism” that which Abba Yahweh had given to Moses at Sinai (or whatever labels u would like to call it).

And there are many Jews today, even Ultra-Orthodox Jews who are coming to believe strongly in Jesus as the Messiah. Its not a blind claim its a fact. There is a strong movement in Judaism today (Don’t ask me for proofs). BUT…. they they do not want to “join Christianity” as an Institution ? You know why ?
Because they say (and I agree its true) the Original and True Apostolic Christianity which Christ established is very faintly remaining today in our Institutions. Christ has been twisted as per the dogmas and interpretations of each and every Christian denomination/group. His words and messages have been twisted and something else is been fed to the world over and over again. The Jews today know Jesus more (even if they dont follow) than we know Him or have been taught. But they will not align with us as long as we dont clear off our inventions. May be that’s how God wants It ! To purify us and them together.

Wasn’t He a Jew and died as a Jew ? The NT records that He and His parents observed all the Mosaic laws and religion from A to Z. What Christ was against was the then Pharisaic interpretation of those laws which was going against the Spirit of the Covenant. Thus He dared to preach the “True Judaism” which was termed as Christianity subsequently and later down the centuries I really can’t guess what it’s becoming !

So the answer is in your own statement: Christianity grew out of Judaism into True Judaism. Then it extended and is still wandering wrongly. This later extention was not taught by Christ, was it ? Then how does it become “Christianity” firstly ?

And to go back to what u called “pure Judaism” (Forget atleast now the Judaism of the Pharisees) is what I would call as coming back to what Christ instituted as “pure Christianity” – The Renewed Covenant with a Meaning and Purpose.

You may disagree on all the above but I will always stand by the Christ of the Gospels, the Christ before Institutionalized Christianity “re-packaged” Him.

Dear George/ John,

U explained perfectly. Jews should accept Christ. If not the older hardcore Jews, the coming generation will become Nazerens; let us hope. Still John’s point exists: “The heart of a Nasrani has to be Jewish.” So far as two Jews existing and one faction is not accepting Christ we cannot say as above. Because we cannot go for Jewish heart which has no Christ in. But ofcourse can cherish a Jewish heart who accepted Christ.

Dear John,
I hope it is acceptable. George meant of that faction of Jews those become Christian by accepting Christ. (Baptised or not I do not know. Let’s accept them either way)
To be a single group of Nazrani, the FIRST CONDITION ESSENTIAL is “accommodating each other” with little bit of difference.
No. 2. Agree to disagree on minor issues(and major issues too to be sorted out later).
I hope we can end the discrepancy here in a friendly, accommodating gesture. Ok?

Peace be with us

Dear Sunny and All,

The following points seem to have come out of discussions as from participants:

1. The idea of Nasrani community as One

- Either as Unity of all denominations into one OR a “Mutual togetherness” of all existing Syrian Christian denominations “respecting and co-existing harmoniously” and helping each other positively grow (“Symbiosis” state). The latter includes something like a “Nilackal model”, which someone earlier was speaking about, with an archdeacon rotated between the different denominations.

2. That merger of denominations may not be good for now. To see the pros and cons, because no denomination is ultimately perfect so what must the new merged community accept would be an issue. Keeping aside authoritarian and power/ego based issues would help.

3. Dogmatic differences which seems to be the need of the next step for discussion.

4. Rediscovering our “Lost Nasrani Faith and Traditions” as it was with our ancestors and based on Apostolic faith. Again differences and similarities will be many.

Lets start coming to a consensus by starting to discuss on the above points. If any is missed please add on.

Let’s resolve between right and wrong and give Christ a chance who is our Head and thus we be the One Body, atleast IN SPIRIT AND MISSION !

Shalom !

Dear brothers,
UNITY: I must clear that I am not talking from an SMC ‘yellow glass’ but as Nasrani of pre-Diamper era. Even if we all agree to unite keeping aside all differences, step No. 2 is go banging our heads to the stone walls of organized Church, vested interests, Hierarchies.

Considering the only reason for our effort is that Christ never intended a divided Church but on the contrary, it is enough a reason for us to agree for and barge ahead.

We have to be realistic:
1. The divide is of 400+ years and the result is like the Big Bang; distancing each other for ever.
2. Reasons: Material than spiritual. Divide started on spiritual(doctrines, dogmas) but later it is more on material factors.

Dear John and Thomas,
Accept your observations. Valid points at our current state of divided state. But the divided state is not divinely inspired.
Agree ?
Whatsoever are the advantages of divided state question is: Did Christ ask us to stay divided ?
No.
We are supposed to be steered by him or vice versa ?
If the former, how can we say division is good whatsoever is the temporal advantages that origin after division and not vice versa ?

Pls don’t feel offended, I was not opposing but analyzing only to find that:
1. Division is not divine; man-made. Hence its our duty to reverse it.
2. It is man-made hence more of temporal than spiritual.
3. Considering the hatred it caused between us Christians, advantages are trivial.
4. It seems division spur growth. Actually more stray out of Christ.

Is not it our grave duty to establish “His Kingdom’ than Kingdoms and work together till it is attained?

I repeat: its no opposing or arguing for win, but analysing putting forth few points for our common analysis.

Thanks and let His wisdom prevail.

Dear Sunny,

Diversity in the church cannot be viewed as divisions. We all are humans. We are not identical. There are different types of humans- difference in anatomy like different colour, different physical characteristics etc, different languages, different cultural practices etc. So, God created or allowed man to develop like this. Because man has different cultural backgrounds, word of God also received by man in different ways. So, different traditions in the church are not undivine.

Can I invite you to read a few passages by Arch Bishop Mar Joseph Powathil from various resources ?

“The word ‘tradition’ denotes basically a ‘handing over’ or ‘transmission’ of something. This handing over refers to the reality that is passed on, having an implication also as to the process of transmission. Christian tradition, for example, has its uniqueness in the person of Jesus Christ, God’s Word made Flesh.

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations. Therefore, Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most nigh God is summed up (cf. 2 Cor. 1:20; 3:16-4:6) commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel.

Hence the apostolic Christ-experience that is handed on constitutes Christian Tradition. It forms the very matrix in which a Christian is to be shaped. Hence tradition, for a Christian, is a reality of receiving, living and communicating. In this sense, tradition has triple dimension of past, present and future.

Ecclesial Tradition is the communication of faith of the apostolic Church to the present generation with a future orientation. In the words of Y. Congar Tradition is certainly continuity through time that flows past, but it is an historical continuity: it is the permanence of the past in the present, from the heart of which it prepares the future.

Tradition can be outlined as the verification of the apostolic Christ experience in a people, taking specific form of life, spiritual heritage, worship, liturgy, theology and ecclesiastical discipline, integrated into the socio-cultural milieu of that people. Hence at the heart of tradition lies the apostolic Christ-experience which is received into the socio-cultural milieu of a people which gives rise to a certain way of life expressed in their liturgy, spirituality, theology and discipline. Just as the different Christ-experiences of the evangelists led to the rise of four Gospels, so too the different apostolic Christ-experiences received into the diverse and particular socio-cultural milieus of peoples, led to different apostolic traditions.

The universal Church is a communion of these different apostolic traditions having the same faith, sacraments and hierarchy. Therefore, the concept of the Church is basically that of communion of Churches having various apostolic heritages. Though the elements of communion are same in all Churches, the concrete expression of these elements differ according to different individual traditions. That is to say, though faith is the same in all the Churches, the expression of faith in liturgy, theology spirituality and discipline takes different forms. ( Joseph Powathil in “Church and its most basic element, Herder, Rome,1995, Ed. Paul Pallath pp 91-107)

Eventhough these Churches sui iuris have the same faith, their theological formulations and approaches are different. They have the same seven sacraments but the way they celebrate them is different according to the different rites developed on the basis of the Apostolic Christ experience and the sociocultural and philosophical background of each nation. The hierarchical structure is the same, but the mode of governing is different. These Churches sui iuris are not complementary to each other as parts but each one and all together being the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.(Mar Joseph Powathil, Paper Presented at the International Symposium on Orientalium Ecclesiarum: Its ‘Reception’ in the Syro Malabar Church {8-10 October 2004, Missionary Orientation Centre (MOC) Managanam, Kottayam} ”

I think people thinking like you, as this diversity is not divine, are those who drag the SMC from its attempts of restoration of original traditions. They think that Latin church is the Universal church ( in the meaning that present everywhere) and hence, we should become similar to or become like Latin church. That is why they are trying to hamper the efforts of restoration in a view to be unified with the Latin church. They are still carrying the ghost of the organisers of the Synod of Diamper. When the Portuguese came here, they also thought Christ never intended the church be divided or different from Latin rite.

The SMC is using East Syrian-Indian traditions. The Jacobites hold antiochian- Indian or as John has suggested an antiochianised East Syriac tradition vs the Latinised East Syriac of SMC. Antiochian liturgy and traditions are great and apostolic, so what is wrong, why do they need to change ?

Think of a situation, if Mar Dionysius- Mar Kariattil- Paremmakkal Thoma Kathanar trio’s efforts were successful and Puthencoor and Pazhayacoor joined together in 1786 period, there would not have an antiochianisation, all would have been using East Syriac, under the Roman church, ( probably the original form of east Syrian rite as the joined Nasranis would have been in a stronger position then), would we ever have known about the Portuguese persecution of the Kerala Nasranis ? So, if we become one church now, the next generation will never know of our past. So, this diversity is important on historical perspective also .As Mar Powathil has stated above, tradition has a triple dimension of past, present and future. So, our diversity is for the future generations to know what happened to us in the past.

Dear all,

I am sorry, I am late.

Nazrani unity! Great, for what purpose? Material benefit, spiritual benefit, for bargaining power, for telling others that their beliefs and cultures are inferior, or it is for easy proselytisation of India?

What we need here is the true understanding of our past. I know it is difficult, but without this understanding all unity is nothing but a line on water.

Sunny says our split is only 400yers old! What about Vadakkumbhagar, Thekkumbhagar, Manicheans etc.

Please don’t misread me.

Thanks

Jeevan

Dear Jeevan,

We need Nasrani unity. It is a must.

I know you did not say anything against unity,.. nut only said that understanding our past is important for unity. Wisely said, but let me comment…

Yeshu said ‘… Love one another, then the world will know that you are mine…’. In some way in which we can only only partially comprehend, Yeshu is telling us that in order to widen and strengthen His kingdom, we need to be one, ie. love one another. Not just amongst Nasrani’s but also with Christians.

As someone pointed out a few days ago, we come from different cultures/traditions/backgropunds and differences will be there and it is acceptable. But yet, we, who take the banner of the cross as our symbol will have to show to the world that we stand together for Yeshu. I can sense the chemistry but do not know the chemical equations.

Ofcourse, we can do this only when we love each other. … and what is the test for love?… love is patient, love is kind, love is forgiving….We may not soon see Nasrani unity, but let us not putout even the smallest attempts towards unity. Let us please encourage every tiny bit of unity.

Another note:

Incidentally: the Mar Thomite Churches Protestant founders said they were bringing the Church back to the pre-Roman days — interesting, how the pre-Roman Church in Malabar did say Hail Mary in some form and use images!

Founders of Mar Thoma church were reformers for sure. Their intent was to keep traditions and liturgy that, in their assessment, did not violate scriptures and discard those that did. I don’t believe any one applied a test for presumed “Roman Catholic influence”.

In retrospect, one can make the mythical claim that the Mar Thomite founders wanted to do as John Medamana says, i.e., “reform” the Church of all its unscriptural elements.

However, there are a few things to observe before one makes the gross error of subscribing to that claim:
1) The MTC founders were (due to gross and unforgivable mistakes made by Orthodox clergy in allowing Protestants into our Church) influenced and taught by anti-Roman Catholic Protestants. Their bias against anything that wreaked of “Papism” is quite clear from their own writings (you can refer to any 19 century texts on the Malabar Church written by Low Church Anglicans).

2) The MTC claims to have taken out unscriptural aspects of Orthodox liturgy and traditions — this is controversial since the Orthodox and Catholic Church base their entire rites, traditions, etc., on scripture! There is a tendency for Protestants to claim that they have a greater handle on the scriptures — and for the most part Orthodox and Catholics let that ridiculous claim go by unexamined. Well, that is just incorrect. Everything “wrong” that the Orthodox/Catholics do (masses for the dead, requesting the saints for intercessions, etc.) is based on the scriptures. The very prayer “Hail Mary” which Protestants are loathe to utter is based almost entirely on verbatim quotes from the Gospel.

To believe that Protestant scholars — whose Bible is a much shorter and much adulterated version of the Orthodox/Catholic Bible, and based on poorer sources and poorer, biased translators — have any authority over that of Orthodox/Catholic scholars is a tough sell to anyone who subscribes to the tiniest amount of logic.

3) One must never forget that dividing the Protestants on the one side, and Apostolic Christians on the other (i.e., Orthodox and Catholics) is that the former believe in a rigid concept of Hell in which, if one is not “saved” by the instant of death, then one is doomed to eternal damnation in a Hell from which one can never escape.

On the other hand, the Catholics and the Orthodox both believe, as did the early Church Fathers, that when one dies one enters a state that awaits judgment (the Orthodox and Catholics differ on the technical terms of this, but the essential characteristics are similar). Which means that in this state one can still be saved. Hence, for Orthodox and Catholics, one *must* pray for one’s departed in the hope that they be saved from temptation and that they repent. The concept of “God” and his forgiveness and his Universal love for all (including non-Christians) is much more expansive, and beautiful, in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, as opposed to the very crude, binary logic of the elitist Protestant.

And, most important, it is this Catholic/Orthodox belief that is based on the scriptures. Nothing supports the Protestant perspective other than the holier-than-thou desire for “puritans” to attain to Heaven while their neighbor inherits Hell.

Anyways … yes, the MTC and other Protestants claim a more scripturally-pure version of Christianity, but have little to back such claims up.

There is a saying in Malayalam which when translated means “Giving bath after bath the baby itself vanishes” . The evolution of Marthoma Church in Kerala and subsequent development happened to them in the formation of The breakaway Evangellical Church and mushrooming of churches with various names by discarding some traditions or beliefs will eventually weaken the Christian faith. It is only greed and personal gratification that form the basis of such gatherings, God forgive them for they appear not to know that they are cheating not only themselves but God also.

Dear George Mathew &all

Yes, I am for unity. But for what purpose? In what way?
If we really want unity we need to go back to our roots .We need to understand our past!

Take the case of Valiya Mar Divannasiyose (MarthomaVI) Kariyattil malpan-Paremakkil Thomman kathanar story .Why did MarthomaVI allow a dialogue with Kariyattil team? To get an answer we need to understand the situation of Malankaranazranies and Romo-Syrians during that time.

Romo-syrians were ruled by foreign bishops during this period. They had very little involvement in temporal matters of the Church. This was questioned by one group who wanted to create a local hierarchy .This was rejected by PADROADO/PROPAGANDA and treated them a second class citizen. This insulted the educated among them. When they fed up with Propaganda they turned to Padrado and vice versa. Latinization turned in such away that they have lost their culture, traditions, noyambu, church names, personal names, taksa, and pally architecture

What was the condition of Malankaranazranies? They have their Malankaramoopan as their metropolitan and their Pallies were ruled by Palliyogakkars. Though they have enjoyed freedom in temporal matters, infiltration in to daily affairs of church was started by Antiochian prelates. Propaganda by supporters of these prelates made confusion in the mind of Malankaranazranies that the Malankara moopan need to be reconsecrated. This kind of attitude existed among the Malankaranazranieies since the advent of foreign prelates. This is a trait in built in Malankaranazrani mind (among minority group), which caused many problems in their development. The dispute between the Prelates (Mar Gregorios &Mar Ivaniyos) and MarthomaVI end up in reconsecration of MarthomaVI as Divannasiyos metropolitan. Most of the prelates visited Malankara tried to over power Malankaramoopan in Pally matters .The saddest thing is that these prelates came with our invitation and tried to create split among us for the benefit of money &power. This was the situation during MarthomaVI period. He understood the situation and wanted a solution.

Educated Kariyatil malpan was thinking of a plan to achieve his goal of getting a Romo-syriyan hierarchy directly from Rome. For this he need to convince the Rome that Rome will be benefited if he could be in charge of their church in Malankara. Karyyattil knew the Marthomas struggle against foreign prelates and his victory (marginal) over the prelates. Marthoma also knew the Kariyattil –Paremakkil movement for a local bishop. It is also to be b noted that many of the pallies were shared by Malankaranazranies and Romo-syrians. This lead to the said dialogue.

Kariyattil Joseph malpan and Paremakkil Thomman kathanar visited MarthomaVI for unification of Malankaranazranies. The idea was welcomed by Marthoma but he had an intention of bringing back deserted sheep to original Nazrani faith. The condition of Romo-syriyans was pathetic under Jesuits and Carmelites while Malankaranazranies had their hierarchy without many problems except the greediness of those foreign prelates and their few supporters. Marthoma was open in his discussion and said that his church have great regard for Roman Patriarch and will accept his superiority and guidance provided that the Patriarch accept the Malankaramoopan as the head of all Malankara church (Malankaranazranies and Romo-syriyans).It is also to be noted that MarthomaVI wanted to continue the Aramaic traditions of Malankara church (use of Ammeera, noyambu, thaksa, married priests etc.)Marthoma VI put forward a proposal that he had no problem in accepting the roman patriarch if Rome accept the united Malankara church under him with old traditions which existed pre Roman period.

MarthomaVI was a great visionary who could think of a Nazrani church without any foreign interference in temporal matters. As far as spiritual &theological matters we were never been a dogmatic people. We accepted whoever came in Christian love and had given a chance to explain their views .Also please not that during this period prelates from Chaldean, Coe, Anthiochian visited Malankara and Malankaranazranies treated them with warm hearts.

But knowingly or unknowingly Kariyattil failed to represent the proposal to Rome in right perspective. Rome rejected the proposal. Rome’s proposal was not acceptable to the Valiyamar Divannasiyos and he rejected it out rightly. Before getting any conclusion on this one should analyze it with documentation available. The documentations related with this subject are(1)Varthamanapusthakamby Paremackil Thomman kathanar (2)Manuscripts/copies of letters(3)Niranam Granthavari-which include diaries ofMarthoma VI .many historians produces copies of the letters which said to have been written by Marthoma according to their side. I think these letters have no historical value. But it is interesting to note that the governodor’s book certainly can give some credible information, but unfortunately we get very little Information from this book. It is interesting to note that the kathanar himself give us the information in chapter47 that the book contain the details about the Marthomas letter on chapter(padam)13,14,15( publishers says it is damaged ) .since the situation is this we are left with nothing but to study available documentation .Here comes the importance of work like one conducted(conducting)by ISTVAN PERCZEL. Their initial study suggests that the letters produced in different languages have serious differences in content. One should check this difference with related documents such as NIRANAM GRANDHAVARI. Again we have to compare this result with incidence took place after their Rome expedition to get the truth.

What happened to Kariyattil expedition? Kariyattil did not get any clear answer from Rome. He was advised to meet The Queen. However he managed to get a methran posting from The Queen and returned to Goa. The rest is history! What about the so called unification of Malakaranazranies?
Vested interest adopted another way to subjugate the Malankaranazranies. This time through Thachil Mathoo tharakan.I need not explain here the position of Mathoo tharakan in those times. Governodor Paremakkil Thomman kathanar and Mathoo Tharakan decided to go ahead with dialogue with the political influence of Tarakan .But Marthoma understood the situation and kept his position clear .With the influence of Mathoo Tharakan they managed to get an arrest warrant (on fabricated charges) against Marthoma .Tharakan confiscated the Episcopal staff, cross and mitre of marthomaVI and also other landed properties of the parishes of Nirnam, Chengannur, puthenkavu etc. Then they arrested him from Niranam pally and brought to Alappuzha and put him under house arrest. He was forced to celebrate Qurbana according to Roman rite using PATHEERA at Tathampally and sign a contract declaring his union with Roman church. Marthoma had no option but to do what ever Tharakan asked for the sake of Nazranies of Niranam, Chengannur, and Puthencavu. Once he yielded the want of one lakh twenty five thousand Kalippanam was kept aside and Marthoma was released after 32 days of imprisonment .Tharakan deputed Prakkattu Kochitty kathanar for observing whether theMarthoma changes his stand or not. The Marthoma could not do anything until god heard his prayers. Tharakan was caught by people from Anchuthengu and forcibly feed him with boiled thakara without salt, cut his ear and brought him to Thiruvanathapuram .Hearing this Kochittitharakan&team fled from Chengannur. Marthoma was released from watchful eyes of Kochitty tharakan and he apologized to Malankaranazranies for using Patheera. He celebrated qurbana for41 days using Ammeera in repentance. One should understand the political and administrative situation before criticizing him. In my opinion Malankaranazranies have only one VALIYA MAR DIVANNASIYOS (MARTHOMAVI) to compare with Mar Athanasius of Alexandria or Mar Yacob Burdhana of Antioch.

Through out the years Rome understand the importance of Malankaranazranies. Had MarthomaVI accepted Rome without any condition then the position of Malankara church would have different today. Certainly the Indian Catholic church stature was also been different. If MarthomaVI was ready for such a step, he or his successor could have become an Indian Patriarch and could lead whole Indian Catholics. Yes, Valiya Mar Divannasiyos was may be a fool. But his foolishness became good for Malankaranazranies.

Dear Phillip,

First of all, I must say that some of my comments have not appeared in this forum because of ‘censorship’. So, I don’t know the fate of this reply of mine to you.

I fully agree with you that we have to go back to our roots if we are going into unity. In this forum we have done so, it is a question of accepting the findings or not?

We have not also been idle. Unity has already started but in a small and humble way.

Dear PHilip,

For what purpose Unity?

‘Love one another, so that the world will know that you are mine..’. Is this not from Yeshu enough reason?

How to go about?
As someone said in this forum, we have to keep the Bible above our individual churches. Those who do this, will be those who are for unity. It will be clear! As Nasrani’s we are brothers and children of Abraham and it will be through us that the world will be lightened. The task is very high and the responsibility high too and it is not for the half-hearted.

In my discussions with many, I find that only those who qualify for ‘.. love your enemies, do good that hate you… ‘, alone qualifies to be called Nasrani.

The New Testament is flooded with stories of Nasranis, dozens and dozens or hundreds of them. Is there a single reference to any Nasrani advocating ‘VIOLENCE”? I repeat again, is there a single reference to a Nasrani (be it Paul, Peter, John, James, etc…) advocating violence in even the most minor form? I write this because all our Churches advocate violence (ofcourse, for what they consider for nobel or just or rightious causes)

The Father of Non – Violence whom we know well is ‘Gandhi’, yet, even in his greatness, he advocated war against Hitler, so the great Gandhi can’t be compared with our Nasrani forefathers. Show me one single point or word or comma in the NT where our Nasrani forefathers directly or indirectly advocated violence? The nearest we get to is when Peter slashes his sword on the servant, but Yeshu rebukes him.

To me it is abundantly clear (not agreeable to 99.99% of the so called followers of the Jesus/Yeshu/Yeshua as they will claim justification to resorting to non-violence for self defence ) that the hallmark of a true Nasrani is ‘Ahimsa’ in the fullest form.

The divine sparks of unity can alone come from such ‘ahimsa’ Nasranis. Ahimsa is the key word here. Where there is Ahimsa, there will be Unity.

An interesting sidepoint is that I have discovered that the West can’t grasp the concept of Ahimsa and even Gandhi could not in it’s fullness. The West likes to sidetrack this whole issue and prefers not to talk about it.

I must admit, that it has been tough writing my above comment. Phillip! I love to see you blast my above thoughts! Awaiting your comment!

Dear George Mathew,

Thanks, unity among Nazranies –which I think we are discussing. Before going into details one should have a clear idea about Nazrani. Who is a Nazrani? Who is qualified to be called a Nazrani?

I am little confused here. From your posting I get an idea that any one who follow/believe in Yesu is a Nazrani; is that true? In that case we are mixing the term with Christians. Believe in Yesu and his teachings make you a Christian; but to be apart of any church you need to do more. There you need to do a lot of social obligations.

Nazranies are followers of Yesu. But the term has got much more historical meaning. It is not simple branding of people. It has got some ethnicity, casteism, and history. That is the way it is. That is why I say Marthomites are Nazranies.

Purpose you suggested is good, noble.
Way- yes; Bible at the top most priority. Bible is not the only base. Bible has come in this form after along period of study and research. It may change if we get another apostolic work
.
There is so much of violence existed among apostles. It is basically an internal one. Yesu also showed some reflections of it.

Dear George Mathew,

Earlier posting contain the instance of unity effort (by MarthomaVI-Kariyattil) in order to give the importance of understanding our past for unity. Some earlier postings by others refer about the very same incidence (posting by M Thomas Antony, 27/09/08in this section &11/02/08in ‘the lost Aramaic bible of Syrian Christians of Kerala’)

Thanks

jeevan

Dear Jeevan,

The below are my general observations, see if it makes sense to you. i have chosen every word carefully.

1. To me, Nasrani means ‘Jewish followers’ of Yeshu, including the descendents of the Malabar Black Jews and fleeing ‘Nazerene Nestorians’ from Persia who were bought to Yeshu by the direct or indirect efforts of Apostle Thomas either in Parthia or Malabar.
2. To an Arabian Muslim, ‘Nasrani’ means all Christians, ie. George Bush, Jeevan Phillip, St. Paul etc.. (They mean all who follow Jesus of Nazereth).
3. To a Malabar Muslim ‘Nasrani’ means ‘Ancient Christian habitants of Malabar.
4. To a Nair/Warrier/Namboothiri, Nasrani means middle caste mix of Semitics and Low Caste Hindus who became Christians without English/Roman/Sahib influence.
5. To an average Syrian Christian of Malabar, ‘Nasrani’ means ‘We the high caste Hindu Brahmins who were converted by St. Thomas in AD 52 to Christianity.
6. To most of the well informed person in this ‘NSC’ forum, ‘Nasrani’ means ‘Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli descendents of those who followed Yeshu’ and acknowledging the presence of some Brahmin/Arab Christian blood in the group.
7. To a Jewish researcher/scholar like ‘Dr. Nathan Katz, ‘Nasrani’ means Christian descendents of Malabari Black Jews/Hebrews/Israelis.
8. To a Protestant romantic researcher like ‘Dr. Asahel Grant ‘Nasrani’ means ‘Jewish Christian descendents of the first batch of Jewish followers of Jesus Christ, who fled as refugees from Middle East/Persia to Malabar, the last great bastion of the Lost Jewish Tribes, waiting to fulfill their great divine destiny.
9. To a Roman Catholic in Italy, ‘Nasrani’ means ancient Hindu converts of Malabar to Jesus Christ.
10. To a Messianic Jew, ‘Nasrani’ means ‘Christians of Malabar.
11. To a Black Jew of Malabar, ‘Nasrani’ means converts to Yeshu from their own family.
12. To a white Jew of Malabar, ‘Nasrani’ means local Christians of Malabar, converted to Christianity, from amidst earlier released Semitic slaves and low caste Hindus.
13. To Malabari Pentecostals, ‘Nasrani’ means ‘misguided Christians’ but they hasten to add that he (the Pentecostal) was born and baptized a ‘Nasrani’ with ‘Holy Water’ in the ‘St. Mary’s Jacobite Church and proudly claims that his father’s brother is still a priest in the church.

Now, as to who is qualified to be a ‘Nazerene’, going by this NSC forum rules, it is all those who belong to an Oriental Church of Malabar and who use Syriac in their Liturgy.

However, in a different spiritual and ethnic sence, a Nasrani means the genetic seed of Abraham, who is burdened with a great heritage to bear witness to Yeshu. By this I am clear that all Christians are not ‘Nasrani’. Only the seed of Abraham is burdened with the title ‘Nasrani’.

In the highest level of REAL spiritual meaning a Nasrani will certainly include even a gentile Christian who is a witness to Yeshu, We don’t have to long dwell in this aspect as we do not have access to high spiritual world. I guess Yeshu will make those decisions. We can live by what Yeshu clearly told us ‘.. feed (take care) of my sheep…’.

Trust, I am no more confusing.

Dear Jackson & Sunny

First on getting priests to guide us here is a very difficult task. Almost all the priests will say immediately they are very busy with their routine work. This being a place for inter denominational dialogue adds more complexity too. I can try to see if something can be done about this.

And on making the efforts more substantiate, this actually has been partly successful. With the effort of all we could gather lot of information and make it available for anyone to look when they have time as commented by some of our friends.

With my limited experience and going through the activities of these kind of movements, nothing would be successful with out a good understanding of our history. We do have to talk about the history of divisions with different view points with an open mind to understand things more. In these discussions sometimes SMC will get offended, other times it might be Jacobite or MTC or Orthodox but I have learnt that at the end it turns out to be a meaningful exercise.

Sunny, has been suggesting to move in more concrete way for sometime. One real issue as mentioned by Sunny is that many of us are afraid to talk about us as a group. We will find a new age cult member more vocal than a normal Nasrani. Many of our church members even with out learning basics of our history start seeing themselves as a revolutionary trying to re engineer the Christianity. These are challenges of the times.

Dear George Mathew

Messainic Jews are cults with decades of history. None of the mainstream movements recognize them and there have been hostilities reported against them.

To me it doesnot make any sense to compare us with any cults. Apostolic churches are fulfillment of Judaism and the fullness of Christianity. The lines are very clearly written. Especially for us with a history of 2000 years of apostolic faith and succession it is completely irrevelent to compare us repeatedly with any cults like this. My personal opinion is we should be careful with cult culture.

This Jewishness topic getting mixed in every discussion is not a good idea. As many others has pointed out over enthusiasm is going to do more harm than good. In fact there has been many good relevant discussions and we did have explored many of the points and lets not get carried away by this and lets wait for more studies in these area.

We need to understand our history more and better. I think it is more apt and makes more sense in examining many of the aspects of the deep rooted Thomasine Christianity considering the challenges we face today.