All my corrections and an swears are based on accurate truth.
The blog you cited was inaccurate.
The historical references and anything outside of scripture that i quote ( as well as whey you quote) is subject to more stringent analysis.
I agree, which is why I rely on top-tier academic publications from Oxford University Press and other authoritative sources.
It's good being able to count Oxford as within one's camp, in that not only are they one of the world's top 5 universities, but they also boast some of the leading scholars in the field of Eastern Christianity.
For example, concerning Syriac Christianity, they are home to Sebastian Brock.
And I would never write anything to mislead anyone, I only write what I believe is true or i would not have written it as well.
I believe that. But what you wrote was still in error. I urge you to consult the scholarly works I referenced. Another good starting point is
The Lost History of Christianity, by John Philip Jenkins, which focuses on the history of the Syriac Christians of Asia (and also the obliterated Christian community in North Africa, and the persecuted Christians of the Middle East).
I said the Acts 21 was possibly written around 64 Ad. This is possible according to many in the Christian community who have dated the book of Acts. Paul may have died anywhere between 62 and 68 AD. To assume a lesser date is not proven. But even if we assume Paul died around 62 Ad and the writing of Acts 21 was less. Still we see the jewish believers under temple worship and animal sacrifices at that time. Not going to the gentiles for the most part and we read nothing about Thomas in these events from scripture.
Also What Thomas did in his ministry s not added to scripture so we cannot say with 100 percent clarity.
Sure we can. Where a historical record exists, we can refer to that.
But we can go by scripture. Even if men went off and used a pagan Hindu Temple for meeting ( which I am not saying i believe he did. Tto assume that he called it a church at that time is a stretch and not proven. Also to assume that he did not just use a space ( if he did go there ) as an evangelist meeting place is a stretch also. I am not against men using a space for meeting if a home is not available. As long as they wait on the Lord for ministry ( 1 Cor 14:26-38, 1 Peter 4:10,11, Romans 12, Ephesians 4:15-16, Colossians 3:15,16 etc etc)
Waiting worship is not scriptural. The basis for the Orthodox liturgy is expressly set out in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere.
and have a meal together fellowship ,
We have to differentiate between the Eucharist, and ordinary meals. 1 Corinthians 11:27-34
pray and continue n the apostles doctrine and gifts from God. If they can do this in a space available that is good .But nowhere do we see any man in the new testament calling a man made building a church.
This is why in Orthodoxy our parish churches are officially called "Temples." That said, they are normally referred to as churches in the English language.
Your objection to the use of the word "church" is a critique of the English language and related Germanic languages; it is inapplicable in many languages, for example, Greek, where the word Ekklesia refers to the congregation.
In fact almost every minister I have met, when questioning them on this issue will admit, "ok I agree a man made building is not the church, people are the church, the body of Christ"
And they are correct. That we call the temples churches is a linguistic quirk.
I do nothing of the sort. I only speak of your reference and justification you use to call a man made building a church.
Then we have been talking past each other. I have no theological objection to the idea that referring to the building as the church rather than the body of the faithful is misleading.
It does create confusion; it would be better in theory to call the buildings Temples.
This is my focus. I am not speaking of what others believe. if so believe the St Thomas Story, I would also disagree with them. But disagreeing with someone and saying men are lying is far different.
I believe there are many believers in all denominations ( most) and they are often ignorant of certain truths, But i would not say all are lying.
Your post implied historical deception on the part of the Nasranis concerning their origins, and that they were not indigenous to India, but refugees from Ancient Syria.
This is of course quite inaccurate, and it also ignores the presence in India of Jews prior to the birth of our Lord.
Jews were present in India due to commerce between that region, Persia and Greece. India was much more connected with the Levant than with Western Europe; Marco Polo's visit to the country in the 1200s was unusual for an Italian of the Middle Ages, but even in that era, up until the genocide of Tamerlane, large numbers of Christians routinely travelled across Asia.
I quoted the sources where I got the info from and I quoted three sources I believe. There is many many more I could have quoted I could literally have quoted tons of info about this historical issue but I would rather not, I prefer scripture for the authority than history written by men who many times are bias or who use things to strengthen their ideas etc..
Sure. However, I consider the sources you quoted from to be of less reliability than the latest contemporary scholarship from Oxford.
And I by no means am speaking against a entire ethnic group that is not right to make such a claim.
You claimed the Nasranis were refugees from Syria who had, for whatever reason, embraced and propagated an incorrect account as to their origins. I took exception to that.
This issue only has to do with your use of the story about St Thomas, which is debateable for a long a long time with many people over years. This is not a good source to use.
I did not "use the story about St. Thomas."
It is traditional that St. Thomas founded that church. If he did not found it personally, it would have been the work of his disciples Sts. Addai and Mari.
However, there is no compelling reason to doubt the narrative concerning St. Thomas.
It is not disputed by scholars that St. Thomas was the founder and main evangelist of the Church of the East; multiple ancient authorities attest to his martyrdom in India.
His martyrdom is better attested than many Biblical events.
When we try to use any old writings or historical ideas from the past there will often be discrepancies and some bias depending on who wrote it and when etc. I would much rather prefer the scriptural use for the evidence. Often in such discussions men will run outside of scriptural authority and quote so called "church fathers" etc or other writings to try and state their case. But we are told in scripture not to put men above that which is written.
Scripture stresses the importance of maintaining the Apostolic tradition, in Galatians 1:8 and 2 Corinthians 2:15. Thus, the Patristic writings are a vital link in interpreting Scripture.
However, I reject the use of them in the abstract, outside of the living, continuing tradition of the Orthodox Church.
Although I am not against using history about many things we must always be careful when doings. I would suggest you recant your use of that debatable story in trying to justify your case. i also do not want to get into a discussion for hours about the truth or error of a historical account based on biases from either view. This discussion about the so called claims of some about St Thomas so called "church" has been going on for a long time. It would be better if we stick to scripture and the order of God on this one.
There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the traditional history of the Indian Christians.
I believe there were biases from ancient writers who made such claims and attached themselves to Thomas ministry etc. But again we would have to get into a deep study of history from various writers that may or may not be gibing all the info. I do not want to put men above that which is written.
That which is written was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and was furthermore edited (that is to say, the canon was determined) by additional men, in the fourth century (St. Athanasius).
The canon determines "what is written." Now, I consider that St. Athansius acted under divine inspiration, but there is an example of a man other than the Apostles establishing a tradition which you evidently adhere to.
If it hadn't been for Athanasius, and the bishops who followed his lead, you might well have a New Testament that contained the Acts of Thomas or other spurious apocrypha.
My only real authority is scripture. yes i will quote about Constantine, but many of the things I quote are accepted by a vast majority of people and his life is more recorded historically. But again I would not place absolute authority in the historical writings about him either.
Neither would I. I place absolute authority in Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is the center.
scripture is clear no man made building was or should even be called the church
There is nothing in scripture which forbids referring to the buildings as churches. The main reason for not doing so would be to avoid confusion with the Church, but alas, that ship has sailed.
and jesus said he would build his church, he is the head of the Church and the church is a spiritual house made with living stones. It is a invisible spiritual body and who physically and corporately gather together in Christ under God's order in the spirit.
The New Testament describes a visible, organized Church, an entity led by the Apostles underneath Christ, acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not an invisible, ethereal entity.
