Thomas' Mission to India...?

[Sabertooth]

I once read somewhere that Apostle Thomas took the Gospel to India. Did he leave before the rest of the New Testament was written? If he did, did he bring a lesser Bible with him on his outreach, such as no Pauline epistles nor books like Revelations...?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I once read somewhere that Apostle Thomas took the Gospel to India. Did he leave before the rest of the New Testament was written? If he did, did he bring a lesser Bible with him on his outreach, such as no Pauline epistles nor books like Revelations...?

By the time the Revelation was written Thomas was probably already quite dead.

If the tradition is true he probably didn't take any New Testament with him and relied on the Jewish Scriptures which the Jewish communities in India relied on. The Indian Church maintained a constant fellowship with the churches throughout the Near East for quite some time, which is why they still use Syriac (Aramaic) as a liturgical language to this day. That lasted until about the time the Portuguese showed up several hundred years ago which in a lot of ways put a lot of strain on the indigenous Christian population.

For more information read up on the Mar Thoma Christians of India.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sabertooth]

I've seen those kinds of articles before, but what I don't see is if they have a recognizable "family resemblance" to western Christianity, culture notwithstanding. Have they matured? Have they experienced outpourings of the Holy Spirit/had Revivals? Do they actively evangelize?

One article says they had the book of Matthew, with an emphasis on local Jews. Did they suffer for not having the rest of the NT? Did they evangelize gentiles, as well?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've seen those kinds of articles before, but what I don't see is if they have a recognizable "family resemblance" to western Christianity, culture notwithstanding.

The traditional Christianity of India looks like Christianity as it's been practiced by Christians throughout the Near East and India since it's been there.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "western Christianity" if you mean Christianity as generally practiced west of the Tigris and Euphrates then, generally speaking of course. They have their traditional liturgy, they have the Sacraments, they follow Jesus. The most significant difference would be in regards to the Monophysite and Nestorian controversies. I'm fairly sure that they were generally Monophysite (or more accurately, Miaphysite), though I'm not entirely sure on this point. Since the 15th century the Mar Thoma Christians have been split, some joined communion with Rome, some became Protestant, there's one or two that's in communion with Canterbury.

If by "western Christianity" you mean the Western Theological tradition then no it wasn't like it because the Western tradition developed distinctively in Western Europe.

Finally, if by "western Christianity" you mean modern Evangelical and/or Charismatic Protestantism then, naturally it hasn't because modern Evangelicalism is primarily a product of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Have they matured? Have they experienced outpourings of the Holy Spirit/had Revivals? Do they actively evangelize?

They have the Holy Spirit, of course, they're Christians and part of the Body of Christ. Do they preach the Gospel? Of course, though it may not always look like what modern Evangelicals consider evangelism. By maturity, I don't know what you mean. All Christians are maturing in Christ in some degree according to the grace of God leading us toward being more like our Lord.

One article says they had the book of Matthew, with an emphasis on local Jews.

In the 2nd century a bishop traveled there and mentioned that they had a copy of Matthew in Hebrew (which is most likely Aramaic, not Hebrew, ancient Christian writers often referred to Aramaic as Hebrew because they didn't make the distinction). They probably mostly spread among the Jewish communities because, just like everywhere else, the Apostles usually preached the Gospel to the Jews first.

Did they suffer for not having the rest of the NT?

They got the rest of the New Testament eventually, just as Christians everywhere else did. The New Testament didn't just appear, it developed over hundreds of years. If you or I even traveled back in time to the 14th century we'd find that Wycliffe's English NT (like the Latin Vulgate at the time) contained 28 books, having an Epistle to the Laodiceans which managed to stick in the West for a while though being everywhere else regarded as spurious. It was removed by the time of the Reformation, but the point is that the Biblical Canon has been rather malleable throughout history.

Did they evangelize gentiles, as well?

Given that most of the native Christian population in India is Gentile I'd reckon they did.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sabertooth]

Thanks for the detailed response.

...

If by "western Christianity" you mean the Western Theological tradition then no it wasn't like it because the Western tradition developed distinctively in Western Europe...

I meant the western hemisphere. I was wondering if they had outpourings of the Holy Spirit that paralleled ours, such as the Jesus Movement in the '70s and various revivals before that. Or, maybe, similar revivals independent of ours.

... By maturity, I don't know what you mean. All Christians are maturing in Christ in some degree according to the grace of God leading us toward being more like our Lord.

By maturity, I mean, at least, two things:

1. In our western church, we have seen various points of corporate change/reformation in the Church, arguably starting with Luther,then the Anabaptists, etc. Do they exhibit that style of fine tuning?

2. I see western evangelicals (mostly) staying culturely relevant to our times, adapting our message to present expressions of language, technology, etc. Are St. Thomas' Christians staying so relevant to their society in the 21st century?

 

[pshun2404]

The tradition allegedly recorded in Heggisipus says he (Thomas) brought with himself only the gospel of Matthew which was written in his own tongue (a copy of the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew).

According to Jerome a copy of this version (upon which the Syriac version of Matthew is allegedly based) was still in existence in his time (4th century) in the Library of Caesarea.

Paul

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks for the detailed response.


I meant the western hemisphere. I was wondering if they had outpourings of the Holy Spirit that paralleled ours, such as the Jesus Movement in the '70s and various revivals before that. Or, maybe, similar revivals independent of ours.

The examples that you give are unique to reformed Protestantism; and for the most part North America (such are not nearly as wide spread as most reformed Protestants would like to believe; this phenomenon tends to be very regional). These things are a result of various developments in Christian theologies which occurred after, and separate from the Lutheran reformation (which was more about a restoration of orthodoxy in the west). These developments were the result of a movement away from the theology of the Cross to a theology of Glory.

By maturity, I mean, at least, two things:

1. In our western church, we have seen various points of corporate change/reformation in the Church, arguably starting with Luther,then the Anabaptists, etc. Do they exhibit that style of fine tuning?

2. I see western evangelicals (mostly) staying culturely relevant to our times, adapting our message to present expressions of language, technology, etc. Are St. Thomas' Christians staying so relevant to their society in the 21st century?

These things are unique to reformed Protestantism because of the applications of different standards of interpretation regarding Scripture. The various branches of reformed Protestantism employ human logic (in the case of Calvinism); personal experience and interpretation (Arminan Churches) or a combination of the two.

Orthodox Liturgical Churches (Vatican Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox use Scripture to interpret and give context to Scripture; they also look to extra Biblical tradition (teachings of the Early Church Fathers) for interpretation and application of Scriptural teachings (they do such because oral tradition and teaching preceded the Bible as we know it in the Early Church).

Likewise, in orthodox Confessional Lutheran Synods, Scripture is only interpreted using Scripture, and look only to Scripture itself to provide context to Scripture. Within Confessional Lutheranism, teachings of the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and "tradition" have not been discarded, but are always subject to interpretation in light of Scripture. As a result, orthodox Confessional Lutheranism has not subscribed to the "Theology of Glory" which spawned "revivalism" and personal revelation.

Such is why Confessional Lutheranism, Vatican Catholicism and the Orthodox Communions have retained ancient, historic and traditional Liturgical forms of worship; the Mass, Divine Liturgy, the Daily Office etc.

I hope this helps.

 

[Mikeb85]

I've seen those kinds of articles before, but what I don't see is if they have a recognizable "family resemblance" to western Christianity, culture notwithstanding. Have they matured? Have they experienced outpourings of the Holy Spirit/had Revivals? Do they actively evangelize?

One article says they had the book of Matthew, with an emphasis on local Jews. Did they suffer for not having the rest of the NT? Did they evangelize gentiles, as well?

No.

The Indian Church, and all Eastern Churches, are most like the Orthodox Churches of today. In fact, there's a sizeable Orthodox Church in India...

Some of the Indian Churches became part of Catholic and Anglican communions during various waves of colonization, but still retained some or all of their Orthodox-leanings...

The only 'Western-style' Indian Churches are modern...

 

[Mikeb85]

By maturity, I mean, at least, two things:

1. In our western church, we have seen various points of corporate change/reformation in the Church, arguably starting with Luther,then the Anabaptists, etc. Do they exhibit that style of fine tuning?

You mean degradation? Having thousands of sects isn't exactly 'fine tuning'...

All the Churches from Greece to the Holy Land to Egypt to Syria, Iraq and India are Orthodox, and maintain Orthodox practices and liturgies. Some are out of communion with 'Eastern Orthodox' (mostly for ancient political reasons) but still have very similar (if not the same) beliefs.

 

[Sabertooth]

You mean degradation? Having thousands of sects isn't exactly 'fine tuning'...

By fine tuning, I mean that, at least, some line in the Church is moving toward the Acts [of the Apostles] ideals of ministry. Holy Spirit-driven evangelism as opposed to uninspired forms of catechism & proselytism. That has been my experience with the stagnant "church." We need not forsake Biblical standards, but we need to go beyond simply meeting them. Instead of just not doing the "don'ts," we need to identify (and pursue) the "dos" that God has called each of us to, in His power.

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." John 14:12

 

[Mikeb85]

By fine tuning, I mean that, at least, some line in the Church is moving toward the Acts [of the Apostles] ideals of ministry. Holy Spirit-driven evangelism as opposed to uninspired forms of catechism & proselytism. That has been my experience with the stagnant "church." We need not forsake Biblical standards, but we need to go beyond simply meeting them. Instead of just not doing the "don'ts," we need to identify (and pursue) the "dos" that God has called each of us to, in His power.

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." John 14:12

Anyhow, the original Indian Churches were Orthodox.

And I don't know what you know about the Orthodox Church, but it's far from stagnant. Orthodox Churches have produced many thousands of Saints and countless miracles in the last century alone, never mind the last 1900 years. I've personally heard first-hand accounts of dozens in the last few years, including some monastics that have what you might call 'divine' gifts...

 

[Sabertooth]

...

And I don't know what you know about the Orthodox Church, but it's far from stagnant...

Admittedly, I have very little exposure to such, but those I have encountered seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on free-will vs. predestination. Like Trinity, it is certainly an interesting conundrum, but IMHO such doesn't warrant the derailment of actively pursuing the discernible will of God for one's life. I can live with unknowns. I have up until now. I am confident that if/when I need to know those things more precisely, God will grant more understanding, per Jas. 1:5.

As to the miracles of various saints, those in the book of Acts were so commonplace that many of their practitioners remained anonymous. That you can point to so many people, by name, is a testimony to its relative rarity.

 

[Mikeb85]

Admittedly, I have very little exposure to such, but those I have encountered seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on free-will vs. predestination.

Ummm, what? There is no free-will vs. predestination controversy in the Orthodox Church. This was settled over 1500 years ago...

Like Trinity, it is certainly an interesting conundrum, but IMHO such doesn't warrant the derailment of actively pursuing the discernible will of God for one's life. I can live with unknowns. I have up until now. I am confident that if/when I need to know those things more precisely, God will grant more understanding, per Jas. 1:5.

The question of the Trinity was settled 1700 years ago, again, no controversy.

As to the miracles of various saints, those in the book of Acts were so commonplace that many of their practitioners remained anonymous. That you can point to so many people, by name, is a testimony to its relative rarity.

As it still is today. There are many more Saints than those named and individually remembered by the Church.

 

[Sabertooth]

A consensus in the Orthodox church on how these are worked out is not necessarily a consensus across the Church at-large. Those who believe in the "whole" Bible from Genesis to Revelation, have to accept that their seeming paradoxes are somehow simultaneously true, but they do not need to be completely resolved before one would pursue God's will for one's life.

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." Matt. 6:33

 

[fatherjimparker]

I once read somewhere that Apostle Thomas took the Gospel to India. Did he leave before the rest of the New Testament was written? If he did, did he bring a lesser Bible with him on his outreach, such as no Pauline epistles nor books like Revelations...?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Thoma_Syrian_Church

The Church which was founded by the apostle Thomas ca. 52 AD continues until this day. It uses all the New Testament and holds to the canons of the 1st 3 Great Councils but, along with the Coptic Church, did not agree with the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon based primarily on semantics because the Mar Toma bishops did not see it as truly correcting the heresy of Nestorius.

The St. Thomas Churches are members of the Syrian Orthodox church or the "oriental Orthodox Church." (Oriental means Eastern but is used to distinguish between them and the "Eastern Orthodox.")

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

There apart from the Gospel of St Thomas, is a book called the Acts of St Thomas.

 

[FireDragon76]

Mar Thoma is a Protestantized version of the religion that was brought to India. Anglican missionaries convinced some of the churches to give up their "cult of the saints" and stop praying for the dead, etc. The services I have seen look a lot like high church Anglicanism.

There is actually a small Mar Thoma church in the small town (Oviedo) where I used to live here in Central Florida

 

[pshun2404]

I once read somewhere that Apostle Thomas took the Gospel to India. Did he leave before the rest of the New Testament was written? If he did, did he bring a lesser Bible with him on his outreach, such as no Pauline epistles nor books like Revelations...?

Yes only the Hebrew/Aramaic version of Matthew (Mark and later Luke had not been written when he left with Bartholomew)

 

[the old scribe]

Anyhow, the original Indian Churches were Orthodox.

And I don't know what you know about the Orthodox Church, but it's far from stagnant. Orthodox Churches have produced many thousands of Saints and countless miracles in the last century alone, never mind the last 1900 years. I've personally heard first-hand accounts of dozens in the last few years, including some monastics that have what you might call 'divine' gifts...

Of interest: The evangelical host of the "Bible Answer Man" radio program and head of the Christian Research Institute, Hank Handergraff along with his family, are now in the eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[the old scribe]

I once read somewhere that Apostle Thomas took the Gospel to India. Did he leave before the rest of the New Testament was written? If he did, did he bring a lesser Bible with him on his outreach, such as no Pauline epistles nor books like Revelations...?

Excellent question and you have received excellent answers. Here are some things that might be factual about Matthew's gospel. If I remember correctly, it was Papias who wrote that Matthew carried around with him a text known as "The Saying of Jesus." He wrote it in Aramaic - which would have been the language of Jesus and the Apostles. If one recognizes the five discourses in Matthew's Greek gospel the difficulty becomes apparent in the arranging of the teachings of the Lord Jesus into these five discourses. It is the work of a person with a theological background. Apparently, Matthew's text "Saying of Jesus" was at the time of recording categorized by Matthew. According to Papias, Matthew kept the text wrapped in a burial cloth with the image of the face of the Lord Jesus.

I suspect that the Apostle Matthew or Levi had more religious training than the common Jew. He may have been a Levite and trained in the Temple. Along with every one else in Judea he may have been expecting the 70 weeks of Daniel to end with the coming of the Messiah. Whatever his expectation, because of his disappointment he no longer believed and became the disillusioned and heart broken tax collector for Rome. And then Jesus showed up!

It may be the "Sayings of Jesus" was text source text for the synoptic gospels. In the 19th century a German doctrinal student wrote his dissertation on this idea and called the "Saying of Jesus" "Q" or source in German. Ever since the Christian academic community has treated this dissertation as something new and profound while ignoring Matthew's "Sayings of Jesus."

About the Apostle Thomas who during the discourse before the Last Supper raised an objection: "Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" (John 14:5). But more especially St. Thomas is remembered for his incredulity when the other Apostles announced the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus to him: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe" (John 20:25).

I am most grateful for the Apostle Thomas because without his question, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" I would not have the definitive statement from the Lord which leaves no doubt or room for misinterpretation. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” And for the Apostle Thomas’ other declaration for which he became known as Doubting Thomas, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe" which places an eye witness skeptic to the Resurrection in the most intimate circumstances to judge for himself. Here is one of the twelve who sojourned with the Lord Jesus in the flesh, refusing to believe in a bodily Resurrection of the Messiah unless he sees and touches the wounds. Did he believe? Look at the evidence for he became a martyr because of his witness.