Jump to content

Talk:Christianity in India/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Christianity in India

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 14 February 2024 (Archiving 9 discussion(s) from Talk:Christianity in India) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Discussion about this article from an anonymous editor

I thought I should paste in an anonymous query I received about why I reversed an earlier edit to this page - and my reply - as they both relate to this article:

Any reason for removing the recently added section on talk page of history of Christianity in India?

Can you tell me genuinely that why did you remove that section from history of Christianity in India talk page? Was it in any way violating any Wikipedia rules? Or you are one of those fundamentalist Christians who want to prove Christianity reached India by 52 AD while there is no evidence for it?

And why should Tibet be free? Why not Alaska and Hawaii be free? You should know that days of western supremacy are now going down fast and there is no need for the non-western world to accept biased western point of view of looking at things. Time has come to question each and everything which western people have imposed on others. We also question American intervention in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, role of US govt in creating ISIS and atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we do not believe the American story that it was necessary to stop the war because the war ended anyway.

Reply to Anonymous

Dear Anonymous: First of all - I will mainly reply to the very critical note you added to the page Talk:Christianity in India - as I don't think it would be useful to argue about the many other issues you raise which seem to have little bearing on this article. I will discuss some of the reasons why I reversed your edit below.
However, I do feel I must object to your totally unjustified attacks on me personally, and your unfounded assumptions - such as insinuating that I support "western supremacy" and that I might be a fundamentalist Christian - neither of which is true. In fact I have, since my youth, frequently argued against both "western supremacy" and so-called "fundamentalist Christainity" (in the sense of militant, puritanical Christianity) and, for that matter, similar extreme "fundamentalist" branches of other religions and political philosophies. But, most important here is the fact, that they are not in the least pertinent to the discussion of Christianity in India. So, please stop these rude, unjustified ad hominen attacks!
Let us try to stay focussed. You called the tradition (or story or myth if you prefer)of St. Thomas coming to India , a "lie." These are harsh words indeed, and probably very hurtful to the Indian Christians who believe in them. Wikipedia is, I believe, not an apropriate place to attack people's religious beliefs. There is still a considerable community of believers of this tradition who live in Kerala, South India. See the WP article: Saint Thomas Christians for more details (and, again, you will find many references which you find interesting to check).
Furthermore, your note was full of inaccuracies. To give just one example, you write: ". . . how is it believable that primitive Europeans of 1st century had such ships to reach India?" Unfortunately, you seem to be unaware of the facts of history. There was, by the 1st century CE, a major organised and regular maritime trade between Roman Egypt and India. This is absolutely firmly established - through numerous historical records and extensive archaeological evidence. The latter includes, amongst a mass of other evidence, many thousands of early Roman gold coins found in India - which back up the accounts in the literature of the time that the Romans traded gold and silver coins (and other products) with India for spices, and many other products, including even Chinese silks.
For a start, I recommend you read the Wikipedia article Indo-Roman trade relations and check out some of the many excellent references given there. It may be of interest to you that the Chinese historical annals actually record the arrival of envoys from Da Qin (the Roman Empire) in China in 166 CE (or AD). See, for example: Book of the Later Han, and report that traders from the Roman Empire followed, and there is plenty of historical and archaeological evidence showing that ships from the Roman Empire were regualarly visiting India, Sri Lanka and SE Asia during the first two centuries CE. This shows your strange claim that "primitive Europeans" of the first century were incapable of reaching India by sea to be totally unfounded.
So, Sir or Madam, please check your facts first before attacking others and, please, stop accusing me of promoting things I certainly don't believe in. I found your wild accusations not just unjustified and clearly false, but personally hurtful. I ask you to please apologise. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christianity in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christianity in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christianity in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

drop hoaxes--it only encourages them

The deliberate falsfications by two writers in 1890s were never part of Indian folklore or tradition. No RS says they are in any way relevant to Christianity in India. The text states: "Notovich confessed to fabricating his evidence." Bart D. Ehrman states that "Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax" Hoaxters do not deserve 4850 bytes (about 700 scarce words) in Wikipedia space in a major article on a major topic--that's what they crave and why they fool people. Rjensen (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. These hoaxes have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article, 'Christianity in India'. The Discoverer (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The section on "Jesus in India" was recently removed, with the arguments that it is a hoax, and that there are no reliable sources for it. Those are invalid arguments. There are plenty of sources which describe these stories. I've re-added it, and there seems to be agreement, at the moment, to include this section.
I'd like to note, though, that the term "hoax" seems mispleced here. "Hoax" is a judgement, not a neutral description. Lewis, in his Legitimating New Religions, makes clear that legitimizing new religious ideas by incorporating them into existing religious narratives, is not uncommon. See, for a comparison, the Jewish and Christian Apocrypha (that's my note, not Lewis').
That being said, I doubt if this section belongs to the "modern period" section. Strictly speaking, it's not about Christianity in India, but about New Religious Movements in the west, which were influenced by Indian thought. A very relevant theme in itself, but not exactly the same as the history of Christianity in India. Therefor, I've moved it downward. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your line of thought when you say "Strictly speaking, it's not about Christianity in India". I have always felt that this topic did not fit in the 'History' section, and (if retained) would be more appropriate as a separate section at the end of the article (this is what you have done).
Regarding the term 'hoax', I don't see why it is misplaced. Notovich's confession and Ehrman's statement quoted in the article seem to make it amply clear that it is a fact that these stories were made up. This means they are hoaxes, and I don't see any policy in Wikipedia which says that a hoax must not be called a hoax. If there was such a concept, Wikipedia wouldn't have had a category called 'Hoaxes'. I think something can be neutrally described as a hoax on Wikipedia, if it has been proven by reliable sources to have been made up. The Discoverer (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The term hoax is value-loaden. Maybe you can call one specific text a "hoax," but not a (new) tradition which believes in such narratives. Lewis (1993) gives the context for these narratives, and also explains that these 'new traditions' are not unique. As I already said above, the Jewish and Christian Apocrypha are similar phenomena. Also note that the term "hoax" is being used here by Ehrman in his book Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. The reference is to chapter eight, Forgeries, Lies, Deceptions, and the Writings of the New Testament. Modern Forgeries, Lies, and Deceptions. So, he too refers to the ancientness of "hoaxes." Some might even argue that the resurrection story also could be called a "hoax"...
The term narrative is not restricted to "true accounts", as stated in this edit-summaryon the contrary. From the Wiki-article on narrative: "A narrative or story is any report of connected events, real or imaginary, presented in a sequence of written or spoken words, and/or still or moving images."
Therefor, at best, you can say that 'according to Ehrman' these stories are hoaxes, while according to Lewis they are narratives. But that would be undue for this article, I think. Therefor,
"hoax" is "value ladden" is irrelevant. So is "narrative." Our job as editors is to report what the reliable secondary sources agree upon and they all agree it's a deliberate falsehood. "Hoax" it is an accurate statement and most important it is the consensus of scholars. The text does not in fact discuss a "new tradition" it discusses the books from two men in the 1890s. Yes there were ancient hoaxes too, but the ones at issue here were invented in the 1890s by specific men. Lots of narratives are true--but not these and when need to tell readers that. As for the Lewis book he makes clear these stories are faked: Novotovitch is spurious, anachronistic, "simply false" [Lewis p 77]. Ahmed invented all in his own imagination sats Lewis p 78. Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If there is something in the Jewish or Christian Apocrypha that is a fabrication, then there is nothing to stop us from going to the respective article and saying that it is a fabrication. We can use the word 'narrative' when it is inconclusive if it is real or made up, to avoid making a judgement ourselves, but when it is clear that it is made up, then it is a hoax, and in this case, it is not us who are making a judgement. If a hoax gives rise to a new tradition, that does not give it immunity from being called a hoax. The Discoverer (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with The Discoverer. On this business of "traditions": This article is ONLY about Christianity and its traditions. the traditions Lewis mentions are NOT part of Christianity (the text paraphrases Lewis: "Nevertheless this [Jesus] story is popular both among New Age believers and among Hindu teachers with western followers.") the Jesus story Lewis mentions has nothing to do with the 2 writers from the 1890s--it goes back centuries. In a nutshell, zero from this section actually deals with "Christianity in India." Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, it is a bit surprising to see that you deleted this text, saying that it is WP:OR and does not refer to Mirza Ghulam, while you want to retain an entire section that does not even refer to the topic of the article, 'Christianity in India'. The deleted text just compares the claims in this section to the modern scholarly consensus.
In addition, we should also discuss whether this section deserves to be in this article at all and whether it isn't a case of WP:UNDUE weight being given to these hoaxes The Discoverer (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, an editor made the comparison; yes, that's OR. And a point that may be relevant for Christian believers, but misses the relevancy of how new traditions develop. As I said before, the stories may be called hoaxes, but the existence of this 'new tradition' is a simple fact. Personally, I think it's nonsense, but the fact that people believe this is relevant, in certain contexts. Which is not here, for which reason I've removed the entire section and replaced it with a "See also" link. I think we'll all three have got better things to do then investing our time in a debate on "hoax" versus "narrative" (although Lewis uses the term "narrative"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I think it's best that this topic be dealt with separately in more appropriate article, where it can be treated in a more NPOV and balanced manner. Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Christianity in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Christianity in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the "Indian Christianity" image

There are several issues with the new image "File:INDIAN CHRISTIANITY.jpg" added to the article yesterday by User:Jinsonkmathew.

  • The image is not neutral, because it shows the progression of a "Malankara Sabha" down the years as a thick line in the centre. This would give one the impression that this "Malankara Sabha" is the origin of all Indian Christians, and even today is the mainstay of Indian Christianity. I don't know what "Malankara Sabha" refers to exactly, or whether it is a denomination of Christianity, and it is not even mentioned once in the text of the article. Thus, this is an instance of undue weight given to a topic that is not mentioned in the article. All denominations should be represented by lines of equal width.
  • Roman Catholicism, which comprises around 72% of the Christians in India is shown as a red box lost in a corner of the image.
  • The arrows in the image don't make much sense. E.g. the images going into and out of the red box representing the Roman Catholic church seem to imply that the Roman Catholic church originated from the 1653 Koonan cross oath, and the Roman Catholic church gave rise to the "East Syrian church".
  • There are grammatical mistakes like Jesus Christ and India not being capitalised, and "misiion" is misspelt.
  • There is already an image File:SaintThomasChristian'sDivisionsHistoryFinal.png used in the article that shows the evolution of St. Thomas Christians.

In view of the above, I suggest that the image "INDIAN CHRISTIANITY.jpg" be removed from the article until there is consensus on the inclusion of this image, and the issues are resolved.

The Discoverer (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Christianity in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Christianity in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

World's Oldest Church

"The world's oldest existing church structure, which was believed to be built by Thomas the Apostle in 57 AD,[1] called Thiruvithamcode Arappally or Thomaiyar Kovil as named by the then Chera king Udayancheral,[1] is located at Thiruvithancode in Kanyakumari District of Tamil Nadu, India. It is now declared an international St. Thomas pilgrim center."

Given that it's unlikely St. Thomas actually visited India, it seems like a stretch to proclaim this specific church the oldest church in the world, and verifiable from the year 57. Especially on the word of one man from a local college. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Dr. Isaac Arul Dhas G,'`Kumari Mannil Christhavam' (Tamil), Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, 2010, ISBN 978-81-8465-204-8, Page 7

Era style for this article

This is to address the question of which era style should be used in this article: BC–AD or BCE–CE. I feel that we should use the BC–AD style, because the vast majority of the sources for this article use the BC–AD style. Another reason is to maintain uniformity with other Christianity-related articles (such as Christianity and History of Christianity), which use the BC–AD style. The Discoverer (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits of 24 Nov to 3 Dec 2018

Hello Vimaljoseph93, this is regarding your edits of 24 November and 3 December. You deleted half a sentence and the remaining sentence ' The ones who continued with East Syriac and Latin theological and liturgical tradition and stayed faithful to the Synod of Diamper. ' is an incomplete and grammatically unsound fragment. Kindly clarify what you intend to convey through your edit. Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Year change reasoning

Why are Ip addresses changing from 52 AD to 50 AD? The source says 52 AD and there is a general consensus there is. If someone has a dispute, please put it here.Manabimasu (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edits by User:Tharian

In this edit, User:Tharian stated that the Church of South India and the Church of North India inherited an episcopal polity from the Anglican Communion. However, both of these united Protestant Churches do not have a single polity, but rather a mixed polity that contains elements from episcopal polity, congregational polity, and presbyterian polity. The website of the Church of South India clearly states this:

Organized into 22 dioceses, each under the spiritual supervision of a bishop, the church as a whole is governed by a synod, which elects a moderator (presiding bishop) every 2 years. Episcopacy is thus combined with Synodical government, and the church explicitly recognizes that Episcopal, Presbyterian, and congregational elements are all necessary for the church's life.

Note that these united Protestant Churches use the term Moderator rather than Primate, combining both the Presbyterian and Anglican leader into one office; pastors are usually known as "presbyter in charge" rather than "priest in charge" (see Exhibit A). This fact is corroborated by other references, such as The American Church that Might Have Been: A History of the Consultation on Church Union by Keith Watkins, Professor Emeritus of Worship at Christian Theological Seminary, who states in his book published by Wipf and Stock Publishers that:

The Church of South India created a polity that recognized Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational elements and developed a book of worship that bridged the liturgical traditions that came into this new church. It set up a plan by which existing ministries were accepted while including processes which would lead to the time, a generation later, when all ministers would have been ordained by bishops in apostolic succession. The Church of South India was important as a prototype for a new American church because two factors had come together: the cross-confessional nature of its constituent parts and the intention to be, in effect, the Protestant Christian presence in communities all across the southern territories of its nation.

In light of these facts, I have corrected the information in the article. If User:Tharian objects, he should discuss here rather than edit war. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. The CSI and CNI are just as much Presbyterian and Methodist as they are Anglican. No need to emphasize the Anglican identity over others; Protestant is accurate and what their websites use to describe themselves. Wareon (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Northeast India

Can I add the following right after "...in its practices for a long time but since the 20th century has witnessed growth in Indigenous revivalism and recently contemporary local Church-planting movements have started to flourish"? 

Additionally, there has been dramatic growth of Christianity in Northeast India. In the ongoing Insurgency in Northeast India, Christian terrorism has occurred and thousands of Hindus have been forcibly converted to Christianity[1], both with the support of some local churches[2].

Shakespeare143 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare143 The proposed text is POV pushing. It clearly hides, Church leaders, however, deny any forcible conversions in Tripura and Radical Hindu religious groups in the region have all along been accusing Christian missionaries of forceful conversions. The text also hides the part that the NLFT has been killing people to prevent them from converting. Please take this as a warning that your POV pushing has become aggressive. VV 19:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Vincentvikram Can you explain why you think I was doing POV pushing? I posted this on the Talk page to get feedback on improving the proposition and to get consensus. Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you elaborate about how the NLFT has been killing people to prevent them from converting? Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Shakespeare143 The text you have proposed is based on a cherry-picked perspective based on the NLFT. I have pointed out the text in the rediff links which shows the other aspects not covered by your text, hence the "point of view" pushing. Since you have already gone through the tutorials, WP:NPOV should be familiar to you since you are now working in an area that is contentious and covered by discretionary sanctions, of which you have been made aware. The second source is very large and cannot be used to support a bald assertion of "support of some local churches". The reason I have templated you is because this pattern is seen in the several pieces of text you tried to insert in various articles. VV 20:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Errata, I have struck out the conflicting text as I wanted to highlight "We cannot, however, vouch on behalf of the NLFT which is a rebel group." VV 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The use of the phrase "Christian terrorism" is the POV pushing. VV 20:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mate, it's happening all over India and most of the Hindus are sleeping, I'm afraid by the time they are aware... it might be too late. Kichawww (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Tribals unite against conversions in Tripura". rediff.com. 2 August 2001.
  2. ^ Subir Bhaumik (2004). Ethnicity, Ideology and Religion: Separatist movements in India's Northeast (PDF). Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. p. 236.

Why is Chrsitianity in India said to have been established before European colonisations when in fact only christianity in the Malabar Coast, Kerala is before europeans came?

all other parts of India got christainity only after European colonisations. why is wrong info being propagated? is it agenda to christianise the country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.202.154 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

YES WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS CORRECT AS ACCORDING TO TRADITION SAINT THOMAS CHRISTIANS OF KERALA WHERE THE ONLY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY IN INDIA BEFORE EUROPEAN INVASION..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARAVIND NAMBOOTHIRI (talk • contribs) 12:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really.. There were Christian communities all along the west coast (present day Maharashtra and Gujarat, established by the apostle Bartholomew. There were Syrian bishops of the Church of the East in northwest India (present day Punjab, Pakistan and Afghanistan) by the third century AD. Again in the early 1300s, Jordanus established Christian communities on the west coast. Before the European colonisers could come, some St. Thomas Christians had already migrated and established communities in central and north India. The British, who ruled India, did nothing to promote or spread Christianity in India. The Discoverer (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, The Discoverer. I couldn’t have answered better. Indo85 04:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Indo85. Do you think it would be suitable to mention in the article, with respect to ancient Christianity in India, about St. Severus of Vienne - an Indian priest who evangelised in France? The Discoverer (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@The Discoverer I don't see why not. Very interesting find btw. It is well sourced and seems appropriate enough to be inserted in Early Christianity section. Indo85 14:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Since you have been recently copy-editing the article, I would request you to add it. Thanks, The Discoverer (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure! I'll work on it shortly. Indo85 14:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@The Discoverer Done! Indo85 17:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Indo85. I have trimmed your added text, because I feel that we can leave the details for readers to read in the article about St. Severus. Your first sentence anyway gives most of the info mentioned in the subsequent sentences. I have kept two references that are more relevant to early Christianity in India. The Discoverer (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! Indo85 23:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Christian Religious Leaders

Under the heading 'Religious Leaders', there is no mention of the Most Rt. Rev. Dr. Eric Samuel Nasir, BA, BT, MA, DD. He was the founding Moderator of the Church of North India (CNI), a position he held from Nov 1970 till 1980. 103.57.177.169 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

FileConversion of Paravas by Francis Xavier in 1542.jpg

I’m wondering if we need to replace this image in the article. Paravars are erroneously depicted as native Americans in the painting. Indo85 19:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can find a better illustration on Wikimedia, then be bold and go for it. 49.15.233.118 (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Problematic edits by User:Varoon2542

This editor keeps using dubious sources to claim that conversions in Goa were the result of the Inquisition, when the historical timeline shows that the Inquisition was instituted well after the christianization of Goa was underway. He ignores contemporary records (e.g. the letter of Luís Fróis) and also recent scholarship about the Inquisition (it had the support of local Goan society): https://www.heraldgoa.in/Review/Goa%E2%80%99s-inquisition-facts-fiction-and-factoids/196631 49.15.231.155 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I find it a bit rich that
- an unidentified editor,
- with four edits on record
- all related to the litigious article and
- the oldest dating to the 26th of april of this year is criticising me who has a solid track record when it comes to editing wikipedia articles
The sentence I added is pertinent in an article on "Christianity in India". The Goan Inquisition being a major event that spread over centuries. The references used are the same as those used in the "Goan Inquisition" article where they have never been seriously contested Varoon2542 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Ad hominem. User:Varoon2542 has not bothered reading any books on the subject. The references he used in his edit war are outdated and not based on any historical research into the records kept by the Goa tribunal of the Portuguese Inquisition. Priolkar's amateur book in the Goa Inquisition (which forms the basis of all the multiple Internet links he cited) has been discredited repeatedly in recent years by contemporary records. 49.15.231.5 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_3&oldid=1207318603"