Talk:Syriac Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Here comes another long debate.
Say what you want but this is the best thing to happen yet.
[edit] Syrian Christians of Kerala
I think this artilce should have some referance to the Syrian Christians of Kerala. The Nasrani's or St Thomas Christians are popularly called Syrian Christians.I think a paragrahp needs to be added to reflect the reality of Syrian Christians.
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2005/16-30Apr05-Print-Edition/163004200543.htm Thennattu 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move of interest
In case anyone here wants to weigh in, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches: See Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Fishhead64 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, one of the Churches in Kerala was never under any of the Syrian Churches. The origianl liturgical language used by Malanakara Church was Aramiac. The Bible that was in use was in Hebrew. (Ref: Church History of Eusebius (AD 260-341) Book V, Chapter 10.) Their tradions was also Jewish as was in all first century churches. Later when Syriac replaced Aramiac, in eastern countries, Malankara Church also started using Syriac. Their Bible during that period was Estrangelo Syriac. (Ref: Buchanan, Rev. Claudius in Memoir of the Expediency of an Ecclesisatical Establishment for British India. Foot notes Page 76). This was the Bible that was in use till Malayalam (language of Kerala) translation was available. In June 1876, Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius Pathrose IV, visited Kerala (Malankara) and a majority of Malankara Church joined him. They were known as Jacobite Church. But those who did not join and kept their original identity are now known as Mar Thoma church. Please note that the Syriac used by Mar Thoma Church is different from that of those who joned the Antiochan church, Thus the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church was never under any of the Syrian churches. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Mar Thoma Church is very clearly in the Syriac tradition. The argument set out above consists of a poor reading of the sources. The Mar Thoma Church is in the Syriac tradition because of the importance of Syriac in its tradition and its use of Syriac liturgy and ceremonial. This has nothing to do with who belongs to whom, or under whom. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Grazo,
It is nice to know that you are doing some study on my church.
You have written that the Mar Thoma Church is in the Syriac tradition because of the importance of Syriac in its tradition and its use of Syriac liturgy and ceremonial. I am interested to find out what are the Syriac traditions and Syriac ceremonies that we have.
You have also mentioned that the argument set out above consists of a Poor reading of the sources. The language of Malankara (Kerala) is Malayalam. So all reords regarding the Malankara church are in Malayalam. Many of the original records in Malayalam are available at the church libraries, public libraries, theological colleges and government archives in Kerala. Do you think that these sources are poor? Do you think that translations in other languages can be considered as geniune or better sources than the originals that are available in Malayalam? If you know Malayalam please read the originals and then make comments.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Neduvelilmathew,
- I still believe it to be reasonable to say you have a poor reading of the sources. It is certainly possible to read Malayalam sources from the Mar Thoma Church's libraries and not see the whole picture. The traditions of the Mar Thoma Church can be traced back to the original East-Syriac traditions brought to Kerala. From the time of the Coonan Cross Oath, that portion of the church came under the influence of the West-Syriac tradition (however, a lot remains of the older, eastern traditions, including pronunciation of Syriac). At the time of Abraham Malpan, the modern Mar Thoma Church, as we know it today, was formed, with a reformist agenda. This is the simple history of the Mar Thoma Church, and it is a church rooted in the Syriac tradition. The language of the church today is Malayalam, but Syriac still has an important place for good historical reasons. Simply looking at your own church's website (http://www.marthomasyrianchurch.org/heritage.htm) the word 'Syriac' appears three times in the description of the reforming work of Abraham Malpan, and the word 'Syrian' occurs about 14 times. Yes, the Mar Thoma Church is a thoroughly Indian church with Malayalam as its main language, but its heritage is Syriac (in the form of the liturgy and the Syriac technical terms still employed). Please tell me exactly what your sources say that is so contrary to the accepted history of the church. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scope of Article
Some users are mis-understanding this article. This article is not about Syriac Orthodox/Catholic Christianity alone, but rather all Syriac-Speaking Churches, which includes Assyrian-based Churches as well. So please stop removing the template. Chaldean (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The template gives the impression of that all Syriac Christians are Assyrians, and we all know that, that ain't true since the majority aren't Assyrians. So stop spamming with your template. Also, I would suggest you to stop deleting West Syriacs from the "See also" list. The TriZ (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Triz, that is only you who is getting that impression. The article in the beginning specifically states that Syriac Christianity is splite into multiple Churches. But whatever, if you feel offended by it (unbelievable), I will remove it. Chaldean (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see no reason why the Nav BOx should not appear on this article. It links to this page and does not suggest all Syriac-Speaking Churches are Assyrian-based Churches. I will re-add it. The article is quite clear on the scope. Is there another reason why the box should not be here? -- Secisek (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So why should the Assyrian template be there? For example, why not put in the other ten peoples templates? Cause the reader will get confused. So either all should be there, or non. I vote for non. The TriZ (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the reader reads the first few sentances they will not be confused by the time the get to the bottom where the box is. There is no reason why there can't be more boxes from the other peoples. If they link to the page they should be on here. Where are the other boxes? -- Secisek (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't play a besserwiesser, if course there aren't that many templates, but one day there will be. And then what? We should fill the articles with them? And yes, the readers will most likely be confused, if not all, but many. The TriZ (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- If they link here, they should be on the page. And as for me being a besserwiesser, you are the one saying we need to add more templates on the page, and then respond by telling me they don't exist. Some in fact do, such as {{Nasrani_People}}, which does NOT link here. Nobody will get confused, the article is quite clear. The box can and should stay. -- Secisek (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I never said they don't exist, I said, "For example, why not put in the other ten peoples templates?" and then "if course there aren't that many templates". So don't make up things I never said. And about the box, I'll be looking forward to see the article be filled with those... The TriZ (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)