Why Only Three Persons In The Holy Trinity?

            The doctrine of the blessed Trinity is indeed complicated and construed as mysterious. This is not to say that the Trinitarian doctrine cannot be understood entirely.

            Rather, the complication, in my opinion, is this: it is an ongoing effort of our incorporeal (immaterial) mind dwelling in our corporeal (material) body and the universe, which constantly experiences an intellectual struggle while trying to comprehend the underlying schema of two opposing architectures (Corporeal vs. Incorporeal) inasmuch to understand the fullness of an uncaused, maximally great, incorporeal being, namely God, who is wholly Trinitarian in nature. However, this intellectual struggle could be conquered with the help of God Himself, who indwells us (cf. John 14:23).

            Thomistic philosopher Ed Feser offers a positive outlook, “...when Trinitarian theologians refer to the doctrine of the Trinity as a “mystery,” they do not mean that it is self-contradictory or unintelligible. Nor do they mean that there are no rational grounds for believing it. What they mean is that while it is perfectly consistent and intelligible in itself, our minds are too limited fully to comprehend it. And while, for that reason, the doctrine cannot be arrived at “from scratch” by purely philosophical arguments, we can be rationally justified in believing it on the basis of testimony, viz. the testimony of Jesus Christ, whose reliability is demonstrated by His resurrection...Furthermore, while human reason cannot fully grasp the Trinity even after it has been revealed, it can show that no attempts to prove the doctrine self-contradictory are successful...”¹

            Notwithstanding this backdrop, we can still contend with questions related to the Blessed Trinity. One such question is ‘Why are we limited to only three persons in the Trinity?’ Why can’t there be one, two, four, or more?   

            Medieval Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas posited the following:

            1. Argument from ontology: It is ontologically impossible to have more than three persons in the Godhead of the Blessed Trinity:²

            “First, the usual way you get multiple things from one thing is by cutting it into pieces, as you might produce a temple's worth of marble pillars from a single slab of marble. But that's not how we get the three Divine persons: we aren't cut God into pieces. God is a single substance, and by His essence has no pieces; that was determined by Thomas' initial argument for the existence of God. So how do we get multiple persons? Here's Thomas' summary:

There cannot be more than three persons in God. For the divine persons cannot be multiplied by a division of their substance, but solely by the relation of some procession; and not by any sort of procession, but only by such as does not have its term in something outside of God.”

            God is an uncaused immaterial being. So God, eternally, is composed of three persons. Since God cannot change, and since God is perfect, it would be metaphysically impossible for God to have less or more than 3 persons.

            2. Argument from Perfection: Since God is perfect, HE lacks nothing. Hence, the presence of three persons in the Blessed Trinity construes perfection and since perfection lacks nothing, the Blessed Trinity has no need for less or more persons:³

             “Thomas now makes an argument from perfection: a thing is perfect of its kind if it lacks nothing that would make it more itself. Half-an-apple is half an apple; part of it is missing. And if a thing's nature is perfect, then there can't be more than one of it: the one thing of that kind must perfectly express its nature. This is true of the Son and the Spirit, so we can't have more than one of each.

Again: the perfect is that beyond which there is nothing. Hence a being that would tolerate anything of its own class to be outside itself, would fall short of absolute perfection. This is why things that are simply perfect in their natures are not numerically multiplied... But both the Son and the Holy Spirit must be simply perfect, since each of them is God, as we have shown. Therefore several Sons or several Holy Spirits are impossible.”

            So to conclude, the blessed Godhead (the Blessed Trinity) can only have three persons.

Endnotes:

¹http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html ²https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crywoof/2015/11/todays-aquinas-why-a-trinity-why-not-a-quaternity/

³Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 30^th December 2021.

 

Christmas Myths: What Not To Believe!

            We should believe in facts and not fiction, especially if it relates to one of the essential beliefs of Historic Christianity. Herein, The Gospel Coalition details five common misconceptions Christians continue to believe about the Christmas narrative:¹

1. There Was a Star the Night Jesus Was Born

It’s difficult to find a nativity scene (or Christmas play) without a star over the manger. Indeed, this might be the quintessential symbol of the birth of Jesus.

The problem is there’s no indication the star hovered over the manger on the night Jesus was born. On the contrary, when the angels announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds watching their flocks by night (Luke 2:8–11), they weren’t told to look for a star. They were told to look for something else: “And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12).

The star was given not to the shepherds but to the Magi (Matt. 2:2), who appear to be visiting Jesus at a later time period. How much later is unclear, but the fact that Herod commands all the babies in the region younger than 2 years old to be killed suggests Jesus may have been in Bethlehem for some time.

2. There Were Three Wise Men

Speaking of the wise men, in both art and in song (“We Three Kings”) we get the undeniable impression there were three of them (also called “Magi”). The problem, however, is that this number is found nowhere in the biblical accounts.

Matthew simply tells us, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem” (Matt. 2:1).

The idea of three wise men likely came from the fact that Matthew mentions three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt. 2:11).

3. There Was No Room for Them in the Inn

Another staple of modern nativity plays is the scene at the inn. Joseph and his wife, Mary—who is on the verge of giving birth—are cruelly turned away by the innkeeper who shows them no compassion.

Here is another popular misconception. The Bible never mentions an innkeeper. In fact, it’s possible there was never even an “inn” at all.

A recent study by Stephen Carlson makes the case (a compelling one, I think) that the Greek word normally translated as “inn” (καταλύματι) in Luke 2:7 is best translated as “place to stay.” So the passage isn’t saying there was no room in the inn, but rather there was no room for baby Jesus in the place they stayed. In what place were they staying? Carlson argues it was probably in the home of Joseph’s family in Bethlehem, perhaps in an adjacent guest room (which would have been small).

4. Jesus Was Born in a Barn or Stable

Since Joseph could find no spot in the inn, the reasoning goes, he must have been forced to stay in the stable. Indeed, every nativity scene ever created places Jesus in a barn of sorts.

But the text doesn’t say he was born in a barn. It only says Mary “laid in him in a manger” (Luke 2:7). Although that might seem to suggest a barn, it was common for mangers to be kept in the main room of village houses during this time period. Why? Because the animals were often housed just a few feet away in an adjacent room.

It seems likely, then, that Mary gave birth to Jesus while they were staying at the home of Joseph’s relatives in Bethlehem. But the room in which they stayed—likely a tight guest room or hastily added chamber—couldn’t accommodate a birth. So, Mary had to give birth in the larger family room and lay Jesus in the nearby manger.

5. Jesus Was Born on December 25

If we celebrate Jesus’s birthday on December 25, it’s logical to think this was the day on which he was born. But the precise date of Jesus’s birth is uncertain. A variety of options have been suggested throughout church history, including March 21, April 15, and May 20.

So how did December 25 become the date? It’s commonly thought Christians took over the pagan holiday of Sol Invictus (“Unconquered Son”), which was on December 25. But there’s little evidence to back this up.

Instead it seems early Christians may have reasoned from the supposed date of Mary’s conception, which was thought to be March 25—the same day Jesus was thought to be crucified. Fast forward nine months and you land on December 25 for his birth.

Real Christmas Story

These five misconceptions remind us that sometimes our picture of scriptural stories is shaped more by popular perceptions and modern retellings than by the text itself. But when we take a closer look at the biblical clues, a wonderful—and hopefully more accurate—picture emerges of what happened that night nearly 2,000 years ago.

And what happened that night still stands as one of the most monumental events in human history. God became a man and entered our dark, cold world to redeem a sinful people.

And that is a story that makes Christmas worthy of being “Merry.”

Endnotes: 

¹ https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/5-popular-misconceptions-christmas-story/, last accessed on 23^rd December 2021. 

Could Cryptocurrency Be The Mark Of The Beast And The One-World Currency?

            Cryptocurrency, at this point in time, cannot be construed as the mark of the beast. 

            The mark of the beast will essentially force the bearer to:

            (1) Renounce Christ as the Lord and Savior.

            (2) Worship the Antichrist.

            Since cryptocurrency does not mandate the above, it cannot be the mark of the beast.

            However, could the cryptocurrency be the one-world currency of the end times?

            Gotquestions.org says:¹

The idea of a one-world currency is vaguely suggested in the Bible. Revelation 13:16–17 says that the Antichrist will require everyone to have the mark of the beast to engage in any financial transactions. It’s unknown what exactly this mark will be, but it’s entirely possible that some kind of cryptocurrency will be involved. That would certainly be more efficient than printing and distributing a standardized physical currency all over the world. It’s possible that the mark of the beast will be what allows people to access the cryptocurrency in their virtual accounts...

The current popularity of bitcoin doesn’t mean that bitcoin will be the Antichrist’s one-world currency. In fact, it probably won’t. Bitcoin is only one of over 1,000 different virtual currencies, including Litecoin, Ethereum, Zcash, Ripple, and Monero. It’s more likely that, if the Antichrist uses a form of cryptocurrency, it will be original and more advanced than anything we have today.

Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies could be precursors to the money eventually used in the end times. But this is pure speculation. The Bible doesn’t mention computers, let alone cryptocurrency. Until 1998 cryptocurrency wasn’t even a word, and there’s no saying what new technological and sociological changes will come before the tribulation and the appearance of the Antichrist.

 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.gotquestions.org/bitcoin-cryptocurrency.html, last accessed on 16^th December 2021. 

Pros & Cons Of Cryptocurrency From The Christian Perspective

            Cryptocurrency is rapidly gaining popularity. Cursory research into cryptocurrency reveals the pros and cons of trading/investing in cryptocurrency. Since this is a new development, it would be worthwhile to ponder if any active participation in cryptocurrency violates/disobeys any biblical principles/doctrines so much so that our participation could be termed sinful.

            Before analyzing the pros and cons, understanding some basic facts about cryptocurrency (without getting into technicalities) would be in order:

            Cryptocurrency: Investopedia states, “A cryptocurrency, broadly defined, is virtual or digital money that takes the form of tokens or “coins.” While some cryptocurrencies have ventured into the physical world with credit cards or other projects, the large majority remain entirely intangible... Cryptocurrencies are almost always designed to be free from government manipulation and control, although as they have grown more popular, this foundational aspect of the industry has come under fire. The cryptocurrencies modeled after Bitcoin are collectively called altcoins... there are more than 10,000 cryptocurrencies in existence as of November 2021.^[1] While many of these cryptos have little to no following or trading volume, some enjoy immense popularity among dedicated communities of backers and investors.”¹

            Types Of Crypto: Bitcoin, Ethereum (ETH), Litecoin (LTC), Cardano (ADA), Polkadot (DOT), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Stellar (XLM), Dogecoin (DOGE), Tether (USDT), Monero (XMR), and Binance Coin, are a few types of cryptocurrencies.²

            Why So Many? “The majority of cryptocurrencies today are derived in some form or another from Bitcoin, which uses open-source code and a censorship-resistant architecture. This means that anybody can copy and tweak the code and create their own new coin. It also means that anybody is free to join its network or transact in it.”³

            Bitcoin: According to the Christian Courier, bitcoin was, “The first-ever implementation of cryptocurrency, created anonymously by Satoshi Nakamoto, and outlined in a 2008 paper entitled, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” Technically, it is “a consensus network that enables a new payment system and a completely digital money. It is the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment network that is powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen,” according to bitcoin.org. “Bitcoin is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part.””⁴

            Why Bitcoin Is The Most Important: “Despite thousands of competitors that have sprung up, Bitcoin - the original cryptocurrency - remains the dominant player in terms of usage and economic value. Each coin was worth roughly $60,000 as of November 2021, with a market cap of more than $1 trillion.”⁵

            Jesus Coin: “Forbes reports that a new cryptocurrency called "Jesus Coin" has launched and is drawing substantial amounts of investor interest and attention. And yet, the currency itself seems to have been launched as a hoax or as a joke...”⁶

            The pros and cons of actively participating in cryptocurrency are as follows:

The Case For Cryptocurrency

            Quite a few Christian voices endorse the usage of cryptocurrency. One among them is Pastor Tim Challies. He provides valuable information as to why cryptocurrencies would be beneficial to the Christian church and the Christian community. He writes:⁷ [Emphasis Mine]

So what does the world of Bitcoin, blockchain, cryptocurrency and what’s being called “web3 technology” have to offer the church? And how should Christians be engaging with this technological revolution?

In just over a decade, crypto has grown from a tiny fad for fringe computer nerds to a major force in today’s financial world. That’s because blockchain, the underlying technology that is used by cryptocurrencies, has the potential to prove one of the most profound innovations since the printing press...

Blockchain technology addresses some of the most urgent concerns with modern monetary policy and in that way promises to help protect the poor and most vulnerable by securing property rights, thwarting theft, minimizing inflation, and giving access to a monetary system that traditional banks or financial institutions would not. It is true, however, that many of these projects will turn out to be ill-fated moneymaking schemes, silly memes, or worse. But that is true in the business world and the world of the internet as well. The existence of bad actors does not mean that wise investments and godly creativity cannot occur in the same space, using the same technologies.

Though sin may find expression through tools, its source is the human heart. Human history proves again and again that the technologies that may be used to do evil can also be used for godly ends. As Christians, therefore, our approach to technology must not be fearful but hopeful, because we have been given the mandate to subdue and rule over the world for God’s glory (Genesis 1:26–28).

... Not only do cryptocurrencies provide sound, permissionless monetary systems able to be used by believers in repressive countries, they also provide an accessible and proven engine for financial creation that stands to benefit the Church and the individual believer.

The web3 space offers increasing ways to wisely and carefully invest, with decentralized finance staking rewards and interest-bearing custodial accounts incentivizing and rewarding patience. For every dog-themed meme coin there are now tens or hundreds of carefully created projects with actual real-world value.

To participate in the present web3 economy, Christians need not become discontented or greedy. They can walk in this new world the way we have always walked, by applying the same biblical wisdom and Spirit-filled guidance that lead us in every other area of their life, financial or otherwise.

Additionally, the blockchain minimizes costly transfer, banking, and credit card processing fees which currently take a bite out of almost all financial donations and transactions. It allows resources to move freely to aid Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) ministries, churches, and missionaries inside countries that suppress the church by restricting currency transfers.

            An article entitled Would Jesus Buy Bitcoin offers reasons as to why Churches should actively participate in cryptocurrencies. Here’s an excerpt:⁸ [Emphasis Mine]

“In a mission context, it’s very exciting,” says Runyon, noting that churches will be able to send money immediately overseas to relief and development projects, and can track where that money goes on the blockchain...

“It takes misappropriation out of the equation.”

...Peers sending peers cryptocurrency, immediately, in a transparent, traceable way, with little to no fees. It can’t be laundered, filtered, or intercepted. People can even secure loans via smart contracts in the crypto space, or have a savings account with “stablecoins,” pegged to the U.S. dollar and therefore their value remains stable.

The Case Against Cryptocurrency

            Christian Courier offers a word of caution:⁹ [Emphasis Mine]

As with any emerging technology, there are drawbacks. Here’s a short list: While the potential for hacking and fraud isn’t quite as high as it once was, the risk still exists; Bitcoin’s value is highly volatile, making it tricky to use for everyday purchases; energy use is extremely high (coins are “mined” by people using high-powered computers, often on huge data farms in China. For people concerned about energy conservation, the “proof-of-work” model currently used in mining, is cause for reflection); “gas fees” for ethereum (ie., fees paid when making digital transactions) are extremely high, making it prohibitive for many. Many coins are unstable, making the potential for loss relatively high; and, lastly, securing your funds is 100 percent your responsibility, and requires knowing how the complicated system works, owning and storing data on a hardware “wallet,” and creating, remembering and safe-keeping a password (or “key”). If you forget your key, you’re out of luck. There’s no “reset password” button in the crypto space. If you lose your key, you lose your crypto.

            Associate Professor of Economics at Williams College, Greg Phelan, mounts a scathing attack on the active Christian participation in cryptocurrency. He equates cryptocurrency to gambling:¹⁰ [Emphasis Mine]

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies produce no dividends. They will never provide a place to stay or earned income or even interest. That’s not a prediction; it’s just a fact. And unlike a stock, which may pay higher dividends in the future and thus justify a price increase, crypto will never pay dividends in the future. Future dividends cannot justify a price increase for crypto.

So why do people invest in crypto? Because they expect the price to rise.

We have a word in finance for an investment like this—a bubble. An asset that never pays a dividend but has a price that keeps rising is a bubble. An investor can believe Bitcoin is a bubble and rationally invest so long as she expects to sell out before the bubble pops. But that isn’t investing; that’s gambling, and it’s a zero-sum game...

As a currency, Bitcoin is not as good as dollars or any other currency. There is no debate about that. The only explanation for investing in Bitcoin is that people expect the price to rise. An investor could believe that the transaction value will rise and one day Bitcoin will be a true currency, justifying the price increase today. I don’t think that belief is realistic.

All economists agree that a stable price is highly desirable for a currency. But the price of Bitcoin is incredibly volatile. The crypto sector knows it, which is why an alternative class of cryptocurrencies has emerged—stablecoins. Stablecoins are virtual currencies designed to have a fixed price, because a “currency” without a stable price won’t last as a currency.

That’s the whole problem with Bitcoin: it’s not a stablecoin. The price fluctuates tremendously. Becoming a real currency in the future would require the price to stop rising (become stable) one day, at which point Bitcoin would need to have the same liquidity value as other currencies. Bitcoin would have to displace global currencies like the dollar and the euro to have equivalent liquidity value. Most economists find that preposterous.

How should a Christian feel about Bitcoin? Well, how do you feel about gambling as an investment strategy? Investing in Bitcoin means betting on getting out before the bubble bursts. That’s a zero-sum game between you and other traders, in which your gains are their losses. You might make lots of money by investing in Bitcoin—many people have. But I think it is better to put your money elsewhere, even if that might mean leaving profits on the table...

Given the choice between investing in a bubble that enables illicit black-market transactions, or investing in real assets that one hopes serve the common good—the choice should be obvious for Christians.

P.S: At the time of writing this article, India has announced that it will regulate digital currency. NDTV reports, “...the Centre could bring a Bill in the winter session of Parliament to bar all cryptocurrencies in India, barring a few exceptions, and create a framework to regulate digital currency issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).”¹¹

Endnotes:

¹https://www.investopedia.com/tech/most-important-cryptocurrencies-other-than-bitcoin/

²Ibid.

³https://www.investopedia.com/tech/most-important-cryptocurrencies-other-than-bitcoin/

⁴https://www.christiancourier.ca/would-jesus-buy-bitcoin/

⁵https://www.investopedia.com/tech/most-important-cryptocurrencies-other-than-bitcoin/

⁶https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-jesus-coin-and-does-it-foretell-end-cryptocurrencies/

⁷https://www.challies.com/articles/a-christian-case-for-bitcoin-and-blockchain/

⁸https://www.christiancourier.ca/would-jesus-buy-bitcoin/

⁹Ibid.

¹⁰https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/christian-invest-bitcoin/

¹¹https://www.ndtv.com/business/cryptocurrency-ban-news-cryptocurrency-ban-unlikely-say-crypto-industry-sources-2622667

Websites last accessed on 25^th November 2021. 

Three Biblical Reasons Why Christians Should Not Gamble

            The Bible does not explicitly condemn gambling as a sin. This cannot be interpreted as approval! Gambling is predicated on certain principles that the Bible disapproves of. So here are three biblical reasons as to why Christians should not gamble:

1. To Gamble Is To Not Love

            The Bible teaches that we should love one another. But gambling is predicated on the loss and misery of our fellow human beings. Divorce, bankruptcy, abuse, and violence are often the logical corollary of gambling. In short, the person who wins in gambling loots his fellow humans and indirectly afflicts destruction upon them. This is not loving, for true love cares for those in need (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

2. To Gamble Is To Be Greedy

            Greed is the underlying motive for gambling. Greed motivates a person to make fast money. Greed is also the opposite of being content. The Bible teaches against greed, making fast money, and being discontent (Proverbs 13:11; 1 Timothy 6:9-10; Hebrews 13:5).

3. To Gamble Is To Love Money

            Those who gamble are lovers of money. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that those who love money cannot love and serve God (Matthew 6:24).  

            To conclude, there are many more reasons as to why gambling is against the Biblical teaching. But that which is presented here are three commonsensical yet fundamental biblical reasons that disapprove of gambling. 

Did Jesus’ Disciple Thomas Minister In India?

            Many Christians in India would, normatively, believe that the Apostle Thomas, a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, visited, ministered, and died as a martyr in India. The Christian tradition is the source of this belief.

            However, a vast majority of western scholarship rejects this belief. They claim that Thomas never visited India.

            How should a lay Christian understand this dilemma and respond?

            This article is divided into two sections:

            (1) The Dogmatic View: The Certainty of Apostle Thomas’ ministry in India (Jacobite Syrian Christian narrative & Dr. Sarah Abraham Knight’s research findings).

            (2) The Probabilistic View: It is more probable than not! (Dr. Sean McDowell’s research findings).

The Dogmatic View: The Certainty of Apostle Thomas’ ministry in India

            Dr. Sarah Knight is a scholar in the history of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church in Kerala, India. Her doctoral research was the study of the history of the Syriac Orthodox Church both in Syria and in Kerala, from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.¹

            Dr. Sarah Knight’s website “Malankara Research” cites the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church’s narrative. “They believe that St. Thomas the Apostle arrived in their Malayala-country by ship, landing in Kodungalloor in 52 CE.  Here, by the amazing miracles he worked and the Gospel of Christ he preached, he was able to convert small pockets of people to Christianity.  This work was centred in 7 locations, namely, Kodungalloor, Palayur, Paravur, Gokkamangalam, Niranam, Nilackal and Kollam.  An 8th one in Tiruvithamcode is also included, but it is accorded only a ‘1/2-church’ status for some obscure reason.  In all these places the Apostle established churches and erected crosses, and eventually he was martyred in 72 CE in Mylapore on the east coast of India.

            Although his relics were removed to Edessa in Mesopotamia sometime in the late 3rd-early 4th century, this did not alter the Kerala Christians self-articulated narrative of their first conversion.”²

            Dr. Sarah Knight refutes several assertions by western scholarship to categorically affirm the presence of Apostle Thomas in India:³

Just as in the case of all Syrian Christians, to the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church of Kerala the arrival of St. Thomas the Apostle in Kerala and the evangelisation of their ancestors in the 1st c.AD is an integral and irrefutable fact which forms the key foundational narrative of their historical origin.

However, this is refuted by most Church historians especially in Western academic circles, a trend that appears to have originated in the early decades of the 18th century.  Countless analyses of the Syrian Christian tradition, its rejection, and proposals of alternative theories and their amplifications have been attempted over the past three hundred years.  With the proliferation of books and treatises written in this vein, these have gained strength to the point where these new theories are presented as ‘facts’ by scholars.

The main argument is that the St. Thomas tradition in India is a ‘myth’, and a product of ‘imagined and artificially created tradition’.  They based this on the ‘evidence’ that long-distance travel at the time was difficult to the point of improbability, that when early Church writers mentioned St. Thomas’ mission field as Parthia, Medea and India, the ‘India’ referred to was not South India but perhaps Afghanistan or Arabia, that according to Eusebius, St. Thomas was martyred in Calamina and not Mylapore, thus placing the Apostle in Mesopotamia to the end of his life,  and that of finding inconsistencies in the account given in the 2nd century Gnostic book called Acts of Thomas.  They then proceed to put forward many theories on how Christianity probably arrived in S. India, such as that it was introduced gradually by intermittently arriving un-named merchants in the 3rd or 4th century.

However, it can be seen that not a single one of these new theories is reliable or standing on good evidence. One of the striking points is that there is no other place in the world that link their Christian origin to the evangelical work of St. Thomas in such detail as that of the Kerala Christians, and no other place that claims this Apostle’s martyrdom and entombment except Mylapore in India.  In fact, after critically examining each of these new theories with an open mind, the reader is compelled to conclude that the new theories stand on even weaker ground than the St. Thomas tradition of S. India.

It is significant that European missionaries and travellers from the 14th to the 17th century in their accounts had never doubted or questioned the St. Thomas tradition of South India.  Historians and doctors of the JSOC, from St. Ephrem of the 4th c. to the late Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatius Yacoub III in 1948, and many others in between reaffirm the tradition of India regarding St. Thomas.

Details and citations can be seen in the following talks:

St. Thomas Part 1: the Blessed City of Edessa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WeK858UTKc

St. Thomas Part 2: A critical evaluation and refutation of Western scholarly arguments rejecting the SC tradition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR_gYZhSTLQ

St. Thomas Part 3: the Kerala Jacobite Syrian Christian tradition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqXXKbmlH9A

The Probabilistic View: It Is More Probable Than Not!

            Dr. Sean McDowell is well known for his research on The Fate of the Apostles, which is also the title of his book. In his book, he has examined the martyrdom accounts of Christ’s disciples. He is a Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University and a best-selling author of over 15 books.

            Dr. Sean McDowell asserts that it is more probable that the Apostle Thomas ministered in India than not. He writes:⁴

The Eastern Church has consistently held that Thomas ministered in India. Alphonse Mingana notes:

It is the constant tradition of the Eastern Church that the Apostle Thomas evangelized India, and there is no historian, no poet, no breviary, no liturgy, and no writer of any kind who, having the opportunity of speaking of Thomas, does not associate his name with India. Some writers mention also Parthia and Persia among the lands evangelized by him, but all of them are unanimous in the matter of India. The name of Thomas can never be dissociated from that of India.[1]

But how reliable is the evidence?

Can We Trust the Historical Record?

Perhaps the biggest challenge in assessing the Thomas tradition is that the historical record is unconventional on Western standards. No written history of India exists until the arrival of the Portuguese in the sixteenth century. As a result, many critics have claimed that since India lacked historical writing it also lacked a sense of history. Only recently has this assumption been challenged. While early India may have lacked extensive historical writings, it does not follow that it also lacked a historical consciousness.[2]

The Thomas Christians, for instance, still strongly hold to oral traditions that claim they were founded by the apostle Thomas. In place of written documentation are songs and poems, such as the Thomma Parvam, which was not written down until the early seventeenth century. This is not a good reason to glibly dismiss their historical value.[3] In fact, Gillman and Klimkeit note a double standard among Western scholars who dismiss apostolic roots in India, because the tradition is deemed too late and legend-filled, and yet are ready to overlook the fact that the earliest record of Patrick of Ireland comes from the late eighth century, roughly three centuries after his death.[4]

Was Travel to India Possible in the First Century?

In the first century, an apostolic mission from Jerusalem to India was entirely physically possible. India may have been more open to direct communication with the West during the first two hundred years of the Common Era than during any other period before the coming of the Portuguese in the seventeenth century.[5] Trade between Rome and India flourished in the first and second centuries, at least from the time of Claudius (c. AD 45) to the time of Hadrian (d. AD 138). Significant routes and gaps through the mountains could be traversed quite efficiently.[6] There is no good reason to doubt that a trip by the apostles Thomas to India was entirely possible.

But the key question is whether it is probable.

Did Thomas Minister in India?

Early church writings consistently link Thomas to India and Parthia.[7] Three points stand out regarding their witness to Thomas. First, the testimony that he went to India is unanimous, consistent, and reasonably early. Second, we have no contradictory evidence stating Thomas did not go to India or Parthia or that he went elsewhere. Third, fathers both in the East and in the West confirm the tradition. Since the beginning of the third century it has become an almost undisputable tradition that Thomas ministered in India. In addition to the traditions about Thomas in India, there is additional evidence that Christianity made it to India by at least the second century, if not earlier.[8]

While the evidence is not conclusive, a few reasons seem to indicate that it is at least probable that Thomas ministered in India. First, we have no doubt a mission from Jerusalem to Rome was physically possible in the first century. Second, Thomas had seen the risen Jesus (John 20:26-29), was zealous in his willingness to suffer and die for him (John 11:16), had received the missionary call from Jesus (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8), and, given all we know of him, fits the profile of someone who would partake of such an endeavor. While the case for Thomas in India is more provisional than for Peter and Paul in Rome, it does seem more probable than not that he ministered in India.

            To conclude, two views are presented in this article. The dogmatic view claims that Thomas certainly ministered in India, and the other view - a more moderate view - claims that it is more probable than not that Thomas ministered in India.

            As for me, my thought process aligns with the probabilistic view for the simple reason that my personal research in this subject is not deep enough to affirm or negate the dogmatic view.

Endnotes:

¹https://urhotheway.com/lectures-on-st-thomas-and-the-syrian-christians-of-kerala/

²https://malankararesearch.org/the-faith-and-tradition-regarding-st-thomas/

³https://malankararesearch.org/2021/10/13/answers-some-questions-on-the-official-position-of-the-sc-on-st-thomas-whether-the-apostle-made-bishops-in-kerala-and-why-bishops-came-from-antioch/

⁴https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/did-the-apostle-thomas-minister-in-india

Websites last accessed on 18^th November 2021. 

The Red Letter Words In The Bible Are Not The Words Of Jesus!

            For quite some time I believed that the red letter words are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. But when I came to understand that these words may not be the exact words of Jesus, I was disappointed.

            Two questions are in order: (1) Is it certain that the red letter words are not the words of Jesus?  (2) If so, how does it impact our faith in the Lord Jesus?

            First, how do we know for certain that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus?

            New Testament scholar, Daniel B. Wallace claims that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus, “Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” ¹

            Dr. William Lane Craig believes that every serious student of the Gospels should avoid the use of the red letter editions of the Gospels. He writes:²

The Gospels were written in Greek, but Jesus taught in Aramaic. So even a red letter edition of the Greek New Testament would not give us the actual words of Jesus.

Granted, Jesus probably spoke Greek, at least enough to get by in his trade as a carpenter, since Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, as a result of the pre-Roman conquests by Alexander the Great. Even though the Romans spoke Latin, in their dealings with Palestinians, they probably conversed in Greek—hence, the arresting centurion’s question to Paul: “Do you know Greek?” (Acts 21.37).

But in teaching his fellow Jews Jesus would naturally have spoken Aramaic. So what we have in the Gospels are Greek translations of what Jesus claimed and taught. Only rarely do we get glimpses of the original Aramaic words spoken by Jesus, as for example, Jesus’ words from the cross given in Mark: “At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’” (Mark 15.34).

Moreover, we need to keep in mind that in a culture that lacked even the device of quotation marks, the distinction between direct and indirect discourse can be blurred. Read the account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John’s Gospel 3.10-21, ignoring the quotation marks introduced by the English translators, and ask yourself where John’s direct quotation of Jesus ends and John’s commentary begins. Or read Galatians 2.11-21 about Paul’s public dispute with Peter and ask yourself where Paul stops recording what he said at the time and begins his present reflections upon what happened. It’s not clear. So in a culture where the distinction between direct and indirect discourse is not always clear, giving a paraphrase or the gist of what a person said rather than his very words is perfectly acceptable.

The Gospel writers employed common techniques of their day in giving the teachings of Jesus, such as paraphrase, summary, omission, clarification, contextualization, and so on.

So it’s very misleading to print Jesus’ words in red, as though we have the original words of Jesus recorded there.

What we want to show is that the Gospel writers gave an accurate representation of what Jesus of Nazareth said and taught. This is where New Testament historical-critical scholarship can be helpful. Scholars will sometimes say that in a particular teaching attributed to Jesus, we hear the very voice of Jesus (ipsissima vox); that is to say, something that renders very closely (in Greek) what Jesus said. His teaching on the Kingdom of God would be a good example. Everyone recognizes that the proclamation of the coming of God’s Kingdom or reign lay at the heart of the teaching of Jesus. On other occasions, scholars think that we have the very words (ipsissima verba) of Jesus, that is, a Greek expression that translates almost verbatim what Jesus said. His use of the expression “the Son of Man” as a term of self-reference would be a good example. Instances of this sort would have the best claim to be printed in red; but then we artificially mar the Gospels by such a device...

The use of red letter editions of the Gospels ought to be shunned by serious students of the Gospels, since the device is fundamentally misleading as to the nature of the Gospel accounts.

            It is now clear that the red letter words need not necessarily be the very words of the Lord Jesus.

            Second, how does this impact my faith?

            Although I was disappointed that the red letter words may not be the very words of our Lord Jesus, I am thankful to the New Testament scholars for their integrity and honesty in reporting the truth.

            We may not possess the original writings of the Biblical authors (the autographs). But we possess an embarrassment of riches of the New Testament manuscripts. The field of Textual Criticism offers us a way to retrieve the writings of the autographs from the available manuscripts. Thereby, we understand that the Bible we have is the same as that of the autographs (99.5% pure and without any doctrinal distortion). Thus we are confident of the reliability of the New Testament.

            The fact that the Bible is reliable and that it records the very thoughts or the very voice of Jesus offers me the greatest confidence and comfort. The icing on the cake would have been the authenticity of the red letter words. But it does not matter!

Endnotes:

¹https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/red-letter-gospels

Websites last accessed on 13^th November 2021.

 

Evilution of ABCs: The GayBCs!

             When evolution is plain evil it is evilution!

            ABCs are going through an evilution! There is now an evil competitor to the traditional words associated with alphabets: ‘A for Apple,’ ‘B for Boy,’ ‘C for Cat,’ ‘D for Dog’ etc.

            The left has unveiled the GayBCs, the LGBTQ version of the words associated with alphabets. The LGBTQ community is now indoctrinating young children with the LGBTQ terminology.

            A book entitled “The GayBCs” is leading this evilution. ‘A for Ally,’ ‘C for Comin Out,’ ‘D for Drag,’ ‘G for Gay,’ ‘L for Lesbian,’ ‘O for Orientation,’ and ‘Q for Queer’ the list goes on.

            Young children will be in great peril, for they will be indoctrinated with evil at a very young age.

            How should we Christians respond?

            The progressive Christian community will be elated at this development. Ignore them, but pray for them.

            Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity should teach the truth from the Bible to our children. Children should be taught by their parents and the churches.

            This is our bounden duty.

            Our children should not only know the truth, but should also know how to defend the truth.

            Let's hope and pray Christian parents and churches recognize the perilous times we live in and act accordingly to protect our children.