Being a main-stream Christian and a main-stream Wikipedian I say: that might be true, and thus the text in the article should always stress: "according to the myth". Christianity is (among other things) about symbolology, so the aforementioned general criticism shouldn't be regarded as a disclaimer against the validity of Indian Christendom, just as a criticism against the bad habit of confusing historical facts with mythological stories indicating the spiritual heritage and spiritual orientation of Indian Christianity, that should be regarded as a declaration of intent, much more than a history lesson. IMHO. ... said:  (bork²)