you made lots of judgments and bar psychoanalisys of forum members, of all monks over 16 centuries, of saints, and to some point even of Scripture writers when you claim to know their motivations.
And you are surprised that people do that to you? It's far easier to psychoanalyze *you*, even through the Internet, then the minds of men or women who first decided to go to the desert.
So, for your ludicrous claim that monasticism is an Indian institution transplanted to Christianity.
1) Let's suppose for the sake of argument that it was. You are writing with a Roman alphabet created by pagans. The paper of your Bible was created by pagan Chinese. The very ideology of democracy most of us live in was created in pagan Greece, informed by a pagan worldview. The cherumbim found in the Temple ordained by God looked awfullty similar to sphynxes probably because Hebrews first saw that image while in Egypt. God makes all things new and infusing His Grace in them make purify them. Get over it.
2) Monasticism as we know it today probably started in Egypt. You could have (wrongly) claimed it was influenced by Egyptian practices but I guess India is more exotic. So tonsure looks like something they did in Isis cults? Sticking to the Bible looks awfully like what the Pharisees did with the Scriptures when "challenging" Jesus assumptions about Himself. Analogy is not causality. But since you hide that bad assumption (analogy implies causality) under the argument of "probability", you have to prove that said primitive Christian Church who were, according to you so zealot to the point of being against icons and veneration of the saints, all of a sudden decided that they would copy Indian pagan organizations and throw in some Isis cult rituals for good measure.
3) There is no cenobitic monastic life in the Gospel but there is monastic life as some forum members showed. It's who have to prove that living like John the Baptist, St. Paul and Elias is good while they are isolated, but if they could get together to live helping each other in their respective ministries that would be paganism. Or that one woman living apart from the world in prayer and devotion is good enough for God to be born of Her, but if 10 of them lived together that would be a reenactment of Isis mysteries.
4) There are monks who are missionaries, like Paul, there are monks who live secluded silent lives, like the Virgin Mary. While Christianity had few members, there was no need for people who take it seriously to get together because they were *already* small self-helping communities. Once it became popular, some felt the need to build smaller communities, but because they were holy and humble, these smaller communities were not to shun Christians weaker in faith, but to strengthen them.
As regarding the titles of Patriarchs, it's the honor due to the Apostles. Of course the Apostles wouldn't use them, because they are the ones who are great and in being truly great you both deny honor to yourself and acknowledge to those who are due. The less honor you have, the more you have to acknowledge the true honor of others. We respect the Apostolic grace that is in the current successors of the Apostles. True, some of them are personally unworthy of that, but the honor over them is greater than their personal misery. We don't leave Christ just because we see Judas in His group.
As for icons, read the how God ordained the interior of the Temple. There are several celestial figures there, and the Apostles *and* Jesus worshipped there. People did not venerate by kissing, but they did venerate them. Maybe two thousand years from now 3 hops will substitute kissing as a show of affection and then people will give 3 hops before their children, their parents and icons. The externals may change, the spirit doesn't.
God *demanded* veneration of nothing less than the image of a snake to provide healing for the Hebrews in the desert. Nobody seemed to confuse that with idol worship. Actually, as God is very pedagogical, the fact that He condemned people for worshiping the golden calf and healed those who venerated the snake on the Cross and ordained the images of Cherubim in the Temple, He Himself is teaching the difference between worship and veneration. Today, instead of the snake, we are lucky enough to be able to behold the Lamb of God Himself, the actual "thing" and not the symbol only. We should rejoice in that, instead of slander it.