Doubting Thomas

Ghost Buster

Like many many athiests at one point I was the most devout craw thumping little catholic going. A dedicated altar boy to boot. Then I read The Bible and thought "Hang on a minute. Thats just plain nasty!'. I read it again and spotted even more nasty stuff. I had a quick trawl through the old testement, had a few nightmares and began my journey toward athiesm.
But the most troubling bit of Cathechism i can recall from my catholic school days was the story of Doubting Thomas.
The gist is : A bloke called Jesus dies in a fairly unpleasant, definate and public manner. A few days later he walks into a room full of his friends and they all go 'Ah look. theres yer man. Fair enough!!!"
They meet Thomas a bit later and Thomas, the big thicko has issues with believing that his dead boss is back walking about. Actually has the audacity to want proof, the irrational twit!
Sure enough Jesus pops back into the lads gaff a few days later, Thomas only then believes it and Jesus says "
Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'
I remember as a kid thinking that this is nothing less than a call for blind acceptance of anything, regardless of how ridiculous it is and the villification of common sense and logic. Though in my ten year old mind I probably just said "Thats daft!!"http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/doubting-thomas-faq.htm

PDN

Oh dear. It's amazing how that atheist round of Chinese whispers keeps producing this ineffectual and poorly-thought argument from time to time.

Thomas had, during the 3 years he was with Jesus, seen numerous miracles - including the raising of the dead. He had also heard Jesus predict His own death and resurrection. Therefore, on the basis of the observed evidence, he should have had faith in Christ's resurrection.

It's nothing to do with 'blind faith' or any other similarly nonsensical strawmen.

chozometroid

Thomas didn't have enough trust/faith in Christ to believe what Christ said without seeing it with his own eyes. Those who trust Christ and have faith in what He has promised without yet seeing it with their own eyes are blessed.

It's like if your mother lived in another country and you promised to come for the holiday. You are poor and have no free time, and your mom thinks it would be a miracle if you came, but you promised you would and she trust what you say even though it's highly improbable. You arrive and see some old friends. Some of them tell her you came.

1. She rejoices and feels great comfort and relief that you were able to make it and you kept your promise, but has not yet seen you.

2. She says, "he promised he would come, but I need to see him with my own eyes before I believe he actually did keep his promise."

Outcome 1 demonstrates your mother's trust and confidence in you and your character. She has faith in your honesty, integrity, and perserverance.

Outcome 2 demonstrates that she really didn't believe what you said, but was only hopeful that it might come to pass. You arrive and say, "I'm here mother, I told you I would come. Had you believed I came without having to see me first would show me that you really did have faith in me. You only believe me now that you are actually looking at me!"

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Oh dear. It's amazing how that atheist round of Chinese whispers keeps producing this ineffectual and poorly-thought argument from time to time.

Thomas had, during the 3 years he was with Jesus, seen numerous miracles - including the raising of the dead. He had also heard Jesus predict His own death and resurrection. Therefore, on the basis of the observed evidence, he should have had faith in Christ's resurrection.

It's nothing to do with 'blind faith' or any other similarly nonsensical strawmen.

Luke 24:

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

...

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

John 20:
Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed


Can you explain why Thomas is singled out for criticism? Of the remaining 11 disciples not one of them believed without seeing evidence and all bar Peter completely rejected eye witness accounts of the empty tomb, how was Thomas any different? They spent as much time as Thomas with Jesus and some had witnessed even greater miracles than Thomas, so what was different in Thomas' case that he is identified as being doubting, when all of the disciples were?

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Can you explain why Thomas is singled out for criticism? Of the remaining 11 disciples not one of them believed without seeing evidence and all bar Peter completely rejected eye witness accounts of the empty tomb, how was Thomas any different? They spent as much time as Thomas with Jesus and some had witnessed even greater miracles than Thomas, so what was different in Thomas' case that he is identified as being doubting, when all of the disciples were?

A straightforward reading of the resurrection accounts would give the impression to any neutral reader that Thomas was doing something very different to the other disciples.

The initial response to the report of the women, sadly, reflects the poor status of women in Jewish society.

Then we see, very naturally, witnesses who are full of joy and yet almost afraid to believe something so wonderful. This would be similar to someone winning the lottery and asking their friend to check the numbers because they can hardly believe the evidence of their own eyes.

Thomas, however, rejected the explicit testimony of his fellow disciples, not out of joy and amazement, but in a way that implied that they were liars.

As I said, no neutral reader would see Thomas' behaviour as being in any way similar to that of the other disciples. That conclusion only ever occurs to those with a vested interest in discrediting the text.

Coriolanus

chozometroid wrote: »

Thomas didn't have enough trust/faith in Christ to believe what Christ said without seeing it with his own eyes. Those who trust Christ and have faith in what He has promised without yet seeing it with their own eyes are blessed.

It's like if your mother lived in another country and you promised to come for the holiday. You are poor and have no free time, and your mom thinks it would be a miracle if you came, but you promised you would and she trust what you say even though it's highly improbable. You arrive and see some old friends. Some of them tell her you came.

1. She rejoices and feels great comfort and relief that you were able to make it and you kept your promise, but has not yet seen you.

2. She says, "he promised he would come, but I need to see him with my own eyes before I believe he actually did keep his promise."

Outcome 1 demonstrates your mother's trust and confidence in you and your character. She has faith in your honesty, integrity, and perserverance.

Outcome 2 demonstrates that she really didn't believe what you said, but was only hopeful that it might come to pass. You arrive and say, "I'm here mother, I told you I would come. Had you believed I came without having to see me first would show me that you really did have faith in me. You only believe me now that you are actually looking at me!"

Well, outcome 2 could also demonstrate a mind self-protecting psychosis because the mother would be so hurt that you hadn't come to seen her that "He couldn't possibly have come all this way and not visited me" ergo, he hadn't come at all.

lugha

chozometroid wrote: »

Thomas didn't have enough trust/faith in Christ to believe what Christ said without seeing it with his own eyes. Those who trust Christ and have faith in what He has promised without yet seeing it with their own eyes are blessed.

But who are those? Does it refer to the other companions of Christ as Thomas was, or does it refer to modern day Christians? I would presume the latter. Thomas would surely have some considerable first hand knowledge of Jesus performing miracles and generally furnishing him with considerable evidence that He was, as He claimed, the son of God. Doubting his resurrection would be akin to someone in the modern day doubting that Bill Cullen might make a decent stab at a new business venture, or that Alex Ferguson just might land another trophy in the next couple of years. Foolish Thomas might be more apt that doubting Thomas. None of us had the advantages that Thomas had. We only know of Christ's promises by them being passed down through dozens of generations by mere mortals and we can only hope (or have faith!) that the original message was not distorted. Certainly my experience as a child being brought up in a RC environment was that there was a virtue in accepting the truth of the resurrection without asking for evidence, and the unfortunate Thomas was wheeled out to make this point. If this is not the case, as is being asserted here, then how does the story have any relevance to any modern day Christian who have not witnessed the hard evidence that Thomas had?

smcgiff

PDN wrote: »

Oh dear. It's amazing how that atheist round of Chinese whispers keeps producing this ineffectual and poorly-thought argument from time to time.

Thomas had, during the 3 years he was with Jesus, seen numerous miracles - including the raising of the dead. He had also heard Jesus predict His own death and resurrection. Therefore, on the basis of the observed evidence, he should have had faith in Christ's resurrection.

It's nothing to do with 'blind faith' or any other similarly nonsensical strawmen.

That's a circular argument PDN. How, after witnessing "miracles" could any of the disciples NOT believe in the resurrection?

To use your word's It's amazing how people more than 2,000 years after this story was first told that people can believe in Jesus's resurrection, when people of the time, (also, with much more excuse to believe the supernatural could exist) didn't believe that Jesus was resurrected - although we are led to believe they saw him walk on water, calm storms and bring people back to life.

PDN

smcgiff wrote: »

That's a circular argument PDN. How, after witnessing "miracles" could any of the disciples NOT believe in the resurrection?

Maybe you don't understand what 'circular argument' means?

It would be very easy for a disciple not to believe in the resurrection. Crucifixion was a particularly brutal and humiliating form of execution and was designed not just to inflict pain and death, but also to convince any symathisers that the condemned victim was utterly defeated.

To use your word's It's amazing how people more than 2,000 years after this story was first told that people can believe in Jesus's resurrection, when people of the time, (also, with much more excuse to believe the supernatural could exist) didn't believe that Jesus was resurrected - although we are led to believe they saw him walk on water, calm storms and bring people back to life.

Much more a case of twisting my words, rather than using my words.

All of those still alive who saw Jesus walking on the water came to believe in the Resurrection - so maybe you should take the time to familiarise yourself with the biblical record?

smcgiff

PDN wrote: »

It would be very easy for a disciple not to believe in the resurrection. Crucifixion was a particularly brutal and humiliating form of execution and was designed not just to inflict pain and death, but also to convince any symathisers that the condemned victim was utterly defeated.

I'm sorry - why would the nature of Jesus's death trump the miracles they had witnessed?

Without witnessing any of the miracles yourself, you believe over 2,000 years later that despite his apparent defeat that he was resurrected, yet it's understandable those that witnessed the miracles would have floundered.

PDN wrote: »

All of those still alive who saw Jesus walking on the water came to believe in the Resurrection - so maybe you should take the time to familiarise yourself with the biblical record?

Are you saying NONE of the disciples that witnessed miracles at any time doubted the resurrection?

chozometroid

lugha wrote: »

But who are those? Does it refer to the other companions of Christ as Thomas was, or does it refer to modern day Christians? I would presume the latter. Thomas would surely have some considerable first hand knowledge of Jesus performing miracles and generally furnishing him with considerable evidence that He was, as He claimed, the son of God. Doubting his resurrection would be akin to someone in the modern day doubting that Bill Cullen might make a decent stab at a new business venture, or that Alex Ferguson just might land another trophy in the next couple of years. Foolish Thomas might be more apt that doubting Thomas. None of us had the advantages that Thomas had. We only know of Christ's promises by them being passed down through dozens of generations by mere mortals and we can only hope (or have faith!) that the original message was not distorted. Certainly my experience as a child being brought up in a RC environment was that there was a virtue in accepting the truth of the resurrection without asking for evidence, and the unfortunate Thomas was wheeled out to make this point. If this is not the case, as is being asserted here, then how does the story have any relevance to any modern day Christian who have not witnessed the hard evidence that Thomas had?

"Here" refers to which post?

I'll reply anyways. I say it is completely relevant to modern-day Christians. The fact that Thomas had doubts even though he walked with Christ actually demonstrates that we are not at some disadvantage. Faith in Christ does not automatically come through first-hand experience. Faith in Christ comes by actually putting your trust in Him and allowing Him to prove Himself to you. Thomas obviously did not put his trust in Christ, but just believed only because he saw everything first-hand. This shallow relationship was not based on trust, and as soon as Christ left his presence, he had no faith in Him. (I'm making some assumptions about Thomas that may not be true, but the idea behind it is what is important)

lugha

chozometroid wrote: »

"Here" refers to which post?

Sorry, I didn't express that very well. What I mean is that the Christians posting on this thread, and on similar ones in the past, deny that the lesson to learn from the story of doubting Thomas is that blind faith is a virtue.

chozometroid wrote: »

Thomas obviously did not put his trust in Christ, but just believed only because he saw everything first-hand.

I find it hard to understand why Thomas would not put his trust in Christ if he had personally witnessed even one miracle. If I witnessed just one miracle and I was confident no deception (self included) was involved, I would certainly cross the road.

chozometroid

lugha wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't express that very well. What I mean is that the Christians posting on this thread, and on similar ones in the past, deny that the lesson to learn from the story of doubting Thomas is that blind faith is a virtue.


I find it hard to understand why Thomas would not put his trust in Christ if he had personally witnessed even one miracle. If I witnessed just one miracle and I was confident no deception (self included) was involved, I would certainly cross the road.

I still consider the idea that the whole thing is represented incorrectly. Perhaps Thomas' "doubt" was just shock/disbelief, in a postive sense. It's like, "I won't believe it 'til I see it with my own eyes...it's too good to be true."
Maybe he didn't actually doubt Christ at all. Then when Jesus was standing before him, Jesus' reply to him about "because you have seen, you believe, blessed are those haven't seen, but still believe," is not actually saying anything "bad" about Thomas. It could be taken in a completely positive "playful" light (or at least no worse than when Peter walked on water then fell: “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”), with the added comment about those who believe without seeing being blessed.
I'm not sure if the original Greek gives a better impression of the intention behind the statements.
We are all imperfect beings who are continually growing in our relationship with Christ. I decided that I'm giving Thomas unfair treatment.

Fanny Cradock

smcgiff wrote: »

I'm sorry - why would the nature of Jesus's death trump the miracles they had witnessed?

Because they believed emphatically that Jesus was dead. The earliest Christians came to see the resurrection as the turning point in the cosmos. This was moment when God's long interaction with mankind finally reached its perigee - where sin and death were defeated and forgiveness was offered to each person. All other miracles were small fry compared to this.

smcgiff

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because they believed emphatically that Jesus was dead. The earliest Christians came to see the resurrection as the turning point in the cosmos. This was moment when God's long interaction with mankind finally reached its perigee - where sin and death were defeated and forgiveness was offered to each person.

If what you are saying is that when Jesus was resurrected the disciples expected far greater immediate consequences of his resurrection and were unnerved when this didn't happen, then that answers some questions.

However, two questions...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

All other miracles were small fry compared to this.

You don't get much bigger than bringing someone back from the dead, although appreciate everything is relative.

Secondly, if the disciples were expecting "fireworks" at the resurrection, how did they get it so wrong? Surely, this is something they would have discussed amongst themselves and with Jesus before the resurrection.

Apologies if I am picking you up incorrectly.

nationalgeo

PDN wrote: »

Oh dear. It's amazing how that atheist round of Chinese whispers keeps producing this ineffectual and poorly-thought argument from time to time.

Chinese whispers?

PDN wrote: »

Thomas had, during the 3 years he was with Jesus, seen numerous miracles - including the raising of the dead. He had also heard Jesus predict His own death and resurrection. Therefore, on the basis of the observed evidence, he should have had faith in Christ's resurrection.

Evidence? Please forgive me, but you are basing your opinion on a gospel that was written at least 50 years afterwards. There is no proof of a thomas or a jesus.

PDN wrote: »

It's nothing to do with 'blind faith' or any other similarly nonsensical strawmen.

Where does your reason for this come from.

PDN

nationalgeo wrote: »

Chinese whispers?

That would be understandable, but usually these standard atheist strawmen are word for word the same - almost as if someone had cut and pasted from a poorly thought out website.

Evidence? Please forgive me, but you are basing your opinion on a gospel that was written at least 50 years afterwards. There is no proof of a thomas or a jesus.

Maybe you should read the whole thread before responding to a post?

The OP had asked a question about how Thomas is presented in the New Testament. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to answer the OP with further references to the New Testament.

Where does your reason for this come from.

My reason for stating that the story of Thomas has nothing to do with 'bind faith'? It comes from my knowledge of history, theology, the Greek language, and First Century literature.