I looked at the [*Wikipedia* page on the St. Thomas Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians) , the oldest school of Indian Christians who follow the teachings of St. Thomas the Apostle, who had travelled to India to preach. However, I couldn’t find what their beliefs *were* from that page. Were they Trinitarian or Unitarian? Are there any academic references (books, papers) that discuss their religious beliefs on the nature of God, Jesus, etc?

I have read in numerous commentaries on John 20 that Thomas first met the resurrected Christ on Sunday, the first day of the week. Here is one illustrative example, though others I've looked at are similar in substance: > Verses 26-31 We have here an account of another appearance of Christ > to his disciples, after his resurrection, when Thomas was now with > them. And concerning this we may observe,I. When it was that Christ > repeated his visit to his disciples: **After eight days, that day > seven-night after he rose, which must therefore be, as that was, the > first day of the week.** Matthew Henry's commentary on John 20 [emphasis is mine] Here are the relevant verses from the Bible: > John 20 (NKJV) > > 19 Then, **the same day at evening, being the first day > of the week**, when the doors were shut where the disciples were > assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, > and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 24 Now Thomas, called the > Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The > other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he > said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and > put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His > side, I will not believe.” 26 **And after eight days His disciples were > again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came,** the doors being shut, > and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Perhaps I'm being naïve, but starting from the Lord's day, Sunday, I count "and after eight days" (Greek: "καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ") to mean the Monday of the following week, that is, eight days after the first Sunday. It seems that the commentaries I've read interpret it to mean "on the eight day", which would indeed work out to the following Sunday. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how "after eight days" can be understood in this way. So, my question is: **On what day of the week did Thomas first meet the resurrected Christ? Was it on a Sunday, a Monday, or some other day of the week?** My main interest in this question is to understand if these verses in John 20 are indeed a valid support for the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday. I don't question the practice (there are many other verses in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Revelation that support it); I am simply trying to understand whether John 20 indeed displays the first case of Christians meeting as Christians on two consecutive Sundays. I'm having a hard time seeing this in this particular chapter.

Is Saint Doubting Thomas the Patron Saint of any of the following: 1. Rational Theology 2. Science 3. Skepticism (religious [atheism] and others) *Deus Magnus Est*

Apropos [Ken Graham's Question of 18th August](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96729/looking-for-sources-of-mediaeval-church-architecture-that-shows-and-or-explains) on medieval church architecture. One rarely comes across literature on the big crosses constructed around churches. For instance, you find an obelisk, a construction that traces its origin to Egyptian culture, at the centre of St Peter's Square, Rome. Of course, it has a cross on the top. Curious enough, the churches of Southern India, some of which trace their origin to the first century, have such peculiar constructions. St Thomas, the Apostle is believed to have reached India in 52 AD and established a few churches. The Portuguese who landed in 1498 rebuilt many such ancient churches, supplementing the local architecture with their own (See [Christianity in Kerala: Church Architecture](https://www.keralatourism.org/christianity/church-architecture/24)) . One particular feature is that of three crosses on a pedestal—erected on the south, north, and west of prominent churches, which almost invariably faced east. Some of these crosses, erected at a distance of say, half a mile, from the church, are accompanied by a small chapel locally called 'Kappela', the word tracing its root to the Portuguese language. These chapels would not host the Holy Eucharist and would be used for devotions like rosary and novena. Historians say that the construction of such an extension of the main church by way of crosses, was in vogue even before the arrival of the Portuguese since some of them have inscriptions in Syriac language. That would imply that the custom had originated with the Jews or any other people like the Chinese, Persians, and Arabs who had settled in India for trade. I am not aware if the tradition can be seen in the West. From where did the tradition of erecting three crosses around a church originate?

[Doubting Thomas (Apostle, Patron Saint of India)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle) was the naysayer who just wouldn't believe in the miracle that defines Christianity (the resurrection). There are paintings that depict the Apostle Thomas poking his finger (ouch!!) into the risen Christ's cruxifixion wounds, symbolizing the lack/absence of faith. Many, many, years earlier, [Sanjaya Belatthiputta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaya_Belatthiputta) , an Indian ascetic was expounding a radical brand of skepticism (the five-fold denial, if you're interested) that took Buddhist skepticism and went to town with it. Rumors go that skepticism (*doubt* in all its forms) has Indian roots; at the very least, there's an uncertainty as to whence skepticism sprang from, Greece? India? Both? Neither? 😌 Coincidence ... or not ... or both ... or neither?

Judas Iscariot is the twin brother of St. Thomas the Apostle ? I am not saying that St. Thomas the Apostle's is the twin brother of Judas Iscariot. I am simply seeking resource historical information that states this so. Some years ago, a priest friend of mine stated that there was an obscure legend or tradition that St. Thomas the Apostle, who was called the twin, claimed that his twin brother was no one other than the infamous traitor of Our Lord, Judas Iscariot. My priest friend in no longer amongst us and I have never known him to be wrong on such things. I have not been able to locate a source of any such legend or tradition. Can anyone locate a possible source of this obscure legend or tradition?

At John 20, Thomas initially refuses to believe other disciples' accounts of Jesus having been raised from the dead. When Jesus appears to Thomas, Thomas famously exclaims > "My Lord and my God!" Do Chalcedonian Trinitarians who believe Thomas was claiming Jesus = God here, also believe that Thomas would have held therefore that God could have and had died?

I recently read some very well-known gnostic writings that are under the name of "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" and "Gospel of Thomas", but they aren't written by Judah or Thomas. I don't really know what Gnosticism is. I read something about God having more "emanations", some "aeons", a "bad Demiurge" that created us. This doesn't make sense. I searched on Google about this. I understand that Gnosticism is a religion that add on top of Christianity 4000 years old Greek philosophy. I didn't really understands. What did those people that wrote those 2 gospels in the name of Judah and Thomas believe about Jesus. And the so called "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" seemed to me like a big heresy, but "Gospel of Thomas" didn't seem to be heretic or gnostic, in the text of it is presented a bit of the apostle's life like it is presented in the New Testament, there are presented some of Jesus's statements about loving enemies, helping poor. I didn't see anything about God "emanations", "aeons" and a "bad Demiurge", the "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" was full of those aberrations, so I don't understand why scholars call the "Gospel of Thomas" as being gnostic.

John 20:28 has Thomas saying > "My Lord and my God!" For Trinitarians, this line is fairly straightforward - Thomas is recognizing that Jesus is not just Lord but also God. How do Biblical Unitarians understand this line, in particular in terms of how context can inform our reading of this line?

The Gospels do not mention the real name of St Thomas, unlike in the case of other apostles. The name Thomas (Koine Greek: Θωμᾶς) given for the apostle in the Gospels is derived from the Aramaic or Syriac: ܬܐܘܡܐ‎ *Toma*, equivalently from Hebrew *Teom*, meaning "twin". The equivalent term for twin in Greek, which is also used in the New Testament, is Δίδυμος Didymus. {Courtesy: Wikipedia} So, if Didymus and Thomas were in fact nick-names, what was the real name of St Thomas the Apostle? **What do Catholic traditions have to say on this?**

In John 20, Jesus is resurrected and is showing Thomas the wounds in his hands, to prove that he is risen. In [John 20:28–29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+20%3A28-29&version=ESV) , we see Thomas's response: > 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” This passage is often used as evidence of Jesus's divinity, since Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for calling him "God" like the angel does in [Revelation 19:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+19:10&version=ESV) , for example. Since Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God, how do they explain Thomas's exclamation, and Jesus's response?

Did St. Thomas the apostle come to India? Most of the Indian people believe that he came to south India, and spread the good news even before the Roman Catholic Church is formed. However, the church doesn't accept this teaching. What is the truth?

As told in the gospel according to John, following the crucifixion, the resurrected Jesus appears in front of his disciples and greets them (John 20:19-21). The disciples then run off to tell the only disciple who was not present during Jesus' visit, Thomas, that they had witnessed the resurrected Jesus. John 20:24-25 (NIV) *Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”* Since Thomas did not encounter the risen Jesus as the other apostles did, he decides to maintain skepticism regarding his resurrection. Speaking for myself I respect Thomas' approach. Just because he was not there with the other disciples does not mean Jesus had not actually revealed himself, but if he were to merely take their word for it then by that standard he would have to accept any word of mouth relating any miraculous claim that was supposedly witnessed by anyone ever. So until Jesus reveals himself personally to Thomas he declares that he would remain unbelieving. Jesus then in John 20:26-27 reveals himself to Thomas and he comes to acknowledge his resurrection. But then Jesus says the following: John 20:29 (NIV)*Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”* Jesus in a way rebukes Thomas, telling him that he has believed because he had seen, but that if you have believed without seeing then you are blessed. What is deduced from this is that those who make the leap of faith are "better" or more appreciated than those who rely on concrete evidence and who are otherwise unconvinced. Evidence should be the basis of anything purporting to be the truth. If Christianity is true then it should be substantiated by evidence in order that one might be convinced. A person who does not base his faith on evidence might as well have believed in anything other than Christianity, because his faith is arbitrary and not founded on anything. Therefore Thomas in his sincerity declares that he is unconvinced by the words related to him by other disciples and demands superior evidence. So why is the person who is sincere in his pursuit of truth and who requests better evidence is lesser (according to Jesus) than that who had made the leap of faith? EDIT: I have just been reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, where the author interviews acclaimed New Testament scholar Dr.Craig Blomberg who shares my understanding of the verse at-hand, as page 76 of the book reads: "He [Blomberg] was quiet for a moment, then continued 'You know, it's ironic: The Bible considers it praiseworthy to have a faith that does not require evidence. Remember how Jesus replied to doubting Thomas: "You believe because you see; blessed are those who have not seen yet believe"'"

This is a follow-up to my previous question. Thomas had received the message from his fellow disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. Being the skeptic that he is, he then rejected their testimony saying that he would not believe until he had seen Jesus for himself. (John 20:25) This puts us, modern day readers of the gospel, in an awkward situation. Thomas' evidence was vastly superior to ours. Not only did he have evidence from direct eye-witness accounts, he could even interact with these witnesses and ask them questions about their testimony. On top of that, Thomas had previously met Jesus personally and had witnessed other miracles of his doing. Everything taken into account, Thomas did not hold this as vindication of the resurrection, and Jesus being considerate of that decided to live up to Thomas' standards by manifesting himself directly. Our sources on the other hand are accounts written after the time of Jesus, none written by eye-witness accounts (unless you consider Matthew and John traditions to be reliable, which most scholars believe to be anonymous) and most of the gospels, the synoptic gospels, are thought to have been based on a common written source rather than be independent testimonies of Jesus' ministry.) Regarding Paul, we read that he was a Pharisee and a persecuter of the early disciples, whom he deemed as blasphemers. Paul came to believe in Jesus only after his revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus directly manifested himself to him. So if Thomas would not put up with evidence that is infinitely more valuable to what we have today, if Paul would not accept the testimony preached by the early disciples, why should we accept the resurrection, as related in the gospels? The common denominator of both is that they set their senses as their standard for truth, either by their sight, hearing, or touch. Can such a person who does not receive a revelation of this sort be faulted for disbelieving?

I have been following Jewish and Christian lectionaries for some years and have often noticed interesting relationships. Became aware of Aileen Gulding's work on this idea: [The Fourth Gospel and Jewish worship: a study of the relation of St. John's Gospel to the ancient Jewish lectionary system](https://www.worldcat.org/title/fourth-gospel-and-jewish-worship-a-study-of-the-relation-of-st-johns-gospel-to-the-ancient-jewish-lectionary-system/oclc/3058412) . Does "eighth day" references in Leviticus 9:1 and John 20:26 have connection. Both readings involve "appearances" of God. I am asking to consider connection between Parsha Shemini read 4/18/20 & Sunday's Gospel. https://www.chabad.org/parshah/default_cdo/aid/15576/jewish/Shemini.htm https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20.19-31&version=RSV "9 On the eighth day Moses called Aaron" & "26 Eight days later," respectively. Other connections? Doubt of Thomas? "Guilt" of Nadav & Abihu? Thomas looks forward to Pentecost "Fire".77777 Weeks after Bush. "22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.John 20.22" Nadav & Abihu look back to "Fire" at the Bush--77 Weeks earlier. Counting Omer? "Bush Fire Ex 3.2 fire came forth Lv 10.2 . tongues as of fire Acts 2.2," http://biblechronologybooks.com/ Was Shemini Parsha read in synagogue the Sabbath Day before Jesus appearance on "eighth day" to Thomas? "...Jews in Israel and Reform Jews celebrate Passover for seven days and thus read the next parashah 2018, Shemini) on the Sabbath one week after the first day of Passover, ...." [Shemini (parsha)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shemini_(parsha)) "...and she shows that many of the discourses recorded in his gospel actually match the reading for the Sabbath in the Jewish lectionary system. This is not as strange as it seems, for Jesus (the word made flesh) often used the occasion of the Sabbath to demonstrate miracles or for exposition, it would be natural for him to base that on the current reading...." https://www.biblaridion.info/Digressions/rev_feasts.pdf

A friend of mine and I had a debate this evening about whether or not the apostles were actually believers in Jesus. She claimed that since the Bible does not explicitly say that each man declared belief that Jesus was who he said he was, that one cannot assume that they did believe him. She said that they might have just thought he was doing some "cool stuff" (miracles) and liked what he had to say. She specifically mentioned that Thomas was not a believer until John 20, when he was face to face with the resurrected Jesus. Thomas' statement of "until I see the nail marks...I will never believe" somehow means, to her, that Thomas was never a believer up until he saw Jesus. My question is this then: is it logical to think that the twelve apostles (also called disciples) were believers in Jesus and his message prior to his crucifixion/resurrection? I am of the belief that since they were selected by Jesus, and considered disciples who followed him everywhere for his 3+ years of ministry and witnessed his execution on the cross, I'd say that they were all believers (even Judas, who committed suicide because of guilt). Thomas decided to not go with the other apostles when they heard that he had resurrected, and when the others told him that Jesus was alive, he didn't believe it. It's not like people rise from the dead all the time; I'd be skeptical too. Anyway, thoughts? I'm curious to see what the varying denominations believe. (I'm Church of Christ.)

The sainted apostle "Doubting" Thomas is called Didymus, the Twin. **Indeed, Thomas also means Twin**. > Thomas, called **Didymus** / Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος **Δίδυμος** (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2) There is no clear indication in the Bible of who his twin might have been, but [it seems that several extra-Biblical traditions exist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle) that try to fill in the gap. Can anyone run through the different possibilities, and their level of support and acceptance? It seems to me that since a lot of this comes from the NT Apocrypha, there's a greater than usual density of Internet rubbish around the topic. Thanks in advance to anyone who can wade through it, or find more reliable sources instead!

I was told this during childhood, that this is how St.Thomas converted certain Hindu Brahmins to Christianity. Also on Wikipedia : > Historical legend records that when St. Thomas landed at Palayur, he > witnessed the sight of Hindu Brahmins, after their ablutions in a > local tank, offering prayers by chanting mantras (the Vedic tradition > of India for spiritual transformation) hymns to god in the form of > Argyam or Tharpanam (water held in the palms) of water to the Sun god, > a practice also said to be followed in Harappan and Persian cultures. > Amused by the sight of water being thrown up by the Brahmins, from the > palms of their hands, which was falling back, he challenged the > Brahmins stating that the water they were offering was not being > accepted by the Sun god as it was falling back into the tank. He made > a deal with them stating that his God would accept the offer of water > if he threw it up in the same way as they did, but water would not > fall back. If he proved this then his God was superior and the > Brahmins would have to embrace Christianity. He performed this miracle > (summoned the Holy Trinity, completed the sign of the Cross and threw > water held in his palms up into the air, which remained still in the > air at a height) and with this miracle he converted a number of > Brahmins and Jews in Palayur to Christianity. Thereafter he baptised > the converts in a nearby water tank. Is there any evidence or similar documented text outside India which confirms this miracle?

My question is inspired by the top answer to this question , according to which transubstantiation (that the bread and the wine literally became the flesh and blood of Jesus) also occurred on the last supper. I take this means that they ate of Jesus body before his crucifixion(?) Later, after this death, he appeared to the disciples while Thomas was present, as explained in John 20:24-27 : > 24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not > with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told > him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the > nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and > put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his > disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though > the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, > “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; > see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop > doubting and believe.” This passage only mentions the marks from the nails and the spear wound on his side. **Question:** Would the consuming of his flesh not have left some kind of marks that he could then have been identified on?

John 20:28 says (KJV)... >And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Greek... >ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. According to Meyer's NT Commentary... >ὁ κύριός μου κ. ὁ θεός μου] is taken by Theodore of Mopsuestia (“quasi pro miraculo facto Deum collaudat,” ed. Fritzsche, p. 41) as an exclamation of astonishment directed to God. I know his writings were condemned several centuries after his death, but I can't find his reasoning for this particular interpretation. Why did Theodore of Mopsuestia believe1 John 20:28 was an exclamation? 1 In his commentary to St. John. This particular passage is from the Latin text quoted in the Second Council of Constantinople (Search for the words "My Lord and my God.") .