Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
markdohle

What if St. Thomas

9 posts in this topic

What if St. Thomas did not see and touch the Risen Lord?

St. Thomas would not believe the 10 apostles when they said that they saw the risen Lord. He demanded proof. He did not trust the word of his fellow disciples of Jesus. What if Jesus did not come and appear to him? Would be right? Did the apostles see the Risen Lord, or would St. Thomas be right. Or would St. Thomas have lost out if he did not experience the Risen Lord, would he have left the assembly and missed out on having a couscous loving relationship with Jesus Christ?

Today, people can choose to believe the Apostles or not, to believe that they are trustworthy or not, to have faith or not. We believe many things from those we trust. We don’t feel the need to check up on everything said to us. Today it is good for Christians to understand what it means to trust the word of others. To understand that what is being said in the New Testament is truly life shattering, heart expanding and soul healing if believed. Sad to say, (one reason, though not the only one why many don’t believe), is how Christians, treat others, or in what manner they use the Scriptures, or talk about their faith. Instead of showing Christ Jesus what they show is the desire to control, dominate and scare others into believing……it does not work.

To read the New Testament is like reading others books. We have a relationship with it; our perspective will dictate to us how we read it, what we look for and how it affects us. We will find what we look for. If the New Testament is true, then in a real sense it is the “Word of God”. However it is not God, a revelation is not total, it is when we think that we know the mind of Christ that we can cause trouble, for then we are merely giving others a piece of our own minds.

There is a reason that preaching is a gift, it allows people to express their faith without taking away from the dignity of those they speak to. Those who do not have the gift of preaching will often cause harm to others. There seems to be more Christians who preach who should not. There is more than one way to show Christ to others. How we treat them for instance, how we ‘see’ them, how we respect them because they are made in the image and likeness of God, and in a real sense, a deep sense, how we treat them and judge them and hurt them, is how we treat Christ Jesus.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very mushy, imo.

I do not believe the LORD appeared to Tom because he was concerned for his spiritual health, he did it to serve HIS purposes at that time. Namely, to cause an important unification among the apostles. He needed them to all be on the same page because it was too early for a division among them.

If Tom hadn't see the risen LORD then he would have been a very vocal opponent which would have - slowed down, been a stumbling block, to the spreading movement which was the most important occurrence at that time. It was the season for belief to be rapidly spreading so not having Thomas be an opposing voice was what was important.

For better or worse the key is to always understand that whatever action the LORD takes it is for a specific purpose according to the Plan. Of course this is all IMO, YMMV.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very mushy, imo.

I do not believe the LORD appeared to Tom because he was concerned for his spiritual health, he did it to serve HIS purposes at that time. Namely, to cause an important unification among the apostles. He needed them to all be on the same page because it was too early for a division among them.

If Tom hadn't see the risen LORD then he would have been a very vocal opponent which would have - slowed down, been a stumbling block, to the spreading movement which was the most important occurrence at that time. It was the season for belief to be rapidly spreading so not having Thomas be an opposing voice was what was important.

For better or worse the key is to always understand that whatever action the LORD takes it is for a specific purpose according to the Plan. Of course this is all IMO, YMMV.

Ok, thanks for sharing.

Peace

mark

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting point is that Thomas is never said to have put his finger in the marks of the nails nor in the side of Jesus. One can infer from the text (John 20:19-29) that he did so, as Jesus directed him to (verse 27), but the text does not say he did. It appears that Thomas' encounter with the risen Jesus provokes faith and worship (verse 28) based solely on what Thomas sees, as was the case for the other 10 disciples.

According to John, Thomas reacted to what he saw, not touched. Jesus blesses those who do not even see, yet do believe.

What follows is one of my favorite verses from the New Testament, which goes to the debate about the historicity validity of the NT scriptures: Jesus did a lot of things not recorded in the Gospel according to John (see also John 21:24-25 for reinforcement of this theme). The implication is that John is but a "preliminary report" on Jesus' life, death and resurrection (and meaning); there's more "out there," whether in the public domain, the archives of governments, caves at Qum'ran, etc. Yes, this is an "argument from ignorance," but it's fascinating to consider.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resurrection doesn't have any credibility whatsoever, imo. I think the gospel stories which described it, and were written well after Jesus was a rotted corpse, were fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resurrection doesn't have any credibility whatsoever, imo. I think the gospel stories which described it, and were written well after Jesus was a rotted corpse, were fantasy.

The gospels did come later, however St. Paul's letters were written will within the lifetime of most of of those who knew and saw the risen Lord. The Gospels are a statement of the early churches belief, as well as experiences of the twelve. The Gospel of Mark was written in the late 60's or early 70's, perhaps 40 years after Jesus's death. The faith was firm before the gospels were written. They were accepted by the early church because it lined up with what they knew to be true.

Peace

Mark

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gospels did come later, however St. Paul's letters were written will within the lifetime of most of of those who knew and saw the risen Lord. The Gospels are a statement of the early churches belief, as well as experiences of the twelve. The Gospel of Mark was written in the late 60's or early 70's, perhaps 40 years after Jesus's death. The faith was firm before the gospels were written. They were accepted by the early church because it lined up with what they knew to be true.

Peace

Mark

One thing that has always puzzled me about the resurrection story is the fact that no one seems to have recognized him ,even though two of them walked with him and dined with him and even Mary Magdalen thought he was a gardener

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that has always puzzled me about the resurrection story is the fact that no one seems to have recognized him ,even though two of them walked with him and dined with him and even Mary Magdalen thought he was a gardener

fullywired

It is rather puzzling. I think it may be related to two things: first, it would appear something changed about Him after the resurrection. The fact that He is able to materialize and pass through walls just suggests He is different. Second, I'm sure they had trouble believing it was ACTUALLY Him. As I've noted before, I think their skepticism and doubt adds an air of credibility to the account.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a deeper understanding to be gained from Thomas' doubt. Those without proof can and do doubt, this does not make them a sinner in any way shape or form, anti-christ or anti-God, it just means they need to KNOW.

Thomas was offered proof in the face of his doubt. We all have the opportunity to experience our own personal "proof" of the truth of Christ's words in action and his reality as Son of God. We have to ask though, make the statement that we don't believe it until we have proof of it.

Ask and ye shall receive was not said in vain, I think it was said to advise us to seek clarity on the spiritual matters we don't understand or believe without proof. This is the crux of why so many believers will say that it is their own personal experience that has given them proof - they went out to seek answers to their questions and received the answers that awakened their faith within them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.