The Apostle Thomas got a bum rap with the name "Doubting" Thomas

Having exercised the debate on point of Scripture, I think that as the Methodist Bishop Jeremiah Park wrote, "It is clear to me that two people can study the same Bible, pray to the same God and come to different conclusions about this and many other matters." The level of doubt, the motivations behind the doubt, and the ramifications historically of the doubt displayed by all of the individuals involved, all of us react to it differently, so I respect those differences. And finding a proper legacy for Thomas based solely Scripture I stand by him getting a bum rap, and that there is more to him than that. But I respect Con's point of view on Thomas' doubt, and the doubt of others in the Gospels. I think the Con brings us to the heart of the matter: the philosophical issue of a person's historical legacy. That is the crux of the matter when examining Thomas the Apostle. Con contends that Thomas' strong doubt is his moment of infamy, and therefore history has taken it's due course in remembering him. I would like to examine that legacy more fully to contend that perhaps "doubt" should not be that defining legacy. Doubt vs. Belief When ranking Thomas "moments" there are several things to list if we were going to focus on just one moment to remember his for legacy. In that one Biblical instance, he doubted. But then he believed. The question I pose it this: which is more defining? Which is more profound? Which instance should we remember him more for? His profound moment of doubt? Or his profound moment of belief that followed? I respect the position that the doubt is more defining, and a person who states that is not necessarily wrong. But I contend that Thomas' moment of belief should be the more historically defining remembrance of him. Again, as I've stated earlier, yes... Thomas doubted. But what gets to easily ignored because of the name "Doubting" Thomas is that he believed. And I believe that the Gospel writer, if given a vote, would have preferred that Thomas be remembered more for his eventual belief than his strong doubt. To support that opinion, most Bible scholars (Stephen Ray, Raymond F. Brown, Kevin Quast, William Barclay) feel that the passage in chapter 20 with Thomas was the original end to the Gospel of John. Chapter 21 is seen as an appendix added by John's community to answer further issues and include further thoughts and writings from the Evangelist. This does not minimize the final ending, but it does show that at one point the mindset of the author was to end on Thomas' profound statement of belief, "My Lord and my God". The original intention was to close out the Gospel with Thomas' statement of belief, which as stated earlier, is unparalleled in the Gospels. So if the author intended to leave the closing focus of the entire Gospel on Thomas' belief, wouldn't it stand to reason that even the author himself felt that Thomas' more defining historical legacy should be his belief, and not his doubt? I do agree that sometimes history latches on to one thing, and that one thing could be positive or negative; it could be famous or infamous. But sometimes history just flat out gets it wrong. And in Thomas' case, history got it wrong. He doubted, but he believed. The message of history, and the focus on Thomas should be on his belief, not his doubt. Con stated, "Most people don't know of his actions except that he doubted the Resurrection of Jesus and wanted physical and undeniable proof that he had returned before he would believe." I agree 100% with this statement. And therein lies the problem. Because somewhere in history somebody chose to focus on Thomas' doubt, and the nickname stuck. And because of this he has forever been remember predominantly for his doubt. Few know that he is the only person to call Jesus "God" in the Gospels. Few know that he stood up and said he would die for Jesus when the other Disciples wouldn't. Few know that he traveled farther than any other Apostle to establish Christianity (India). I contend that while his doubt was dramatic and should not be ignored, it is a shame that a catchy nickname has allowed doubt to unfairly overshadow his other moments, which are much more deserving of remembrance as a historical legacy. Ask ten baseball fans who struck out more times in their career than anybody else. I would be willing to bet that the majority would fail to know that it was hall of famer Reggie Jackson. But ask ten baseball fans who "Mr. October" is and almost all will immediately know that it was Jackson because of his three home runs on three pitches in the 1977 world series. History focused on his triumph rather than his failure. Did history get that right? I think so. And conversely, I think it did the opposite with Thomas.