Thomas, of course, was one of the two Disciples who did not see the risen Christ when he first appeared to the other ten, and who, when told of the resurrection by his comrades, stated that he would not believe until he saw & touched his Lord for his ownself.
Growing up in the Church of God in Christ
:: ritually spits ::
I was always taught that Thomas was basically a sinner, least of the Twelve save Judas, and that his accounting among the Apostles was at best a courtesy he didn’t really deserve. His doubt was considered an out & out sin, easily as bad as Peter’s denial and a half-step behind Judas’s betrayal.
When I took religion classes at Christian Brothers University, I got a more nuanced view. Or rather views. Thomas’s doubt was considered at worst a minor and understandable error rather than evidence of perfidy; some professors opined that the bad rap given the apostle to India resulted mostly from tensions and rivalries in the early church (specifically his camp and that of the writer of the gospel of John). The fact that Thomas is known as Doubting Thomas was presented as evidence fo politcal manuevering as much as anything else.
I’m wondering what persons from non-Pentecostal churches have been taught about this. It’s not really important whether you currently consider yourself a Christian (I certainly don’t), only that you at one point attended services regularly and remember how the issue was addressed.