I’ve always wondered where this term came from. I’m pretty sure (but could be completely wrong … it’s happened many times before) that it means somebody who is always doubtful until proof is given.
But where did it originate and what exactly does it mean?
The Bible. The Apostle Thomas wouldn’t believe it was truly Christ returned until he felt his wounds.
Thomas is the apostle Thomas, who doubted news of Jesus’ resurrection without direct evidence. From John 20.24-29 (KJV):
[hijack]Is this the same Thomas who wrote the Gospel of Thomas?
[/hijack]
Thomas was the disciple that doubted Jesus had risen from the dead, saying “unless I see it for myself, and touch the wounds, I aint gonna believe it” (quoted from the New Testament - Mangetout’s Flaky Memory Version)
wow! practically living in church and going to a christian school, i’ve never met (in real life or on the internet) anyone who didn’t know about that.
Some scholars think so:
Craig Schenk, Commentary, The Gospel of Thomas. But nobody knows for sure:
-George Carlin, as Jesus
Not far removed from “Cite!?”. 
Hey, maybe we should adopt Thomas as patron saint of the SDMB? 
Thank you everyone. So I guess I was wrong in what I thought it meant
Seriously, thank you all for your answers.
That’s not true at all. There are lots of NT scholars who believe exactly the opposite, that Matthew and John were written by those guys, the members of the original 12.
This is a double major with Bible talking. You don’t have to agree, but there are lots of experts who believe that it’s true. That’s my point.
Lots of scholars believe that the gospels were in written form by the end of the first century. John is said to have been the last gospel, appearing in the 90s AD. The other three are dated to the 60s and 70s AD.
There is a strong tradition in the Indian state of Kerala that it was St. Thomas who founded the Christian church there. From this page, http://www.travel-wise.com/europe/india/stthomas.html
I was taught that Mark was the first Gospel to be written - certainly the first of the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). Both Luke and Matthew appear to borrow heavily from Mark as well as a second common source (Q) and their own sources.
Anyhow, Mark is believed to have written some time after 60AD. His gospel contains an incident which obviously the other writers didn’t deem fit to include (cite). The following takes place during the arrest of Jesus at the Garden of Gethsemane:
The fact that Mark mentioned this whilst others omitted it is seen by some Biblical critics to suggest that this young man was Mark himself. This is the author’s way of saying “I was there!” So, perhaps one evangelist, at least, actually had met Jesus.
The disciples themselves are unlikely to have written any gospels though. Only once a following had grown was there any need to commit these things to paper. Whilst the teachings and story of Jesus were known to few, word of mouth would have sufficed. Only once centralisation was lost would the gospels need to come into existence.
Stu
Points well taken. I quoted that excerpt for the proposition that Thomas’s gospel’s authorship is uncertain. I didn’t pay much attention to the fact that the excerpt also contains the less reliable (and off-point) statement about the canonical gospels’ authorship. It is true that some scholars have concluded that “none of the [canonical] gospels were written by people who had ever met Jesus of Nazareth during his lifetime,” but the excerpt does go too far in saying that “scholars of the New Testament generally agree” on that point.
Poor Thomas. He always gets a bad rap for not believing. If you look closely at the story as presented, Thomas does not doubt that Jesus could be resurrected, he doubts his fellow disciples account that he appeared to them.
You see, the other disciples had locked themselves in a room for safety, fearing reprisal after Jesus’ death. Thomas on the other hand was out and about, among the people, not cowering in a room. He wasn’t there when Jesus returned to the other disciples. He mearly says he needs more than their word.
When Jesus does appear in Thomas’ presence and tells him he may probe his hands and side, Thomas immediately believes that it is Jesus without carrying out the physical examination.
He doubts his fellow man, not his Lord.
Wow, I guess I was paying attention during Mass at least once.
The majority opinion (a vast majority) of scholars of mainline churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, etc…) who accept the methodology of modern scientific historical analysis (peer-reviewed publishing in journals; consideration of archeological and philological findings; carbon-12 dating; form and documentary criticism, etc…) agree that Matthew and John were not written by the same named Apostles. Yes, those gospels are attributed to those Apostles, and indeed, may contain the direct teachings of those Apostles, but were definitely written by later disciples.
A few mainline scholars and most, if not all, fundamentalist scholars dissent.
And, just for everyone’s edification, the mainline consensus is that the Gospel of Thomas is an even later and very suspect account of Jesus’ teachings.
Peace.