apostle thomas, jesus' lookalike

I was really getting bored with that ultraviolet radiosignals thread so I decided to let off some steam...

Its actually an old biblical trivia which was either forgotten or suppressed for whatever reasons surviving explicitly only in the Book of Thomas the Contender, part of the Nag Hammadi library, "Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself."

anyway there are both biblical and extrabiblical hints attesting to the fact that apostle thomas was jesus' double.

(Joh 11:16) Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

(Joh 20:24) But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

(Joh 21:2) There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples

didymus is "twin" in greek.
thomas is tau'ma, from to'ma which is "twin" in aramaic.
you may say that doesn't point to jesus. well, who does it point to? it would explain this scenario:

(Mat 26:48) Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.

(Mar 14:44) And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.

(Luk 22:47) And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

(Luk 22:48) But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

why would they need someone to point him out? surely, they knew what he looked like and could pick him out even in the light of a torch. why did they need someone like judas who was his companion?

the only logical reason is they needed to be sure which one was the real jesus because there was a double. in fact, jesus knew this and volunteered himself so they would let the others go because they could detain a disciple who looked like him and he wanted to spare him the flogging. makes sense?

but there's more...its extrabiblical but we know thomas went to India, right? Lo and behold, there are rumors Jesus went to India. The rumors vary from him going there as a child to escaping there post crucifixion.

the most likely explanation is thomas went there and there were itinerant jews there who knew jesus and thought it was him. then the stories grew from there.

so, it begs the question why is this obvious fact not well known?







[edit on 4-5-2010 by reject]

Maybe because it's not an obvious fact?

But one thing I do find strange is that many of the disciples didn't recognize Jesus after his "resurrection". What was different about him? They could only tell it was him by the scars, apparently. So, why would he have the same scars, but a different face (if that's the case)?

reply to post by reject


The fact that the church suppressed the Gospel of Thomas, since the council of Nicea, they might be reluctant to push extraneous information about him.

It's occasionally mentioned in both the canonical and non-canonical writings that Jesus sometimes appeared to his disciples as somebody else. He "appeared in another form," such that they didn't even recognize him. The Gospel of Judas, for instance, says, "Often he did not appear to his disciples as himself, but he was found among them as a child."

So it seems to me that there's a lot of room for disagreement as to what Jesus really looked like, since he could apparently appear to even his disciples in forms different enough that they didn't even recognize him right away.

Kind of weird, when you think about it. But if you're going to believe any of it, you pretty much have to believe all of it.

Originally posted by Hydroman
Maybe because it's not an obvious fact?

But one thing I do find strange is that many of the disciples didn't recognize Jesus after his "resurrection". What was different about him? They could only tell it was him by the scars, apparently. So, why would he have the same scars, but a different face (if that's the case)?

maybe because people in that area usually wore something to cover their heads/faces especially during that time?

and the real possibility this obvious fact was obfuscated was because it would cast doubts on the resurrection

[edit on 5-5-2010 by reject]