Isn't It UnChristian to Defend the Resurrection Using Historical 'Proofs' Since Jesus Upbraids Doubting Thomas For Seeking 'Proof?'

WLC: I think that the reason Jesus upbraids Thomas in that story is taht Thomas falied to believe on the basis of the apostolic testimony that Jesus was risen.  Jesus is not saying, 'Thomas, it's bleesed to make irrational leaps of faith.'  he's saying, 'You should have beleived on the basis of the credible testimony of the other apostles, the eyewitnesses, that I was risen.'  Similarly, John's readers, though geographically or chronologically removed from the events of the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances, ought to believe on the basis of the apostolic testimony recorded in John's Gospel that Jesus is risen fromt he dead.  Thus, it is John's point of view that we have adequate apostolic testimony to the resurrection of Jesus; and we can confidently believe on that basis, even though we ourselves haven't seen an appearance of Jesus or discovered an empty tomb.  It's in the conclusion in that John says that these signs are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and have life through his name (John 20:30-31).  That comes on the heels of the Thomas story, and it in effect says that what Thomas failed to do was to believe what the other disciples had told him.  Thus, it is perfectly in line with Jesus' upbraiding Thomas that he should have believed on the basis of the 'secondhand' apostolic testimony for Christians today to construct a historical case on the basis of that same testimony.