Perhaps you can explain it to me then, because I can't see an answer in there.

Why do you think that? To me the story has always been very simple and has nothing to do with personal identity. It is simply that Thomas does not believe that Jesus's life has continued beyond the crucifixion, until he meets the risen Jesus, and Jesus complains about that. — andrewk

I tried to bring up the distinction between Jesus and the Christ, because it's important, especially in the story with Thomas. Jesus does not "complain", Christ does, it's why he must show himself to Thomas, because Thomas assumes that Jesus is dead, and that Christ is not alive.

Jesus does not "complain", Christ does — Heister Eggcart

Are they not the same person? My understanding is that 'Christ' is a name essentially meaning 'Messiah' that was applied to the historical Jesus some time after his death, and it is used mostly to refer to Jesus in relation to his post-resurrection activities. Use of the term also emphasises the belief of the speaker in the divinity, or at least the Messianicity, of Jesus. But they must be the same person because if post-resurrection Jesus is not Christ then Jesus was not resurrected - he was replaced. Hence either they both complain or neither does.

Are they not the same person? My understanding is that 'Christ' is a name essentially meaning 'Messiah' that was applied to the historical Jesus some time after his death, and it is used mostly to refer to Jesus in relation to his post-resurrection activities. Use of the term also emphasises the belief of the speaker in the divinity, or at least the Messianicity, of Jesus. But they must be the same person because if post-resurrection Jesus is not Christ then Jesus was not resurrected - he was replaced. Hence either they both complain or neither does. — andrewk

But in relation to the story with Thomas, the difference between Jesus and Christ is pretty huge. If Jesus were not resurrected from the dead, thus becoming the Christ, then Christianity falls apart. This is why Christians name the resurrected Jesus, Jesus Christ. I'm not saying that the two persons are separate, but there is a difference, otherwise Thomas wouldn't need to see or feel anything.

No one seemed to recognize resurrected Jesus. Even more distressing though, is that Jesus totally told them he was going to resurrect on the third day, and hardly anyone even checked! They were close up with him and everything, but I don't think anyone recognized him until he told them who he was.

But in relation to the story with Thomas, the difference between Jesus and Christ is pretty huge. — Heister Eggcart

Well let's accept for the sake of furthering the discussion, that Jesus being also the Messiah is tremendously significant and that Jesus saw it as essential that Thomas understand that.

You said

So, in my estimation, Jesus the Christ was not mocking Thomas, or giving disdain, but clarifying ...... Henceforth, Thomas is thus an Apostle of Christ, not merely Jesus. — Heister Eggcart

Let's look at that clarification - as attributed to Jesus by the author(s) of John:

"You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me"

How does that clarify anything about Jesus's Messianicity? It doesn't even mention it.

Here's what a clarification would look like:

I'm very glad Thomas that you've now had this opportunity to learn that I have risen from the dead. Now there's one more thing that it's very important for you to know. That is that I am the Messiah [add various phrases about also being God and/or Son of God, according to one's preferred theology]. I would like you to go out and tell others about this. — risen Jesus Christ

Even the most contorted exegesis cannot turn the phrase in the text into something that means that. We must bear in mind that we are talking about someone that has divine powers, not some inarticulate savage, and hence they would be able to express themselves in the clearest fashion possible, so that no possible doubt could remain as to what they meant.

I think Christ's response is one in light of Thomas having already met and seen Jesus. And there's also emphasis on Jesus' appearance changing from before to after resurrection. If you've read or watched The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien definitely models Gandalf's transformation on Jesus Christ's. In that story, it is primarily Gimli who doubts like Thomas did, while Legolas and Aragorn are more befuddled than anything else. There is a reason why the earliest depictions of Christ, such as in the Roman catacombs, show him as a clean shaven and vibrant young man wearing a Roman Senator's toga. Such an appearance would have been strikingly different from the homeless, hairy, and weather worn wanderer that Jesus was.

We must bear in mind that we are talking about someone that has divine powers, not some inarticulate savage, and hence they would be able to express themselves in the clearest fashion possible, so that no possible doubt could remain as to what they meant. — andrewk

I dunno about this. This assumption is often poked fun of (pretty rightly) by anti-Christians because God chose perhaps the least obvious and easily understandable way in which "he" could remedy the world he created. I'm reminded of a non-stamp collector video, I think, that touches on this, haha.

I think Christ's response is one in light of Thomas having already met and seen Jesus. And there's also emphasis on Jesus' appearance changing from before to after resurrection. — Heister Eggcart

How do you get that reading out of the text? Here's the text in full:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed. — Authorised (English) Version of the Bible, John 20:24-29

I can't see any mention of a changed appearance in there. The passage appears very straightforward. Thomas does not believe his friends' claims that they have seen Jesus (and note that it uses the word Jesus, not Christ). Then he meets him, and thereafter believes his friends' claims. Lastly we have verse 29 which the author(s) attribute to Jesus (again - Jesus, not Christ), which has no corroborative evidence in any other text and is most naturally explained as the author trying to influence readers to believe him (the author).

I suggest that if Christness and altered appearance are emphasised, that is done by later writers trying to retro-fit their preferred theology to a text that does not support it.

I suggest that if Christness and altered appearance are emphasised, that is done by later writers trying to retro-fit their preferred theology to a text that does not support it. — andrewk

This may be true. I'll look back and recheck. Though, I think Christ's appearance is described by Mary and the other women in the tomb..?

Blessed are those who believe without seeing Me...

This statement is generally taken as the paradigmatic statement of blind faith. However, I would say what it means is that: any person who is aware of their innate moral deficiency and need of salvation, already 'believes', or perceives the need of salvation, even in the absence of a figure to believe in.

TRUST IS A TOOL

There are several practical uses for trust as a tool:
1.) In Discovery and Experimentation; for example, a.) whether the trusted person is truthful or not; b.) whether the person is competent or not; and c.) whether being trustworthy is the best way to go or not (and given the need for diversity toward broader survival, it will not always be, diversity being what it is); and
2.) As a General Social Tool - to be used at will or not. Note that, as a tool, trust is neither inherently good or bad, it is how the tool is used that determines whether it was used for good or bad (and what is 'good or bad' is determined by higher philosophy, which mankind does not have yet). Enter Me. (but that is another topic).