I am not clear as to your links/quotes and I am not clear as to what exactly is your question. I am reproducing, here, my answer to the previous question (in one of your links) in the hope that it answers this question, which may well be a different question but can be answered by the same answer :
After his crucifixion and death, Jesus was buried late on Friday evening in the sepulchre John 19:42. Early on Sunday morning (the third day) John 20:1 the women, then Peter and John, found the sepulchre empty after which Jesus appeared, first, to Mary Magdalene John 20:16
Late on that same day, the first day of the week (Sunday) Jesus appeared to the ten, Thomas being absent John 20:19. After a further eight days, he appeared again to all eleven John 20:26.
Some have attempted to say that Thomas was the eighth apostle and that this is relevant but the facts do not support this theory. The table on Wikipedia plainly shows that in all five accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts) Thomas is numbered seventh.
After the appearance to the ten on the third day, there is a pause of eight full days ("after eight days"). The next day, therefore, is the twelfth day, numbered from the death of Jesus Christ.
So Jesus appeared to Thomas on the twelfth day, which would have been a Tuesday.
Since Thomas had been absent, he was not (yet) a witness of the resurrection of Jesus. But he was an apostle. So on the twelfth day - a significant day - Jesus appears again and Thomas, calling him 'My Lord and My God' testifies to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Whatever the reason for his absence, and whatever the reason for his doubting, Thomas, neveretheless, together with his fellow apostles, receives a visitation on the twelfth day of Jesus' rising from the dead - a significant event. And there were twelve present, Jesus and the eleven, Jesus himself being an Apostle, Hebrews 3:1.
Thomas would have been numbered with the rest of us who receive the testimony of the apostolic witnesses, and who are especially blessed (having not seen, but believed).
But he did not rise to that, so he required a special visitation (apostolic in significance) and he thus takes his place as a seeing witness, not an unseeing receiver of apostolic testimony, which is our privilege, if we so believe.
I wanted to cite a reference to what I have just written but I cannot find one, so it remains my own observation of the facts on record.
