Should the reserection of Jesus be considered a sign

Should the resurrection of Jesus be considered one of the "signs" of the Gospel? Why or why not? This by far is a very controversial debate and is tossed to and fro with the theological community. The Gospel of John does not state that the resurrection is a “sign” even though the event was miraculous in and of itself, there is no biblical evidence to back up the event as a sign. The purpose of the resurrection was not to prove that Christ was who He claimed to be rather it was necessary. A sign like raising Lazarus was not for any purpose except to help those who doubted as Thomas did to believe. [1]The apostle Paul went so far in emphasis as to argue that if there is no resurrection, there is no Gospel. All that we teach and preach today would be pointless if it had not been for the resurrection, unlike a “sign” that was not necessary for our salvation. I am not saying this because of the importance of Christianity, I am simply pointing out a fact of the difference in the two. I have never been asked this question before nor have I thought about a possible argument to back up the theory. On studying and researching into this question I would have to say I am leaning toward the fact that Christ resurrection is not a sign or miracle base on specific verses in the Bible itself. Not to say that right because it is an opinion, however as I stated above, Christ didn’t rise again as a sign to help those who did not believe. I have read that the eighth sign was called the “book of glory” being the resurrection of Christ [2] instead of the miraculous catch of the fish. [3] Leon Morris says this, the miraculous catch fish in chapter 21 would certainly qualify, except for the fact that this lies outside the public ministry of Jesus. That being said I can understand both points of view and although I lean more toward it not being a sign, the argument presented makes good sense in the fact that the catching of the fish was not public.
366
[1] Towns, Elmer L.