>> That may be, but if that’s the case, then either he would not have been wearing the shroud, or it would have moved as he moved, <<
Seriously? My point wasn’t that he was wearing the shroud when he met Thomas! The point was only that the wounds persisted after the resurrection. He resurrected, he bled, he put aside his clothes, he appeared to his disciples.
>> Frankly, anytime I see people so passionately defending the shroud, I am immediately on notice that they are placing enormous faith in a material object. While I cannot speak for Him, I think that God would be disappointed that many people don’t place their faith in Him. <<
Your own base presumptions are evidence of nothing but your own biases. I could just as easily write, “Frankly, it’s astonishing to me that God would leave us a physical testament of the historical nature of the resurrection, and so-called ‘Christians’ would be so hateful of the Church which He established on Earth, that they would attack the evidence like a pack of rabid dogs.” Are there ‘Christians’ that argue against the historicity of the Resurrections? Yes. Am I one of them? Heavens, no. And how dare you assume I would be?
“Seriously? My point wasn’t that he was wearing the shroud when he met Thomas! The point was only that the wounds persisted after the resurrection. He resurrected, he bled, he put aside his clothes, he appeared to his disciples.”
We are talking about the validity (or lack thereof) of the claim that the Shroud of Turin was Jesus’ burial shroud. The blood stains are supposed to support that contention - and all that I was pointing out was that if he was bleeding AFTER being resurrected, then that either would NOT have stained the shroud with blood or, if he was still wearing it, it would have messed up the bloodstains with new blood. That is ALL that I was saying - i.e. I’m trying to show via logic that (IMHO) the shroud could not be what many claim that it is.
WRT biases - yes, of course I have them. So do you, so does every single person on Earth. I laid mine out in front (unlike many others - and I do NOT mean you). BTW, my intent in doing so was to call out those who SEEM (in my view) to be relying on a material item to prove to them that their faith is valid. I think that this is an error - faith is, by its nature, not subject to scientific verification. FYI, I am assuming NOTHING about you.