I can’t believe I have to spell this out further.
>> 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...<<
HE WAS IN THE SHROUD, WHEN HE WAS RESURRECTED AND BEGAN TO BLEED AGAIN. Unbelievably, you seem unable to shake the presumption that he had already undressed before he began to bleed.
>> or, if he was still wearing it, it would have messed up the bloodstains with new blood. <<
The previous contention was that there would not have been bloodstains if he was dead while wearing the shroud. Ergo, no blood stains “to mess up.”
Also, when you recognize your presumptions come from bias, the rational solution is not to shout your biases from the rooftops, but to recognize that people may not share your viewpoint, but try to use that realization to counter your natural biases and account for those biases as best you can. That likely means shutting up when your biases impugn the motivations of others.
The shroud shows bloodstains consistent with a person who was laying still (a rather natural condition for someone who is dead). If he was resurrected and started bleeding again while still wearing it, then there would have been smeared bloodstains all over the thing - it wouldn’t look like it does now.
WRT bias, my ONLY bias is that I think that the shroud is a forgery - and before this story came out, I was open to it being real. The story convinced me that it isn’t what it has been represented to be.
Which, again, says nothing whatsoever about Jesus - it ONLY addresses a claim about a particular piece of cloth.