P.S. Jesus’ blood was shed on the Cross, but to deny that He again had blood running through His veins after the Resurrection is an anti-Christ position.
If He was not fully resurrected as a flesh and bone (including blood) man, then He was not truly resurrected.
Was Lazarus’ blood in his body when he was resurrected? Yes. Of course. That’s why the Pharisees were so upset when Jesus ate with him at his house the night before entering into Jerusalem... so upset that they plotted to kill Lazarus again! (LOL)
Jesus was resurrected in His full human body. With blood running through His veins. Anything less is from the evil one; and any idea that His resurrected body with blood somehow detracts from the finality of His shed blood on the cross is also from the evil one.
“P.S. Jesus’ blood was shed on the Cross, but to deny that He again had blood running through His veins after the Resurrection is an anti-Christ position.“
This is simply an assertion you are making, without evidence. Do you have any?
Beyond this, do you believe Christ today, in His glorified body, has blood? If so, why is this important and what do you base it on?
The image on the shroud is much like a photographic positive. Half of the shroud has the back of Jesus and the other half has the front of Jesus. Careful examination of the material shows no partial image of the front on the back and no partial image of the back on the front. If the energy source were from front or back there would be evidence of both perspectives in both surfaces of the cloth, but none is there! The source of the energy had to come from inside and radiate outward in all directions, leaving the images of front and back on the two surfaces without impinging upon either, as in a double exposure, etc.
Where did the blood come from (if there was any) in Jesus resurrected body?
Lazarus came out of the crypt in a mortal body. He was not "resurrected" into an immortal body. It was Jesus who was the first-begotten out of the dead (ones). So, however this happened, Lazarus had to suffer a physical death again.
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstbornfrom the dead among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29 AV).
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ." (Col. 1:18 AV).
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten ofek=out of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, . . ." (Rev. 1:5 AV).
"Firstborn" (πρωτοτοκος proh-to-to-kos) means first in time as well as first in place.
Anything less is from the evil one; and any idea that His resurrected body with blood somehow detracts from the finality of His shed blood on the cross is also from the evil one.
What detracts from the finality His shed blood is the (erroneous) concept that somehow He got more blood that was unshed. There is nothing anyplace in the Bible that ever says that His resurrected body was mortal with blood in it, rather than an immortal body without blood, where life is in the Spirit. Flesh, yes. Bone, yes. Blood, no.
P.S. Jesus’ blood was shed on the Cross, but to deny that He again had blood running through His veins after the Resurrection is an anti-Christ position.