Definitions are important

[Keith&Co.]

So, the claim that Jesus was a zombie is false.
Zombies are dead bodies animated by another person's necromancy, and under that person's control. Their spirit has fled (traditionally you cannot raise a zombie for three days post mortem. This is the time it takes the spirit to fully decorpus).
Jesus was a powerful user of magic who used his own power to preserve his soul/body connection post mortem. Jesus was a lich, vlearly.

Similarly, some claim Adam had no mutations. A mutation is a genetic trait that was not a faithful copy of parental genetics. None of Adam's genes can be matched to his parents' genes.
Jesus' genetic code is NOTHING BUT mutations.

Woman is a clone of Adam, making her the daughter, and Adam her mother. She probably had no mutations, but since she is billed as the Mother of All Living, we are all the product of incest.

 

[Politesse]

Your post says more about the arbitrary nature of most definitions than it does about theology, methinks.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Your post says more about the arbitrary nature of most definitions than it does about theology, methinks.

Thanx.

 

[Politesse]

Well, what is so important about a definition? Why does it matter whether Jesus is classified as a lich or a zombie or neither? Whose monsterological categories are you elevating as "definitive", and why would their categorizations be more important than those of, for instance, Jesus's own followers? You posit zombie and lich as though they were a binary set of mutually non-overlapping caegories of the undead, but that's actually pretty strange given that those terms came from different cultures during different centuries, and neither of those were the indigenous culture and century of the Jesus mythos. If these seemingly random supernatural beasties are natural categories, why aren't we also discussing duppies, pontiniak, vampires, wights, gjenganger, mananangar, and so forth as possible alternative categorizations of Jesus' narrative?

I know you like to joke, but you put this topic in a serious discussion forum. So is there a discussion to in fact be had about categorization theory here, or are we just supposed to laugh, chuckle, and move on without giving the matter any real thought?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Whose monsterological categories are you elevating as "definitive", and why would their categorizations be more important than those of, for instance, Jesus's own followers?

Shit. From your initial response i thought you got the point.

They're not definitive. They're no better than anyone else's except within a given reference frame, or from a particular point of view.
But people throw around terms with abandon, crossing boundaries of reference frames with no real understanding of the actual meaning of their words.

Such as the claim that Adam had no mutations, perfect genes. But you cannot measure mutations except by comparing the parent's genes, too. Not possible with Adam, so the claim is meaningless. Or, about as meaningful as the complete opposite.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You posit zombie and lich as though they were a binary set of mutually non-overlapping caegories of the undead, but that's actually pretty strange given that those terms came from different cultures during different centuries, and neither of those were the indigenous culture and century of the Jesus mythos.

No. I posit that they were two types of Dungeons & Dragons undead, from the same Monster Manual (though different Random Encounter Tables), so the type of smartass who goes about cracking wise about Zombie Jesus Egg Hunt would likely be, or should be, or could be expected to be familiar enough with all three to make a much more accurate choice..

 

[atrib]

So, the claim that Jesus was a zombie is false.
Zombies are dead bodies animated by another person's necromancy, and under that person's control. Their spirit has fled (traditionally you cannot raise a zombie for three days post mortem. This is the time it takes the spirit to fully decorpus).
Jesus was a powerful user of magic who used his own power to preserve his soul/body connection post mortem. Jesus was a lich, vlearly.

How do you know this? It is possible that Jesus was reanimated by his hidden clone-daddy in the sky. The Bible is not clear on this. And I am not sure where you come up with the 3-day time limit for body-soul separation. Jesus may have been a zombie or a lich, using your definitions.

When I talk about the undead Jesus, I like to use the word zombie. I think it better expresses my feelings in the matter.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, the claim that Jesus was a zombie is false.
Zombies are dead bodies animated by another person's necromancy, and under that person's control. Their spirit has fled (traditionally you cannot raise a zombie for three days post mortem. This is the time it takes the spirit to fully decorpus).

The primitive backwards people who formed traditions about raising the dead were pre-computer-programmers, so they can't be expected to have understood that the right way to count is from zero, not from one; consequently they make fencepost errors all the time. Jesus died on Friday and was reanimated on Sunday. Friday + Saturday + Sunday = three days. He was totally a zombie.

Jesus was a powerful user of magic who used his own power to preserve his soul/body connection post mortem. Jesus was a lich, vlearly.

He was animated by God the Father's necromancy, and all that happens is under God's control. "Used his own power"?!? What is this, Unitarianism? You're denying the Doctrine of the Trinity, you heretic!!!

Similarly, some claim Adam had no mutations. A mutation is a genetic trait that was not a faithful copy of parental genetics. None of Adam's genes can be matched to his parents' genes.
Jesus' genetic code is NOTHING BUT mutations.

There's already a thread on this: The Incest Problem. The people who claim Adam had no mutations seem to be using "mutation" to mean "deleterious recessive allele".

Woman is a clone of Adam, making her the daughter, and Adam her mother. She probably had no mutations, but since she is billed as the Mother of All Living, we are all the product of incest.

Presumably, incest wasn't immoral in the era when there weren't any deleterious recessive alleles yet.