David, you do not agree that the crucifixion element was introduced into the story as a parallel to a staple pagan motif. Okay, that's fine. But even believing that Jesus was literally historically nailed to a Roman cross, in your belief system, you still believe that was an orchestrated event done in 'emulation'(so to speak) of previous stories, no?
No, I believe he was hung on the cross because that's how Romans often treated people they viewed as criminals. They weren't doing it to match up to anything from the Old Testament or pre-Christian mythology.
David, I was not talking about the Romans, and that should've been clear, when I even clarified my question with "By that I mean, you still accept prophetic typology in the Old Testament, correct?", which is the one sentence from that specific paragraph that is conspicuously omitted from your quotation of said paragraph.
It is obvious that I was referring to the crucifixion being orchestrated by God to fulfill Old Testament prophetic typology, and NOT the Romans trying to do so. I even went on in my post to explicitly state as much, so there is no excuse for misconstruing what I was asking you here.
But now we're just talking about drawing parallels between two things after the fact, which we can do with just about anything. And of course I agree that there are parallels between Jesus and pre-Christian deities, just as there are parallels between Napoleon Bonaparte and pre-Christian deities (especially considering that there were hundreds of pre-Christian deities, often with multiple versions of their story apiece - a huge net is being casted).
No, that's not what I was "talking about", I was talking about the belief of pre-ordained prophetic typology BEFORE the fact. Again, I was unambiguously clear on that. Napoleon Bonaparte would only be relevant to the questions I asked of you if it is the case that you believe (and/or that Paul believed, etc.) that Napoleon Bonaparte was prophesied by way of these said parallels and thus the parallel was deliberately created in order to fulfill the typology. Deliberately created by GOD, mind you, NOT the Romans. NOT the French. By GOD- as I have been consistently clear about.
That is the jist of what I was asking and pointing out- is the belief that God, technically speaking, deliberately created parallels between Jesus & earlier stories any more or less logically justified than the belief that men, technically speaking, created parallels between Jesus and earlier stories.
My problem here is that FTL and, to some extent, you, are expanding the definition of "crucified" beyond what most people think of when they hear "crucified",
What "most people" today think of when they hear the word "crucified" is irrelevant to what people at the time of the New Testament would have thought when they heard it. As D already pointed out to you, Josephus called the hanging of the Chief Baker on a tree in the Joseph story a "crucifixion", and yes, it was the same Greek word he used elsewhere for Roman crucifixion, so clearly the word was NOT exclusive to Roman crucifixion as far as people like Josephus were concerned.
Josephus was not "expanding" the definition of the word. And neither have I. Though you are trying to pigeon hole it's meaning into a parameter that is relatively
modern and completely arbitrary.
However, this seems moot, as it is just a matter of semantics. If you wish for me to not refer to the hanging of Osiris on a tree as a "crucifixion" that is absolutely fine. I've never referred to the hanging of the serpent on the staff as a crucifixion either, and neither did Jesus. And yet we both have seen a parallel there to Christ's own crucifixion. So fine, I'll humor you. The word "crucifixion" will here-after be dropped when referring to something other than the Roman crucifixion.
Too bad Josephus and other such writers are no longer alive for us to correct them on the matter.
and past the point where it becomes a significant parallel. You're basically expanding the commonly-understood definition of something in order to make it cover something else, thus bringing apparent significance where none really exists.
And so again, I ask you, do you think Paul and Jesus were bringing apparent significance where none really existed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he buried inside the tree, not affixed to its outside?
As I said in my previous post, there are variants on this detail. "Buried"? I suppose, though not in the sense of burial like when one is buried in a tomb, if that's what you mean. But yeah, he was I guess. In THAT version.
But that aside, yes, there are variants in which he was hung on the outside of the tree. I know of at least two. One at Denderah, written in hieroglyphs, as recorded by Auguste Mariette, and another depicted iconographically at Philae, though I haven't seen the depiction myself, only read it described by scholars.
And even if he was affixed to the outside when dead, that's not what people would think of when they hear "crucifixion", so why don't mythicists just admit up front that while there's somewhat of a similarity, it's not a crucifixion? It seems that calling it a "crucifixion" is an attempt to mislead people into thinking it's something that it's really not.
... without expanding the definitions involved to the point where the parallel is no longer significant.
... If mythicists weren't being so misleading about these terms in their claims
... All I'm asking is for mythicists to be far more upfront about what the real parallels are.
Well, I just did that above. If it's a semantical issue, I can humor you on that. After all, Jesus & Paul never referred to their parallels as "crucifixions", nevertheless, they still likened them to Christ's crucifixion. And so from here on out I shall do the same, and follow their example, instead of following Josephus's example.
Why DO mythicists say Osiris was crucified,
Well, as D indicated earlier, it is likely because they are following the example of ancient writers who were not so arbitrarily narrow with the definition of the word. But no matter, water under the bridge at this point, as I digress.
which puts an image of Osiris being affixed to a cross and dying on it, when they know darned well that when people find out he just died and got stuck inside a tree, they're going to feel like they were misled?
Well, again, Paul's parallel was post-humous as well, so obviously whether the hanging was pre- or post- death is not too big of a deal for him, so it isn't for me either. But it is still linked with death in both cases. And as I pointed out above, it was not always him being placed inside of the tree, there were variants in which he was placed ON the tree.
Or in the case of the Djed, there is iconography depicting him placed ON the Djed, rather than in it, and against his back, very much like crucifixion. Moreover, the Djed in these sculptures have a cross-like shape. Also, when Christianity spread to Ethipoia in the 4th century CE, a country which since ancient times has had a heavy influence from Egypt and also worshipped Osiris(as Herodotus relates), the earliest Christian crosses we have from that area look just like the Egyptian Djed. So obviously when the Ethiopians at large were introduced to the story of Christ's crucifixion, to them, it bore a resemblence to the Djed of Osiris. I don't think they considered themselves to be misleading when they emulated iconography of something in which they saw such a succinct parallel.