Why are certain mythologies more popular than others?

[SethZaddik]

Excuse you! Rude. Is it impossible for you to say something nice without having to throw in an unnecessary insult? Wow, you must really hate Christianity and Islam. Sad.

There is not a religion on earth that has not borrowed from others before it.

People who say things like this but apply them only to those they don't like aren't likely very intelligent.

Notice Judaism, the most borrowed religous mythology is in the Bible, goes unmentioned?

Epic of Gilgamesh=the Deluge.

Genesis creation account is borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology too.

Moses has elements of Sargon.

The gods and God of Judaism from Canaanite mythology.

And Babylonian, Hammurabi's code for the Law of Moses.

On and on it goes.

 

[von bek]

Only I'm asking you. I am also not talking about their myths in general, but the whole "Dionysus began as Osiris so they're the same god" thing.

Serious scholars have conducted research trying to trace the origins of Dionysos worship. Simple answer, His origins are murky. He may be of Asiatic origin. He may not be, too.

 

[1137]

Well Greece is like the official grandfather of all our thought so that makes sense, and Egypt was made into a type of intellectual fetish with it's hidden secrets, buried cities, and strange language. Idk about Norse, probably just from our European past honestly, plus sadly a nice dose of white supremacy.

 

[SethZaddik]

Serious scholars have conducted research trying to trace the origins of Dionysos. Simple answer, His origins are murky. He may be of Asiatic origin. He may not be, too.

You got any names?

Because it is actually pretty established that Dionysius is based on Osiris and a fact that Greek mythology borrowed heavily from Egyptian mythology as well as others.

I have never heard a serious scholar say otherwise. Scholars of comparative mythology are who claim this as a matter of fact, regarding Dionysius/Osiris.

Osiris is the earlier Greek name for the Egyptian god, Dinoysius is a later version that is influenced by the Egyptian mythology.

 

[von bek]

You got any names?

Sure. I'll start with W.K.C. Guthrie. Ever heard of him?

 

[SethZaddik]

Sure. I'll start with W.K.C. Guthrie. Ever heard of him?

I can easily counter that.

Plutarch, who lived at the time, in his works states:

(35, 364E) "Osiris is IDENTICAL with Dionysus."

I thought you said SERIOUS scholars.

Yet this "scholar" hasn't read Plutarch?

Implausible.

 

[SethZaddik]

For independent corroboration you can find Plutarch online. He wrote a few books about various subjects that are one work.

I gave the location.

I got it from: www.truthbeknown.com/dionysus.html

 

[SethZaddik]

So...yeah.

 

[von bek]

I can easily counter that.

Plutarch, who lived at the time, in his works states:

(35, 364E) "Osiris is IDENTICAL with Dionysus."

I thought you said SERIOUS scholars.

Yet this "scholar" hasn't read Plutarch?

Implausible.

Plutarch is writing long after the worship of both gods were established. In other words, he only tells us how the two are being perceived, in his time. They do not give us a definitive answer on the origins of Dionysos, only Plutarch's thinking on the subject. Serious scholars realize this.

 

[SethZaddik]

Plutarch is writing long after the worship of both gods were established. In other words, he only tells us how the two are being perceived, in his time. They do not give us a definitive answer on the origins of Dionysos, only Plutarch's thinking on the subject. Serious scholars realize this.

Your pseudo scholar is much later.

Plutarch is closer to the source.

Logically he would know better than some guy today who has less information than did Plutarch.

Why would you think you made a good counter argument by trying to discredit Plutarch?

Terrible. Just admit you are wrong, Plutarch is not known for innaccuracy at all and no matter how much removed from the height of the worship of Dionysus, which actually existed in his time so Osiris is who he was far removed from not Dionysus.

Modern scholars are further removed with less information available.

Plutarch is far more reliable.

 

[SethZaddik]

So...yeah.

 

[von bek]

Your pseudo scholar is much later.

Plutarch is closer to the source.

Logically he would know better than some guy today who has less information than did Plutarch.

Why would you think you made a good counter argument by trying to discredit Plutarch?

Terrible. Just admit you are wrong, Plutarch is not known for innaccuracy at all and no matter how much removed from the height of the worship of Dionysus, which actually existed in his time so Osiris is who he was far removed from not Dionysus.

Modern scholars are further removed with less information available.

Plutarch is far more reliable.

I am not trying to "discredit" Plutarch. If you cannot see that, there is zero point pursuing this.

 

[SethZaddik]

Plutarch is writing long after the worship of both gods were established. In other words, he only tells us how the two are being perceived, in his time. They do not give us a definitive answer on the origins of Dionysos, only Plutarch's thinking on the subject. Serious scholars realize this.

Plutarch is first/second century so he live in the time of Dionysus worship and knew the history of Isis and Osiris and wrote about them, it's his most famous work.

He isn't talking about perception he is unequivocally stating that they "are identical."

 

[SethZaddik]

I am not trying to "discredit" Plutarch. If you cannot see that, there is zero point pursuing this.

I see exactly what you are doing. Refusing to admit Plutarch was telling us they were identical.

It's pretty obvious.

Is something about the words "Are identical" confusing to you?

Because what you claim Plutarch was doing is nothing short of erroneous.

"Are identical" is not perception but factually stating the truth.

 

[von bek]

Here is a link to another excellent book on the subject of Dionysos:

Amazon.com: Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life (9780691029153): Carl Kerényi, Ralph Manheim: Books

 

[von bek]

I see exactly what you are doing. Refusing to admit Plutarch was telling us they were identical.

It's pretty obvious.

Cool story.

 

[SethZaddik]

Cool story.

You told it, not me.

I accept you are conceding since you are resorting to immaturity.

 

[SethZaddik]

I didn't tell any story.

I quoted a reliable source from Antiquity.

You just didn't know it existed and can't admit you were wrong and mislead by pseudo scholars who didn't even read Plutarch who said:

"Osiris and Dionysus are Identical."

It's tough, pointless even, to dispute that he meant it. You tried but... no luck.

 

[SethZaddik]

Your only option at that point was to distort what Plutarch meant because you can't deny what he said now that you know.

 

[von bek]

I didn't tell any story.

I quoted a reliable source from Antiquity.

You just didn't know it existed and can't admit you were wrong and mislead by pseudo scholars who didn't even read Plutarch who said:

"Osiris and Dionysus are Identical."

It's tough, pointless even, to dispute that he meant it. You tried but... no luck.

I know what Plutarch says. I also know the time he lived. You have not even read what Guthrie or Kerenyi say. You are unaware that they are aware of Plutarch. You are unaware of the issues surrounding the tracing of the origins of the cult of Dionysos. Your childish goading changes none of that.