Talk:Dionysus-Osiris

Inner Mysteries
I removed this pgph from the article, since it needs more support:


 * Pagan spirituality of the Osiris-Dionysus sects was composed of two components. The Outer Mysteries consisted of Pagan beliefs and practices that were widely disseminated and taught to the general public. The Inner Mysteries were revealed only to those who had been initiated into the Pagan religions. The initiates learned that Osiris-Dionysus was not a historical person. His legends were simply fables containing spiritual and moral teachings.

Also, I removed the mention of Antiochus and the historical note about him. The list of proposed members of the Osiris-Dionysus complex is full enough to stand on its own without Antiochus. Bacchiad 22:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Controversial Viewpoint
From : "Copyright © 1999 to 2002 incl., by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance."

Note that this documentation of the osiris/dionysus myth also appears to be a controversial viewpoint  , but the article presents it as straight consensus fact.
 * I will begin a SPD process as soon as possible...


 * As your own articles point out (read them again), the controversial viewpoint of Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy is not consensus fact, but the contents of the Wikipedia Osiris-Dionysus article are.

Copyright Violation
This whole article is taken from http://pub4.ezboard.com/fcosmotheismreligionspirituality.showMessage?topicID=145.topic

Removed as a possible copyright violation.


 * The article was taken from Queendom.com message board with permission. chnlsswndr (poster at queendom) is the same person as ezboard poster SallySally2000

--

Jesus
Is it really good to put Justin Martyr in the article?

I mean his theory is so stupid that putting his theory in the article makes the article misleading.

I mean Osiris-Dionysus shows practically no connection to the Messiah as described in the Hebrew Bible. --Anon


 * It seemed reasonable to me. I restored it. --mav

Did Osiris-Dionysus exist as an actual God
Reading this article one might think there was actually a god named "Osiris-Dionysus", which of course there was not. Rather this term is a conflation of two different dieties with similar stories... and, as the article points out, only two of many with similar stories. If anyone can think of a way of clarifying this, please do... I can't think of any felicitous way of phrasing it. -- Someone else 00:00 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)
 * Tried to do some fixing on this subject. Tuf-Kat
 * Actually, "Osiris-Dionysus" was a God shared across the whole meditterranean as the chief figure in the pan-meditterranean Mystery Religion. However, the local form was heavily syncretised with local deities, producing the varients Osiris, Dionysus, Attis etc.
 * But, these deities existed before, so they had earlier versions of their myths, which became part of the Osiris-Dionysus myth at a later time. CheeseDreams 19:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * B.t.w. the term "osiris-dionysus" is just one used by scholars to refer to this pan-hellenic-world figure, it more properly means Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Aion, Apollo, Mithras, and many others. 81.156.93.59 20:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If "Osiris-Dionysus" deserves a Wikipedia entry can someone confirm that any scolars use the term apart from Freke and Gandy, who are popular writers on religion and not academics? My impression is it is a term invented by them in the Jesus Mysteries so as to conflate all vaguely similar gods into one and strengthen their case that Jesus was based on a preceding mythical deity - thus they can make long lists of supposed paralels between Jesus and "Osiris-Dionysus" including elements taken from many different pagan myths (they also, in my opinion, often go well beyong neutrality and scholarly facts in their descriptions of the attributes meant to have been possessed by their pagan deity - including 12 disciples etc - I've never read elsewhere that Mithras or Dionysus or Osiris or any such figures actually was said to have 12 disciples, and that's just on example that leaps to mind). If it is an invention of Freke and Gandy, the article should say so, not just claim "authors, SUCH AS Freke and Gandy," use the term, backed up by one reference to these writers. Orlando098 (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea of Mithra having twelve apostles comes from Mithratic art which showed Mithra being surrounded by 12 figures. The 12 figures were the signs of the zodiac. Then someone ran with it. Maybe Jesus had 12 apostles because of the 12 tribes of Israel? So that each one could rule over each tribe? Old Testament parallels be damned! 69.254.76.77 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Story of Osiris-Dionysus
I removed:


 * The Legend


 * The following is the story of Osiris-Dionysus: God was his father. A human woman - a virgin - was his mother. According to most accounts, he was conceived physically through sexual intercourse. He was born either in a cave or cowshed (depending on the account). His birth was prophesized by a star in the sky. At a marriage ceremony, he miraculously converted water into wine. However, he was powerless to perform miracles in his hometown. He had 12 disciples and gained many followers. His followers were &#8220;born again&#8221; through baptism in water. Before his death, he rode triumphantly into a city on donkey back as the inhabitants waved palm leaves. He was accused of immoral behavior and killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox (i.e. around March 21st). He was hung either on a tree, a stake, or a cross (depending on the account). After death, he descended into hell. The cave where he was buried was visited by three of his female followers. After three days, he miraculously returned to life and later ascended to heaven. According to story, he will return again in the last days and judge the human race at that time.


 * Unfortunately this IS NOT the story of Osiris-Dionysus, just that of one or two local manifestations of him, such as Dionysus. Therefore such stories belong in the relevant Dionysus article, etc. CheeseDreams 19:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't about Dionysus at all. It's about Jesus. Never have I ever seen anything even close to this. The closest thing we have to wine-water is in the story of Leucippine and Clitophon where Dionysus gives a shepard wine when all they had to drink was water. Achilles Tacitus then obviously parody's the eucharist right in the paragraph below it. The only time I'm aware of Dionysus descending into "hell" (Funny how this isn't actually in the bible...) is when he went and got his dead girlfriend (and mom?) out of Hades and brought them up to Mount Olympus. I mean, I've done a lot of research on this subject, and I'm going to have to call the rest of those just flat out lies.69.254.76.77 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Osiris-Dionysus was known by the titles, &#8220;God made flesh&#8221;, &#8220;Savior of the world&#8221; and &#8220;Son of God.&#8221; According to beliefs, Osiris-Dionysus is equal to his Father. His death was a sacrifice for the sins of the World.
 * No, he wasn't. I've checked.69.254.76.77 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Because this describes Jesus. I don't know much about the other gods mentioned, but virtually none of it applies to Dionysus, Osiris, Bacchus or Adonis and the parts that do apply to them make those deities life-death-rebirth deities, along with many others totally unrelated to Christ. Tuf-Kat


 * Tuf Kat you are just wrong to remove that. I suspect that you removed that because you are offended by the fact that it is similar to the account of Jesus but you have removed a very important part of the article. The article exists, IMHO, to provide a background on the similarities of the two types of stories. You were way out of line and I think it's ridiculous to remove a section of the article because it offends you or hits too close to home. Please, can we get some writers with knowledge in these areas? Of the things that I do know many "gods" and "heroes" throughout the ancient world share a very similar story with Jesus, like it or not. It seems to be that most items of Christian Mythology are taken from other sources (Jesus's December birthdate, virgin birth, etc). As I said, we need people who know what they are talking about here... no people with knee jerk reactions please. JoeHenzi 05:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of being nice, but do you idiots realize that the idea that Jesus was born in December didn't even appear until the third century and before that, it was in March? It's on the Christmas page. It's not in the bible. In Luke, it says the shepards were out with their flocks at the time. If it was in winter, they wouldn't have been out there.69.254.76.77 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Osiris-Dionysus NOT Historicity of Jesus.

Please refrain from including significant amounts of content about similarities with Jesus from this article.

I am currently working on a major edit of the Historicity of Jesus page, and am including information about similarities there. CheeseDreams 19:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tidy
This article is a mess.

In addition, the pages it links to need to link back.

Mystery religions should be rewritten and part of the content moved here. The remainder being a description of the general tenets of a mystery religion.

Details of how the religion spread (e.g. sailors, merchants) and took over the various pre-existing gods should be included.

Details of where it came from should be included. Pythagoreanism might help.

There should be mention of syncretism and of life-death-rebirth deity.

There should be a discription, where possible, of aspects shared between all and every of the different versions of Osiris-Dionysus.

The article should not seek to duplicate Historicity of Jesus, though it should mention it (in passing)

This page should be of a similar quality to pages about Dionysus and Mithras etc. It isnt.

Thoughts? CheeseDreams 03:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To mentioning the Historicity of Jesus, I think the article should give a 2-3 paragraph summary of the topic, and link at the top of the passage to the expanded article. --Tribe4ever 07:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Recasting
For most of its long and glorious lifetime, this gem of an article has presented the pan-Mediterranean Jesus-like pagan "godman" Osiris-Dionysus as an established fact. I have tried to recast it into a "history of an idea"-type article. Personally, I think the theory is dumb, but it's been out there for a while, influenced a lot of people, and its development and manifestations should get serious, NPOV treatment.

Right now it could use some expansion - like named people who have argued for this viewpoint besides Hislop and Freke/Gandy. Personally, Christianity isn't my specialy, so I can't add a lot more. &mdash; Bacchiad 01:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're thinking about adding Acharya S, then don't. She's the first one I can think of. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

De-Stub
I have removed the stub tag. According to the policies on stub articles Perfect_stub_article, a stub is not merely any imperfect article, but one too short to be useful in any sense - about 3-10 short sentences. Although this article could use some work, it is out of stub territory. Bacchiad 13:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dire need of help
This article is extremely misleading. I was doing some research, and when I came to this page, I had to do a lot of detective work to figure out why this article seemed to not be about the Osiris-Dionysus deities at all.

Christian apologists have clearly hijacked this article. The last section doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in the historicity of Jesus article. This is not the historicity of Jesus.

I'd also like to note that the only "citation needed" has been placed passive aggressively. The entire article needs citations.

Because this article could be very confusing to someone who is unaware of the debate over the historicity of Jesus, I suggest a tag be added that explains that this article is somewhat of a battle-ground, or it should be deleted completely, as any serious explanation of the topic will be undermined by people who don't understand that the story of Jesus is separate from the person and, more importantly, that this is not an article about Jesus.

I don't know if I have the ability to do that, so I'd ask that someone who does seriously consider it. Thank you.

66.152.196.34 13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was hijacked by people who haven't done their research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.76.77 (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies everywhere
This article is horribly biased towards Freke and Gandy's nonsense, which the entire (even secular) scholarly community rejects.

Kabain52 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your assertion is a pile of unsubstantiated Christian apologetic untruth. For one thing, the "entire scholarly community" does not, in fact, reject Freke and Gandy's works, and you are committing the bandwagon fallcy, which invalidates your entire statement.  To tell you the truth, I myself had long come to those same conclusions from reading Will & Ariel Durant's The Story of Civilization, hardly a bastion of freethought, at a time when I was still a preseminary student.  Keep the lying and the mythology in the pulpits where it belongs.  Natty4bumpo, 1332, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First guy's right. Those two aren't worth their salt. Read the primary sources and you'll see how off those two idiots are. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hijacked
This article has been hijacked and is being used to lend credibility to the likes of Freke and Gandy. Kabain's comment above shows this to be the case. This article should have nothing to do with Christianity at all. The fact is, Freke and Gandy's theory is a fringe one and not taken seriously by many at all, yet it has become a major focus of this article. Look at this: "The Pagan and Christian practices are strikingly similar: bread and wine as the body and blood, resurrection on the third day, virgin birth to a father who is a god, etc. Christian apologists charged the devil of copying Jesus' life into the past." Not a single citation is give for this laundry list. If these things really are, for example, a part of the legendary life of osiris, then they should be presented in that context. In fact they aren't, so they shouldn't even be mentioned, but this attempt to turn a subject about Egyptology into an anti-Christian polemic has no place in a serious forum like Wikipedia. I have therefore edited out this line altogether. Please, what we need are real contributions that are on topic, and not motivated in this way. GPeoples (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this fringe hypothesis made by non-scholars is over done. --Ari (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Latter-Day Saint Perspective
The Latter-Day Saint Perspective section is not even a little bit relevant. So why am I accused of vandalism when I remove it? Seriously, do we need a "Latter-Day Saint Perspective" about Islam? Apollo? Star Trek? Peak Oil? It's not like there is any specific LDS document or source that discusses Osiris-Dionysus, anywhere. Some Mormon just stumbled into the article and put his theological perspective where it doesn;t belong. If there was, like, an LDS book about Osiris-Dionysus, or even a statement made by a Church Leader or something, then maybe it would be worth putting in. But there ain't. All there is is a general Latter-Day Saint opinion about why many of the world's myths have parallels with the story of Jesus. But this isn't an article about Christianity and comparative mythology generally. It's specifically about Osiris-Dionysus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.83.157 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Osiris-Dionysus as separate from the 'Godman theory'
The work of Freke and Gandy on a hypothesized popular pre-Christian Jesusesque divinity is quite separate from the deity that results from the syncretism of Dionysus and Osiris. The former seeks to popularize a 'Godman' divinity that had a widespread cult that evolved into separate divinities, whereas the latter is a syncretized divinity that arises from increased contact and conquering of the Egyptian peoples by the Greeks. While the 'Osiris-Dionysus' godman cannot be sourced outside of Freke and Gandy's work, likely due to the fact that it is ostensibly wrong, the syncretized divinity occurs throughout Hellenistic Egypt, and is more frequently referred to in the combined form in Western writings as 'Dionysus-Osiris'. Though 'Dionysus-Osiris' isn't always called as such, the instances in which the figures are likened to be the same, by both Greeks and Egyptians, are evidence towards a mutual belief in the oneness of the deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianzzz (talk • contribs) 02:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but Osiris and Osiris-Dionysus weren't distinct figures. The form of Osiris worshipped in Greece and Rome was Osiris-Dionysus. The topic can easily be covered in a section of the Osiris article. A. Parrot (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that this article is largely misguided; Dionysus-Osiris does not seem to be a term that is commonly used in real scholarship. The ancients either saw Dionysus and Osiris as separate deities or as the same deity under different names. They never believed in a distinct, syncretized deity clearly distinguishable from both of its constituents, and I think that the very idea of a distinct "Dionysus-Osiris" is misleading. This would be a bit like having a separate article called "Inanna-Ishtar," when the ancient Mesopotamians knew her only as either Inanna or Ishtar, and envisioned both of them as the same goddess only under two different names. We do not have a separate article called Dionysus-Bacchus, because, to anyone in the ancient Greco-Roman world, that would have simply been Dionysus, not a distinct deity. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree and refer you to the Ptolemaic article cited. With the increased contact between Greece and Egypt, deities gained traits through syncretization. While Pan and Min and Horus and Apollo may not have the amount of information necessary for a full length article, Dionysus-Osiris was worshipped by the Ptolemies due to associations of fertility and monarchy and it culminated in Marc Antony's ceremonies where he became the deity alongside Cleopatra as Isis-Aphrodite. While you are free to include this as part of Osiris' article, it isn't limited to just Osiris but is an important evolution in the cult of Dionysus as well. Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and Herodotus all state that the deities are the same, and Mnaseas says that the two are one god named Epaphus. This influence was seen again where Dionysus was given the epithet Petempamenti, which was an epithet of Dionysus' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianzzz (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point of what both of us are trying to say; what we are saying is that, while the ancients syncretized the two deities for sure, they had no conception of the syncretized deity being different from the deities he was a syncretization of. It would be better to mention the syncretism in the articles about Dionysus and Osiris rather than having a separate article called "Dionysus-Osiris." If we are going to have a separate article on this subject, we would have to call it something like "Syncretism of Dionysus and Osiris in antiquity" or something similar, especially since the name "Dionysus-Osiris" with a hyphen does not seem to be commonly used by real scholars. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

METHINKS CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH
Indeed, this article is about the relationship between the ancient cults of Osiris and Dionysus but as we see, even if "Jesus" isn't even mentioned, some people are bold enough to remove a quote from a well researched article or book with appropriate citations, if some of the rituals discussed bear even a slight resemblance to those of Christianity! As if the presence of the Roman Empire, with its Hellenistic influences, wouldn't have any effect on the local philosophies and religions in the Middle East? When this article is completed, Wiki may want to lock it against general public editing or vandalism!MARK VENTURE (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)