This should be fun.
Huller’s comments here miss the point that the borrowing of the Lazarus myth from the Osiris myth was deliberate and structural, not accidental and emergent.
How do we know this? Do you have an ancient source that tells you this or did it come from the imagination of one of your group?
The Lazarus story reflects a conscious effort on the part of the writers of the Fourth Gospel
So you don't think there is any relationship with the story of Lazarus in Luke? Surely if Lazarus = Osiris then it must mean this in both texts. Or are we dealing with two Lazarus's - one who is Osiris and one who is not? Or perhaps two independent developments of Lazarus from Osiris?
to place the Jesus story within the great ancient heritage of Egyptian spirituality,
Is that the only possibility? What about the parallel story in Secret Mark that makes no apparent references to Lazarus or what you would call 'Egyptian spirituality'? Didn't Secret Mark come first?
recognising that Christians could not speak of God without establishing some continuity with prior tradition.
What other borrowings from Egypt do you see in the gospel? Is this an isolated example or are there more?
The etymology has to be placed within the context of the overall story.
Oh so you are finally going to explain how Lazarus came from Osiris.
The Egyptian source of the home of Lazarus in Bethany (the house of Ani) can be seen in reading the Pyramid Text of Ani translated at
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/egipt ... efault.htm Isis and Nephthys are called the two Mertae, a word like Marthas. Mary sits at the feet of Christ, as the goddess Isis sits on the throne. Martha is busy, as Nephthys is the useful goddess of the house. Lazarus comes back from the dead, like Osiris. Christ is the active divine king, like Horus, who is depicted as bringing his father Osiris back from the dead.
No, of course not. You're back to this nonsense. Still can't even attempt to explain the empty claim that that the name Lazarus is related to Osiris. No mention of what language this was accomplished. Just the usual mention of generalities about the Egyptian religion and how it is similar to the resurrection of Lazarus which 'must mean' that Lazarus = Osiris.
The function of the myth is primary. We can readily see all the characters perform corresponding functions, and there are close similarities with Egyptian myth in the names of Lazarus, Bethany and Martha.
Oh there we go. 'The similarities' of the names Lazarus, Bethany and Martha. No explanation because that's above your pay grade I guess.
The idea that this is mere coincidence,
What's a 'mere coincidence'? You haven't even made an argument. You've just said that three names are 'similar' but no mention of what they are similar to, no mention of the language etc. The usual empty nonsense.
in a context where Egypt had ruled Israel for centuries, is absurd.
So now you are arguing that 'Egypt ruled Israel for centuries' - presumably taking the Bible story at face value. But no effort is made to demonstrate Egyptianisms in Jewish culture that existed at the time of the gospel. So your point now is that the gospel 'must have had Egyptian culture references' because of a historical relationship between Egypt and Israel over a millennia earlier. Great argument.
But those advocating a hermetic sealing of Jewish lore as advocated by the tyrant King Josiah can easily cope with absurdity.
Of course you provide no evidence for these cultural borrowings that were active at the time of the gospel. No examples of a Jewish-Egyptian culture that might have produced the gospel.
Again, Huller provides more facile contemptible libel by calling Massey a crank.
I don't even think you know what the word 'libel' means. You're just trying to up the ante on your gangs usual bullshit claim that anyone who doesn't your garbage is 'lying,' 'slandering' - now it is 'libel.' Massey is ignored by serious Egyptologists.
This ignorant slur is a typical piece of bigoted well-poisoning with no basis in fact.
Please show me how Massey is relevant to contemporary Egyptology and what possible authority he has to develop arguments about Hebrew names.
Huller’s view seems to be that Christianity emerged solely from his own Jewish religion,
That doesn't follow from what I am saying. I am merely pointing out your argument has no linguistic merits. Lazarus does not equal Osiris. It is not an Achilles Heel for Christianity. It is a demonstration of your flawed approach. You have done nothing to demonstrate any change in tactic here.
and that any assertion of wider influence, whether of Gilgamesh on Noah or of Osiris on Lazarus, can be given the evil eye by calling it all the work of cranks. Such evil eye argument belongs in medieval days, with orthodox Christianity.
Oh I apologize for asking for actual evidence. None has emerged yet again in your normal bluster. Again I ask - how are any of you convinced by these stupid ideas without a shred of actual evidence. Let me guess - 'you like the ideas.' The chocolate cake with vanilla ice cream approach to truth in Biblical scholarship. 'I like the idea that paganism influenced the writing of the gospel. Can't prove it. But I like it.'
On Huller’s stupid assertion that the Therapeuts of Alexandria emerged without pagan influence,
Oh not this again. You didn't have evidence last time we debated, doubt very much any is forthcoming. More chocolate cake please ...
the fact is that the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka of India sent monastic missionaries called Theruputta to Alexandria in the third century BC, and these became the basis of the Therapeuts, bringing Buddhist institutional monastic methods to the west.
Yes a widely accepted theory for the origin of this Jewish sect mentioned favorably by Philo. Maybe Philo was a Buddhist too.
Christianity has deep Buddhist roots,
Oh my God! Not content to argue for a group of Bu-Jews (Buddhist Jews) in Alexandria, now Christianity is Buddhist too. And the evidence is ... nowhere. Yet again. Love the seriousness in this post. Just throw words and ideas on a page. Hope something will stick.
but you would not know that if like Huller you exercised racial blinders to crankily dismiss anything outside the Jewish charmed circle.
Jews just love Christians. They love Jesus. Nothing they want more than to fight on behalf of the 'Jewishness' of the gospel out of 'spite' I guess to deny the real origin of Christianity among the pagans, the Buddhists, the surfing dudes and any other group you might want to bring into the discussion.
I don't know why you can't see it - but you haven't so much as presented a single new piece of evidence to back up the original point of discussion - how Lazarus = Osiris. The same old bluster, the same old accusations, but absolutely nothing new - save for the fact that you can't even so much as muster an argument to defend this thesis. Just more distractions to avoid the inevitable.
