Strawman and a brazen accusation with no support.
They even show the real image in their book. It's called promotional material. That image would not be as eye-cathing as the colourized version. And it is a real amulet.
You're not in a position to tell others to not commit strawman fallacies.Now that you understand what a straw man argument is please try avoid it in the future because it makes you look like you are trying to be dishonest when you are not.
Well to begin with, there is no "may or may not" n regards to gods being hung on trees and crosses. Osiris was ritualistically hung on a sycamore tree; Attis on pine trees. Bulls were sacrificed to Mithras and hung on trees. And Dionysus was hung on trees and crosses/stauroi.Now onto the greater problem. Did you find any direct evidence that Bacchus the god of wine was crucified on a tree? The answer is no. What you did was find stories about other pagan gods that may or may not have been hung on a tree and tried to connect those stories to Bacchus. Much like saying the story of the Three Little Pigs and the Red Riding Hood came from the story of Beowulf because they all have wolves in them.
In all of the above depictions, as well as many others, Dionysus is indeed placed on a cross: an upright stauros surmounted by a capital.
And what does Virgil say again??? That Bacchus had the same thing done with him--that images of the god were hung on trees and trellises and vineposts.
So, yes, Bacchus WAS hung on a cross. The issue of whether he was "crucified" is a linguistic issue. Crucified just means hung on a stauros. That's it. It's only in our minds, which has predominantly been that of a Christian persuasion, that crucified means hung on a stauros in like manner of Christ. It doesn't.
Inasmuch as the amulet is concerned, which is authentic, it does depict Orpheus being initiated into the Bacchic mysteries by being crucified. It even reads Orpheus becomes Bacchus. So there is no question about what is happening: Orpheus is emulating Bacchus, who was hung on a cross, by doing the same--by hanging on a cross.
No, it is not.That fallacy is called non-sequitur.
That is what Ethan said. Not me.So, the fallacious argument that the Catholic Church is covering up it's track over the photo-shopped, so-called amulet, is not proven.
Go learn something.