Again you ignore certain details. Both men have PhD's.
Again you avoid reading my posts (or at least the details that disturb you) I gave links to both characters, I have read the links myself and in both their educational qualifications are given.
Please have some respect for education.
You will find few who have more respect for education than I, however, and if you had read my post, I make the point that what
you study is all-important.
I think neither of us will deny that a PhD in, say, mathematics is unassailable. It is unassailable because if you are wrong, someone can show that to be the case. The whole subject is based upon a solid foundation. This is scholarship. This is where if the theorem can prove a 3,4,5, triangle on a 2D plane surface to be right-angled, then the same logic is applied to triangles of different dimensions and it works.
Where many theologians depart from this is in three ways, 1. To be a theologian of note, you have to have your own theory - you cannot name two who agree completely. 2. As you and your source accept the argument for Christ rising, you both, on the same grounds, reject the case for Osiris rising. (This alone, for me, removes the "scholarly" aspect.) 3. Whereas a proof cannot make assumptions about whether certain lengths have behaviours and meanings different from other lengths, a theologian can make assumptions about the meaning or significance of a word, passage or action.
Both men worked hard to get where they are at,
This, of course and conveniently, does not state if "where they are at" is a good or bad place or any description of the place whatsoever. Fame itself is not proof of anything other than fame (see Justin Bieber), nor does it account for their, nevertheless, holding opposing views.
The disinterested observer with critical thinking skills must ask, 1. "Which, if either, is correct?" 2. "Does it matter if one worked harder than the other? Is it not equally possible to work hard towards what turns out to be a false conclusion?"
which is why, when it comes to a debate they can bring up more than ignorant arguments like Osiris or the "time-cube"
You see what you did? To dismiss Osiris as an historical figure, you have given an obscure reference from two men whose agenda we do not know and you have failed to expound or explain. You have no real useful knowledge about Osiris, nothing that would dismiss their claim to historicity.
I am quite willing to be impartial in the question of whether the Christ/Osiris myths are parallel or not. But you should realises that a mere statement (i) by you devoid of context and (ii) from persons whose background we do not know, is unlikely to be of much probative value here. If you are able to supply the basis of your argument that the Osiris parallel is a fallacy, please do.