> I see.
> I appreciate your explanation but are you able to cite a
> mainstream Egyptologist stating that Osiris "came into
> existence as a mummified non-existent being" or not?
This is what it means when they say that "Osiris is a mummiform god". A "god" by definition is a pagan belief that doesn't exist. "Mummiform" means mummified. And "Osiris" is a specific non-existent belief.
There is no one today who actually believes that osiris exists or ever existed in reality. Certainly no one believes in the osiris of the PT who had sweet smelling corpse drippings. Egyptologists believe that ancient people believed this entity was real and literally was cool effervescent corpse drippings through which people needed to tip toe. They believe we are much smarter than this today which is why people don't share these ancient beliefs.
How you phrase things is not important to the meaning expressed. There are an infinite number of ways to say the same thing. Saying that "osiris is a god" simply means that osiris is the name of a specific non-existent being. The only exception is to an individual who believes Osiris is a real God. They then go on to define this god in the terms I already stated.
It seems to me that if there's an issue with this then the issue is with Egyptologists and translators. I disagree with them. I believe every word written about "osiris" was meant literally and was scientifically accurate. I believe osiris was real but was not a god, he was a neter. The problem is with translation and interpretation and Egyptological interpretation is highly inconsistent and inaccurate.
There were no ramps and no corpse drippings. Our beliefs spring from very thin evidence and pounding square pegs in round holes. It's ironic that some of the strongest evidence from when things first went wrong in the 19th century may have been manufactured.