The entire: "Christianity is plagiarized from pagan religions" myth was debunked by the 1920s. First of all you need to get a copy of Lee Strobel's book: The case For the Real Jesus. In which he clearly shows you, through experts, why each of the points you talk about Horace Mithra are not parallels to Christianity. First of all, those very poor scholars that tried to make this claim had to first Christianize the myth, to try and make it conform. Now it's not possible to give you complete answers in the limited space available but let me give you a little bit from the book. T.N.D. Mettinger - a senior Swedish scholar, professor at Lund University, and member of the Royal Academy of letters, history, and the antiquities of Stockholm--- wrote one of the most recent academic treatments of dying and rising gods in antiquity. He admits in his book: The Riddles of Resurrection,: "that the consensus among modern scholars -nearly universal- is that there are no dying and rising God superseded Christianity. They all postdated the first century. ( came AFTER) Obviously the timing is critical: Christianity could not about the idea of the resurrection if myths about dying and rising gods weren't even circulating when Christianity was birthed in the first century A.D." (quoted from Strobel's book) while Mettinger takes exception to the nearly universal scholarly conviction and takes a decidedly minority position and claim that there are at least three possible and maybe as many as five possible dying and rising gods that predate Christianity: the question is this: are there any actual parallels between these myths and Jesus' resurrection? Mettinger, after combing through all of these accounts and critically analyzing them adds that none of these serve as parallels to Jesus... none of them. It's important to remember that Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact that can be proven from the witnesses and testimonies not only of the Bible but of extra biblical sources. And all of these are considered mythical not even believed as literal by those who followed that religion. Mettinger caps his study with this stunning statement: "there is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rights of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world." In short, this leading scholar's analysis is a sharp rebuke to popular level authors and Internet bloggers who make a grand claim about the pagan origins of Jesus' returned from the dead. Ultimately, he affirms, "the death and resurrection of Jesus retained its unique character in the history of religions."
The religious belief of Mithra was: Mithras sprang Wholey formed from a rock, naked, with a hat and holding a dagger or torch or globe. This in no way reflects death and resurrection. And I think you're thinking of Osiris not Horus when you talk about death and resurrection. Osiris's body was cut into 14 pieces and then reassembled minus one part by his sister: Isis. He was then raised, not in life, he is the king of the underworld. Whether this can be called a [bodily] resurrection is questionable especially since according to Plutarch it was the pious desire of devotees to be buried in the same ground were according to local traditions the body of Osiris was still lying." End of quotes from Lee Strobel's book. You'll find this book to give you satisfactory answers and explanations as to why this entire belief was laid to rest in 1920 but has been resurrected by the same liberal left, radical fringe, minority and Internet quasi-scholars today.
Source(s):
Lee Strobel, the case for the real Jesus.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100125145808AAWfPYF

Jesus has been called an intellectual who spouted pithy aphorisms; a Mediterranean cynic leading a wandering band of proto-hippies; an androgynous feminist and ambassador of Sophia, the female embodiment of divine wisdom; a clever messianic pretender; a gay magician; a peasant revolutionary; and a Jewish Zen master.

“How have your decades of research into the Old and New Testaments
affected your own view of Jesus?” I asked.
“Well, it’s much more nuanced, but at the end of the day it’s a
more realistic Jesus. Personally, I think a lot of Christians — even
conservative, Bible-believing Christians—are semi-docetic.”
That took me off-guard. “What do you mean?”
“In other words,” he said, “they halfway believe — without ever
giving it any serious thought—what the Docetic Gnostics believed,
which is that Jesus actually wasn’t real. ‘Oh, yes, of course, he’s real,’
they’ll say. But they’re not entirely sure how far to go with the incarnation.
How human was Jesus? For a lot of them, the human side of
Jesus is superficial.
“It’s almost as though a lot of Christians think of Jesus as God
wearing a human mask. He’s sort of faking it, pretending to be human.
He pretends to perspire, his stomach only appears to gurgle because,
of course, he’s not really hungry. In fact, he doesn’t really need to
eat. So Jesus is the bionic Son of God who isn’t really human. This is
thought to be an exalted Christology, but it’s not. Orthodox Christology
also embraces fully the humanity of Jesus.

Wanting him to explain further, I asked, “What is it we miss about
his humanity?”
“Well, a big part of the atonement. He dies in our place as a
human being who dies in our place. God didn’t send an angel,” he
replied. “And, of course, there’s the identification factor. We can identify
with him: he was tempted as we are. How was he tempted if he was
just God wearing a mask — faking it and pretending to be a human?
Again, that’s Docetic Gnosticism—Jesus only appeared to be incarnate,
only appeared to be human — and a lot of evangelical Christians
come pretty close to that.”
“Is there something about his human nature you’d want to emphasize?”
Evans reflected for a moment, then replied. “Yes, Jesus’ own
faith,” he said. “He tells his disciples to have faith. Jesus has a huge
amount of credibility if we see him as fully human and he actually, as
a human, has faith in God. Otherwise, well, that’s easy for him to say!
Good grief—he’s been in heaven, and now he’s walking around telling
me to have faith? But I take the teaching of Jesus’ humanness, which
is taught clearly in scripture, very seriously.”

Mr_Anony: dude, you have my email. Please forward the pdf to me

paulokwudiri: forward the pdf to me also on paulokwudiri@rocketmail.com

Mr_Anony: Thanks bro, just got it. It's 308 pages long though so it'll take me quite a bit of time to read but Thanks.

“That means they regard the Bible only as divine and not also a
human product. Many seminary students start that way. I looked over
a student’s shoulder while he was translating Greek in a workbook and
said, ‘That must be from the Gospel of Mark, because the grammar is
so bad.’ The student was surprised. I said, “Well, yeah, he’s one of the
worst writers of Greek in the New Testament.’ But that doesn’t impact
inspiration, because we’re dealing with what the product is, not how it’s
communicated. If Mark Twain can say ‘ain’t,’ and it’s considered good
writing, then you can have Mark do the same kind of thing.”

Wallace has been subjecting the New Testament’s text to scrutiny
for decades. “Has your scholarship shaken your belief that the Bible
is trustworthy?” I asked.
“No, not at all. But it has caused me to see it in a different light,” he
said. “For example, I thought when I started out that when I saw the words
of Jesus, they must be exactly those words that he uttered. But historians
of that day were trying to accurately get the gist of what was said.
“For example, it would take you no more than two hours to say all of
Jesus’ words in the Gospels. Well, that’s not a very long time to speak.
It takes only fifteen minutes to get through the Sermon on the Mount—
but when Jesus delivered his sermons, people were often hungry at
the end. I don’t think Jesus gave fifteen-minute sermonettes for Christianettes.
So the Gospels contain a summary of what he said. And if it’s
a summary, maybe Matthew used some of his own words to condense it.
That doesn’t trouble me in the slightest. It’s still trustworthy.”

mkmyers45: send it to me bro: mkmyers45@gmail.com

““The quantity and quality of the New Testament manuscripts are
unequalled in the ancient Greco-Roman world. The average Greek
author has fewer than twenty copies of his works still in existence, and
they come from no sooner than five hundred to a thousand years later.
If you stacked the copies of his works on top of each other, they would
be about four feet tall. Stack up copies of the New Testament and they
would reach more than a mile high — and, again, that doesn’t include
quotations from the church fathers.
Even the great historians who give us much of our understandings
of ancient Roman history are quite incomplete,” he added. “Livy, for
example, wrote 142 volumes on the history of Rome, but only 35 survive.
When you compare the New Testament to the second most copied
Greek author, the differences are truly astounding. Homer’s Iliad and
Odyssey combined have fewer than 2,400 copies — yet Homer has an
eight-hundred-year head start on the New Testament!At bottom, textual
criticism for virtually all other ancient literature relies on creative
conjectures, or imaginative guesses, at reconstructing the wording of
the original. Not so with the New Testament.”