LOL your accounts of these ancient Gods is inaccurate. After Jesus began to get popular practitioners of these ancient religions in an effort to increase their sphere of influence made these claims even though anyone who knew their actual histories would know it wasn't so.
You can get more info here http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/pagint.html
I LOL at your Horus and Mithras comparison 1st thing written -"both a God" and your 5th -"Both performed miracles" duh they said their God performed miracles? Thats really rare! You got me that time. Does your God perform miracles? uh yeah cause you know he's like God and stuff. You go into almost any faith and the deity probably performed a miracle.
Did you know Mithras was born an adult on dec 25? And the sheperds helped him out of the rock that he was born from (not like Jesus born of a woman where sheperds WITNESSED his birth)
Mithras was a great traveling teacher-so was every other prophet in existence (muhamed, various judeo-christian prophets, etc.) DUH!
Mithras had 12 companions - their isnt any proof of that they prove 2 people (twins) and various animals (still doesnt add to 12)
Mithras followers were promised immortallity- really? Whoa! Now that is some uniques spiritual stuff. I mean really Mithras followers were probably the first to ever say something like that.
As "the great bull of the sun Mithras sacrificed himself for world peace. THESE ARENT EVEN YOUR WORDS OR THOUGHTS YOU ARE A PARROT I WILL NOW START TO PARROT ANSWERS BACK.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
This description is rather spun out into a sound-alike of Christian belief, but behind the vagueness lies a different story. Mithra did not "sacrifice himself" in the sense that he died; he was not the "great bull of the Sun", but rather, he killed the bull (attempts to somehow identify Mithra with the very bull he slayed, although popular with outdated non-Mithraists like Loisy and Bunsen, were rejected by Vermaseren, who said that "neither the temples nor the inscriptions give any definite evidence to support this view and only future finds can confirm it" [Verm.MSG, 103]; it was not for the sake of "world peace" (except, perhaps, in the sense that Cumont interpreted the bull-slaying as a creation myth [***.MM, 193], in which he was entirely wrong). Mithra could only be said to have "sacrificed himself" in the sense that he went out and took a risk to do a heroic deed; the rest finds no justification at all in modern Mithraic studies literature -- much less does it entail a parallel to Christ, who sacrificed himself for atonement from personal sin (not "world peace").
Mithras died and rose again. Then why was it written "there is "no death of Mithras" -- Gor.III, 96"???? Whoa that doesnt make any sense?
Mithras I.D. himself with the lion and the lamb. No it was only the lion (sun god=leo=lion) no lamb. However lets pretend he did...
The lion and the lamb come from jewish scriptures DUH! WayDuh beforeDuh JesusDuh andDuh MithrasDuh. Ever hear of "The lion of Judah"???????? I wish I could write duh in every language right now!
Mithras was the way and truth and yadda yadda this exist in nearly every deity.
Mithras day was the lords day before christ. When a Roman ruler came into power that day was THEIR day. Christians use this and the idea of the first fruits for worshiping on sunday (Jesus rose [came into power] on a sunday!) Sunday is the 1st day of the week, it is the first day you "harvest" of the week so many "give" it to God.
Mithras Lords supper is not proven to be prechristianity the text found was in medevil times (well after christtianity had been established) they coppied us unless a dated document can prove otherwise.
"His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
This is rather a confused statement, for it compounds an apparent falsity (I have found no indication that Mithra's "sacrifice" was annual, rather than a once-in-the-past event); it uses terms from Judeo-Christian belief ("passover", "atonement") to describe a rite from Mithraism, without showing any similarities at all. I see this as little more than a case of illicitly applying terminology, and until more detail is provided, it can be regarded as little else.
Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ." In her latest work Acharya attributes this comment also to Weigall.
In response to this, I need to say that if Golding has or Weigall had some Mithraic scriptures in their possession, they need to turn them over to Mithraic scholarly community at once, because they will want to know about them. Ulansey [Ulan.OMM, 3] tells us that "the teachings of the (Mithraic) cult were, as far as we know, never written down" and we "have been left with practically no literary evidence relating to the cult which would help (us) reconstruct its esoteric doctrines." So where is Golding/Weigall getting this from? (A reader also noted that Paul is alluding the the Old Testament book of Numbers; so how does that square with a Mithraic origin for this verse?)
I dont think you really want me to crush your horus one to do you? Hey I have a GREAT IDEA why not do your OWN research and get some of YOUR OWN IDEAS. Just a thought.