You hit it on the head it is called the
copycat thesis and historians don’t take this thesis seriously at all. In fact, every history society meeting among historians often someone makes a joke about it. I wonder where John copied that recipe from?
tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3a47345f84.htm
google.com/search?hl=en&q=copycat+thesis+refuted
christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread13943/pg1
google.com/search?hl=en&q=copycat+thesis+examined
The Jehovah’s Witnesses like to use this thesis on the Trinity. If you examine their historical proofs there is not even similiarity at all. Atheists will use the example of fall - spring cycle to claim it is an example of death and resurrection. In fall, plants fall asleep, die, in spring to spring to life, resurrection. If you think about it, if the Trinity examples were good parallels to the biblical trinity, then it would make sense that Satan before his fall, would see the Trinue God, and thus would make a counterfeit of the Trinity because he knew that to be what God is like. The other day at the hardware store, I saw a three dollar bill, it was an advertisement bill. But, even the teenager working the counter was not going to accept it as cash. Now if the guy had a counterfeit twenty, he may have gotten change from her. So, if Satan were to make up counterfiet Trinities, it would make sense to make counterfiets of the real godhead.
Historians’ Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (Paperback) by David H. Fischer
Tell anyone who takes the copycat thesis seriously to read Fischers’ book.
Basically, to prove that there is copycat one must have the exact same concepts, phyiscal objects, and same exact meaning of such. If you read copycat examples, and research the gods they refer to, you will see that they fudging big time to make something fit. I once ran accross an new ager who redefined resurrection to mean reincarnation to say that Jesus copied from a hindu god.