The salient points of Jesus's story, if you remove the miraculous elements, are about the son of a carpenter from Galilee who gets baptized in the river Jordan by the founder of an apocalyptic, restorationist Jewish sect which he subsequently goes on to branch off of with his own movement after the death of the Baptizer, by claiming that he is the Messiah prophesized by John the Baptist.
He then wanders around towns and villages of Israel, proclaiming that the Kingdom of God has arrived, teaching morals through pithy aphorisms and charming parabolic stories, and healing people from illnesses.
After falling foul of the Judean priestly authorities in Jerusalem for allegedly teaching blasphemy, and for causing a disturbance in the Second Jewish Temple near the Feast of Passover, he is arrested, tried and executed on a Roman cross.
Now, to me, there is very little in this narrative which is like that of Horus, Krishna or Mithra.
When you bring in the miraculous elements (after what scholars would judge to be the historical core of the tradition), yes other figures like Apollonius of Tyana and the Buddha were reputed miracle workers. But that is a staple of many ancient religious accounts, intended to buttress the divine claims of the founding figure. Yes, the slaughter of the Innocents in Matthew was modelled after Moses's birth, the temptation in the desert narrative by Satan has some broad parallels with the Buddha being tempted by Mara under the Bodhi Tree etc.
However, this doesn't alter the fact that the basic "plot points" of Jesus's life-story are still largely unique to himself.
