Which ones do not hold water?  Short answer:  All of them.

The best to you,

Rook

I would even be cautious about suggesting that parallels are well documented.  I would not say that Horus was similar to Dionysus, or that Horus had a mother named Mari (which he didn't), or anything remotely like this.  Horus and Dionysus did not have 12 disciples, they were not crucified, nor were they in "Hades" or the "Underworld" for three days before rising again.  Are there some similarities?  Between Dionysus and Jesus yes, but not to the point where people are smacking their foreheads going "Holy shit, that's it!"  There are more similarities, and in greater numbers, to Jesus and Moses than there are any similarities between Pagan Gods, and even between Pagan Gods themselves (for example, Krishna and Jesus). 

This is partly why the claims that Acharya makes warrant scholars to distance themselves from her.  It certainly is not because she is female (despite what crap she makes up about that), as all one has to do is look at Mary Ann Tolbert, Elaine Pagels and Paula Fredriksen to know that female scholars are well respected based on the work that they do, just as male scholars are.  She is simply not respected because her research is amateurish and generally inaccurate.  She could write a new book and prove me wrong...but I do not think she is in it for the facts.  Her fan base will attest to that.

I would stay away from all books dealing with parallels between Greek Gods and Jesus all together.  At least until I can publish my book on the subject which is going through review (something no book we currently have on the subject has done before).  I would also recommend the book The Messiah Myth, by Thomas L. Thompson.  It is a much better book and a lot more thorough and he is a well known scholar.

There are a great many resources on the multiple subjects Dorothy-- aka 'Acharya', both a bastardization of the Hindu word 'acarya' meaning 'guru' and the last name used by at least one theosophist author in the early 20th century-- attempts to cover in her books and other self-published writings (yes, she owns the only publisher that prints her work). There are whole disciplines of academic study on Greek, Asian, African, Mesoamerican, and Egyptian culture and mythology, and her work consistently ignores key aspects of each and every realm of study her work tries to touch. As Rook said, the scholarly community distances themselves from her not because she's a woman (there are several contemporary Egyptologists from Europe who are women who equally have nothing to do with her) but because her arguments are untenable.

However, some of the claims she's made that are outright false:

Horus-related ones

• Horus having 12 disciples. (completely false)
• Horus' mother being named 'Isis-Meri' (the word 'meri' is Egyptian for 'beloved', used for both male and female)
• Horus having been crucified (completely false)
• Horus being born on December 25th or the Winter Solstice (completely false)
• Horus having anything to do with resurrection (completely false)
• Horus being baptized (complete fantasy based on misinterpretation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead by Gerald Massey, a poet, art/Shakespeare historian, and pseudo-theosophist)

Other misses

• The story of Isa in Arabic/semitic mythology ('Isa' is Arabic for 'Jesus' and no such similar myth exists using that name, though a similarly-named goddess [Ishara] with a completely different story exists)
• Similarities to Tammuz/Dumuzi (the only thing they had in common was the title of 'Lord', which in Hebrew is a more familiar word, 'Adonai')

Another one in the film that is complete fiction that Dorothy may or may not have contributed is the appearance of the Southern Crux (Cross) constellation. The Southern Crux was not discovered until the sixteenth or seventeenth century by explorers in the southern hemisphere, and it was not considered any kind of constellation in the centuries prior to that time (and not during the alleged time of Jesus).

These are just a few of the blatant mistakes within Dorothy's work, whether her self-published rubbish or her collaborative efforts (as with the conspiracy film Zeitgeist). There are hundreds more similar mistakes, but for the sake of brevity and clarity I've stuck with the subject matter I've studied the most (ancient North African and Mid-Eastern history). I agree with Rook that the story of Jesus is one that represents a sort of hybrid Hellenistic-Jewish midrash, a work on its own that has some semblances and direct references to myths that come before it, but is focused heavily on its Hebrew heritage and rife with Hellenistic influences contemporary to the times in which the gospels were written. Trying to weave those fairly well-documented things into some over-reaching conspiracy theory has been the failing of many would-be (or wannabe) 'scholars', and in many cases over the last two centuries such attempts have been coupled with movements of a social or political nature that carries too much baggage and a chip on its collective shoulder to be capable of maintaining intellectual honest or withstanding serious scrutiny.

That said, this doesn't mean I am urging anyone away from reading Dorothy's work and enjoying it, I'm simply pointing out that just because it appears in a written format that it is unadulterated fact. She may very well claim to have some 'truth' in her work, but then again so do most churches. I'm less concerned with 'truth' than I am with fact, which is an element I find in only small amounts throughout her work. If you're really interested, I can supply you with some reference material for the different kingdoms throughout Egyptian history (more than three millenia of history doesn't condense easily or seamlessly), as well as several good books on Sumerian, Babylonian, and Jewish history (the latter of which can bring you to date on contemporary Judaism). Interestingly, you may even find that some books I suggest are similar or the same as those Dorothy claims to get her information, though you'll find a different picture when reading source material and concordances from actual experts on the subject matter.

I'm guessing what you're referring to is Lord Raglan's Scale.

Baron Raglan wrote a book called "The Hero" in 1936.  In that book he identifies 22 common characteristics of "mythical" heroes, identifying patterns that all of our heroes seem to possess throughout history.  One of his contentions was that actual historical figures never seemed to have more than 6 or 7 of these characteristics (at the most) while "mythical" figures often had 2 or 3 times that, which he felt led to a system of determining who was "myth" and who has "actual history".

For instance:

Moses holds 20 of the typical hero characteristics

Hercules: 17

Gilgamesh: 15

Robin Hood: 13

Jesus and Dionysus: Both 19

This scale has been referred to often over the last 80 years.. probably in hundreds of books. 

Genme, well said.  Glad to see you're still around.  I would only make one suggestion, that you shy away from the bastardized term "midrash", mainly from New Testament scholars who confuse the actual definition that Hebrew Bible scholars have for it, and instead use the term "mimesis" or "allusion"; both technically the same thing, said different ways.  Glad to see you're back.  Hope you stick around.

I liked Zeitgiest for the same reason.  I just finished Jordan Maxwell's The Naked Truth which Zeitgeist seemed to based by and goes through more of the astrotheology. 

The problem is how do you verify the claims made by these films?  I saw no first hand sources quoted but a lot of ideas from these egyptian gods that seem to be carried on by other religions.

The Gnostic film Sex: Secret Garden of Eden also has a lot of interesting ideas and pictures that made me think of how symbolism is carried on by other religions.  I didn't agree with the views of sex as only for procreation.

The Pharmacratic Inquisition is another good one.  I do see a lot of similarities from the mushroom aminita muscaria and the garb that Roman catholic clergy use.  Also the manna that the Israelites ate could have been magic mushrooms...who knows?

The questions I came up watching all these videos:

Who came up with the Zodiac?

Where can I find reliable information about Horus?  First hand writings, second hand, etc.

***

These are videos I can watch again and take notes on.  It needs a critique from a variety of experts. 

-RR

Hey there, Rook. I'm still popping in and about sometimes, but like I mentioned before my specialties in study are slightly different from what most of you guys here study, and as such I'm usually not obligated to comment much outside of my experience in study except when commenting on my personal philosophy (which isn't remarkably different from many of you guys anyway). I lurk mostly because while I find the philosophical parts of the discussion interesting I don't usually have much to add.

That's a good point about the term midrash, especially since the gospels weren't necessarily written by Jews and they don't include all of the aspects of a Jewish midrash. They're definitely a Romanized version of the Jewish mystical/historic tale, granted with a mostly Jewish cast, but a Romanized version nonetheless (in other words: you're correct).