OK so the site you link to is basically using the arguments from the Zeitgeist movie which has been completely debunked. Zeitgeist tries to say that Jesus was based on Mithra, Horus, Krishna and Dionysis. And this has all be proven wrong. Zeitgeist gets almost all of its "research" from one source, Acharaya S., an occultist and author of the Christ Conspiracy, who has no scholarly credentials and has been ripped apart by academics and historians for her shoddy, unsubstantiated work.
From your site:
Krishna- Born of a virgin 900 BC.
This is from Joseph Campbell's Occidental Mythology:
""In India a like tale is told of the beloved savior Krishna, whose terrible uncle, Kansa, was, in that case, the tyrant-king. The savior's mother, Devaki, was of royal lineage, the tyrant's niece, and at the time when she was married the wicked monarch heard a voice, mysteriously, which let him know that her eighth child would be his slayer. He therefore confined both her and her husband, the saintly nobleman Vasudeva, in a closely guarded prison,
where he murdered their first six infants as they came.”"
So no, Krishna's mom was not a virgin.Krishna was not even the first born.
As for the other so-called similarites, the writings on Krishna were AFTER Christ:
Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, "[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name."(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former "to be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD."(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation. An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century. Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires
Next up Dionysis --
According to your site:
Born of a virgin on Dec 25th.
Ok first off, Jesus' birthday was not 12/25, so that point is irrelevant.
As for a virgin birth, this is from Wikiepedia:
His mother was a mortal woman,,
Semele, the daughter of king
Cadmus of
Thebes, and his father was
Zeus, the king of the gods. Zeus' wife,
Hera, discovered the affair while Semele was pregnant. Appearing as an old
crone (in other stories a nurse), Hera befriended Semele, who confided in her that Zeus was the actual father of the baby in her womb.
Again. WRONG.
Turning water to wine: Dionysis made wine, but never from water.
In particular the motif of changing water to wine is not present in the Dionysus legends; the jugs of Elis, for example, were not filled with water but were empty, and the fount of wine in Andros did not replace one of water. To suggest that the Evangelist or his source wished to demonstrate through the Cana miracle that a greater than Dionysus has appeared is a speculation without warrant.
Mithra -- Born of a virgin on Dec 25th. Again this is absolutely wrong.
Mithra's history is not even recorded in books. It's in artwork. So that date doesn't even make sense. And it's irrelevant since the Bible never mentions the date anyway. But more to the point, Mithra was created from a rock. He was not born from a woman.
"Mithra had 12 disciples" -- This is all based on a picture of Mithra surrounded by 12 figures. Could they be his disciples? Possibly. But they could also be his enemies. Or his kids. Or the IRS. It's only unscholarly research that led to this "12 disciples" fiction.
Horus -- Born of a virgin. This one is the craziest. It is extremely well-known that in Egyptian mythology, Isis conceived Horus with the Phallus of Osiris. I mean, I learned that story in 6th grade. So she was clearly not a virgin.
So no, the Bible is not taking from other books. It is God's Holy Truth. I hope you take the time to read the right text. God bless.
And for anyone who is curious and wants to know more about this, here is the Zeitgeist Debunked film which is excellent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFI6m6Icav4