Woah I need to look into this 👀

Bro, we now have AI that allows you to verify these claims within seconds. The fact that you posted this without taking the time to check any of the claims is just embarrassing and shows you are not interested in the truth. You can put this into your own AI, but here are some Highlights: “Virgin birth” (Horus, Krishna, Buddha): Misleading or incorrect. Horus: Egyptian myths describe Isis reconstituting or conceiving Horus connected to Osiris’s body; that is not the same as the Christian doctrine of a human virgin conceiving by divine intervention. The precise Egyptian accounts and interpretations vary and do not match “virgin birth” in the Christian sense. Krishna: born to Devaki and Vasudeva (human parents). No orthodox Hindu source describes a Christian-style virgin birth. Buddha: some texts portray Queen Māyā’s birth story with miraculous elements, but it is not a virgin birth analogous to the Christian claim. Jesus: the virgin-birth claim is found in Matthew and Luke in the New Testament — this is a distinct claim and has different theological meaning. “Crucified / died and resurrected after three days”: Incorrect for most. Jesus: historic crucifixion and the Easter resurrection claim are central to Christianity. Osiris (Egyptian) is killed and later restored/incarnated in various ways in the myth cycle, but this is not a straightforward “crucifixion on a cross and resurrection after 3 days” parallel to the Gospel accounts. Krishna: Hindu accounts record his death (for example, being pierced by an arrow); there is no canonical crucifixion–resurrection-after-3-days narrative. Buddha: most traditions hold that he died (parinirvana) — there is no resurrection-after-3-days story comparable to Christian resurrection.

Depends on your prompts to AI. Here’s my AIs answer about the “virgin birth” stories. In comparative religion, “virgin birth” often gets used loosely to mean a birth that is miraculous, divinely caused, and not the result of ordinary human sexuality. Under that wider definition, Horus, Krishna, and the Buddha can all be placed in the same category because each is born through supernatural intervention and is marked out as extraordinary from the start. Horus The pro-virgin-birth argument for Horus usually says that Isis conceives Horus through divine means after Osiris’ death, so the birth is not a normal human conception. In this reading, the point is not biological virginity in a strict sense, but that Horus is generated by sacred power rather than ordinary sex. That is why popular comparative myth arguments often label the story a virgin-birth myth. Krishna For Krishna, the argument is that Devaki’s pregnancy is so overwhelmed by divine action, prophecy, and miraculous circumstance that it functions like a virgin-birth narrative even if the tradition does not always use that exact term. Krishna is not portrayed as an ordinary child; his coming is cosmic, protected, and preordained. So the story can be framed as a miraculous conception story that serves the same mythic role as a virgin birth. Buddha The Buddha’s birth is the easiest to describe in this broader way, because the tradition presents his arrival as supernatural and set apart from ordinary human reproduction. Queen Maya’s dream, the extraordinary signs, and the sacred nature of the event all support the claim that this is a virgin-birth style narrative in symbolic terms. The emphasis is on a holy, transcendent origin, not on a mundane family birth.

Good point though - after running a few AI queries, I think a lot of this table is total garbage.

If the claim was "miraculous birth" I would agree. And I'm sure there are some parallels to be drawn. But the Table is clearly overstating the similarities. But I'm glad you now recognize that most of it is BS. I hope this allows you to take a less biased look at the resurrection of Jesus.

Bottom line for me is that I don’t care what someone’s religious beliefs are as long as they are a good person. Lots of people like their religion and credit it with helping them to be good people. That’s cool with me. Using a religion/race/language/sporting team/gender/political party/etc… to hate other people without some justification is not cool with me. After doing some AI checking, it seems that whoever created that table was sloppy, imprecise, oversimplified and exaggerated. I still think many stories in the bible were based on other historical stories. The Wikipedia article seems a bit more carefully researched than the table and makes the case for Christianity copying other older myths and religions.

I appreciate you pointing out that the table was flawed.