A few parallel comparisons (Ѻ) of Christ and Krishna, both of whom derive from the more ancient Egyptian religio-mythology based Horus and Osiris stories. [6]

“That being put to death by the wicked, he would gloriously rise again, ascend from hell into heaven, where he would reign forever.’ By these expressions was described the life of the same Sun, who, terminating his career at the winter solstice, when Typhon [Set] and the rebellious angels exercised their sway, seemed to be put to death by them; but shortly after revived and rose again (note 97) in the firmament, where he still remains. These traditions went still farther, specifying his astrological and mysterious names, maintaining that he was called sometimes Chris or Conservator (note 98); and hence the Hindu God, Chris-en, or Christna; and the Christian Chris-tos, the son of Mary. That at other times he was called Yes, by the union of three letters, which, according to there numerical value, form the number 608, one of the solar periods (note 99). And behold, oh Europeans, the name which, with a Latin termination has become your Yes-us or Jesus; the ancient and cabalistical name given to young Bacchus, the clandestine son of the virgin Minerva, who in the whole history of his life, and even in his death, calls to mind the history of the God of the Christians; that is, the star of day, of which they are both of them emblems.”

“For the student of religious there can be no more interesting and important question than this: Is there any historical connection between the story of Krishna, the eighth incarnation of Vishnu, the second person of the Hindu triad, and the life and teachings of Christ? And do the similarities found in their lives and teachings show that anything has been borrowed by one from the other? That there are many striking and remarkable similarities and apparent agreements has been frequently pointed out by numerous oriental scholars. And these similarities undoubtedly have been found both in their lives and teachings. Among such resemblances noticeable in their lives are the following: The similarity in the sound of the names Krishna and Christ, the flight into Egypt from the wrath of Herod, and the flight to Gokhula from the wrath of Kansa; the massacre of the innocents by both Herod and Kansa; the miraculously born forerunners, John and Balarama; the songs of the angelic hosts and the worship of both Christ and Krishna by the shepherds; the prominence given to the childhood of both Christ and Krishna in St. Matthew's gospel and in the Vishnu Purana; the kinship of Christ and Krishna with kings; the assumption of divinity and the exhibition of miraculous powers by both Christ and Krishna. Weber, Lorinser, Wilson, Muir, Sir William Jones, and many others, have pointed out at great length many such striking similarities in the respective sacred narratives.”

Krishna dies from a poisonous arrow to the foot, just as Osiris, Horus, and Orion, similarly die by poison from the scorpion sting.

“Note the strong similarity between this [Horus’s death] myth and the story of Orion's death from a scorpion sting to his foot (chapter 3). This parallelism is better appreciated when it is realized that the Egyptians identified the constellation of Orion with Osiris, Horus's resurrected father. The Orion myth, then, appears to have descended from this ancient Egyptian story of how the Earth became shrouded in darkness.”

— Paul Laviolette (2005), Earth Under Fire [5]

“Some recent English discussion as to the historic relation of the Christ myth and the Krishna myth would seem to make desirable a judicial and yet popular' investigation of the subject, from the rationalist point of view. By the rationalist point of view, I mean the attitude of disbelief in the supernatural claims of all religions alike — a point of view from which, of course, the question of the miraculous origin of Christianity is already disposed of. The falsity of the bases of that creed has been directly demonstrated a hundred times, and, for those not yet convinced, may be demonstrated again by old and new arguments; and it would merely overload a discussion in comparative mythology to prove in full, by way of preamble, what is properly to be proved by several other lines of inquiry as well. What is now in hand is a question of priority of myth forms.”

— John Robertson (1889), Christ and Krishna [3]