What the thumbnail says. Don't read this or comment on it if you're not @scratching34.
Alright, I will address your points one by one. Keep in mind that I'm still by no means an expert when it comes to Hinduism so I might be wrong about some points. 1) Krishna was Devaki's 8th child so while his birth might be believed to be extraordinary, it can't be considered a virgin birth like that of Jesus. 2) Of course they were both called god because both are believed to be god. This is nothing special since virtually all religions have some figure they call god. Son of god isn't that special either since in polytheistic religion like Hinduism, gods often have sons and daughters. Even after considering this, the 108 names of Krishna don't explicitly include the title 'son of god' so this point uses Christian terms in order to make the religions seem more similar when in fact, those terms are not used in Hinduism. This is a strategy that will appear again in later points. 3) Hindus believe in reincarnation so this applies to every person in Hinduism. 4) Referring back to point 2, most religions have a figure they call savior. Again, the 108 names of Krishna don't explicitly include the term savior, although I don't deny that people may call him that. 5) Hinduism uses the term Trimurti instead of Trinity (see what I wrote on point 2). The first mention of the Trimurti can be found in the poem Kumarasambhava from the 4th or 5th century AD, so multiple hundred years after the first mention of the trinity. On top of that, if you look further into it, the two concepts are not even that similar. The Trimurti doesn't have a fixed order so 'second person' seems to be pretty much made up. 6) Krishna's father, Vasudeva, was a king. His adoptive father, Nanda Baba, was a chief. I can find no evidence for either of them being connected to carpenters. 7) From what I understood, Vasudeva seems to be Krishna's actual father. Apart from this, Jesus’ actual father wasn't the Holy Spirit but God the Father, he was just conceived from the Holy Spirit (yes, this is a distinction in Christianity). 8) This point is way too generalized. Jesus' family, according to tradition, were descendants of the kings of Judah. However, at the time Jesus was born there had been no king of Judah for almost 600 years. Krishna, on the other hand, was the son of an active king. 9) I can find no sources for wise men and shepherds being present and Krishna's birth so I can't say anything about this claim. 10) There were no angels involved in Krishna's story. It's very different from that of Jesus, although it's true that both had to flee from a ruler trying to assassinate them. Muturea is completely made up, Jesus' family went to Egypt. Not sure where this comes from. I'm not even sure if a place called Muturea exists. 11) Again, I can find no sources for Krishna withdrawing to the wilderness and fasting. 12) I can find no indications for Krishna being called “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head” in Hindu texts. 13) The same applies to “lion from the tribe of Saki”. 14) I can't find any evidence for this either but maybe I'm just getting lazy. 15) By Christian standards Krishna definitely wouldn't be called sinless, for example there are stories of him stealing. 16) That's possible but not very significant given that this applies to many gods from different religions. 17) The part about healing people, driving out demons and raising people from the dead is true (but again, healing people is a very natural thing for a god to do so it's not that surprising). 18) That's true, but almost all religious figures had disciples. 19) That's possible, I don't feel like I'm in the position to judge Krishna's personality. 19) Krishna associated himself with sinners but I can find no accounts of him being criticized for it. 20) I can't find anything about Krishna's supposed last supper. I suspect that again, a Christian term was used to make a similarity seem stronger. In a sense, everyone who has ever had supper has a 'last supper' before they die. 21) That's possible. 22) Krishna was not crucified. His soul resurrected but his body didn't. Jesus, on the other hand, resurrected bodily. As you can see, many of the points of comparison are incorrect or at least not easily verifiable. The few similarities that remain are not unique to Jesus and Krishna and don't really prove anything. I know that after one third or so I got a bit tired and didn't research everything as thoroughly so I apologize beforehand in the case that I missed something.
