How can we know that Christianity can't be considered a plagiarism? Why should it be the religion of the true God?
So regarding this and your preceding question of "If there are many pagan gods born of virgins, among other coincidences with Jesus, how can we be sure that Christianity is the correct religion?" then it's pretty simple: There is no need to answer that question. That's because the "if" is wrong.
There are not "many" pagan gods born of virgins, and most of the "coincidences" (parallels) people bring up are made up, vague to the point of uselessness, can only be found recorded after Christianity was already established, and so on. And once you get rid of all of those, you end up with maybe a handful of things that might be a similarity and could be considered simple coincidence.
This page is a very useful one on many of the other pagan gods that supposedly have parallels with Jesus, going through the various supposed parallels and showing how they don't add up. It's a little out of date, but there's a lot of very useful information there.
Now, you list some examples that were "born of virgins":
Hermes, Krishna, Heracles, Adonis, Mithra, Zarathustra, Tammuz
Prodromos previously posted on these, saying they weren't born of virgins, but I want to go into more detail on this. But before going into these individually, I should collectively note the issue that it is rather common to see people list gods or beings who were born of a virgin birth while providing no evidence for it. This applies, incidentally, not only to claims of virgin births, but of any other supposed parallels between Jesus and <insert other religious figure here>. If you ever see someone try to claim this for anyone, they'd better be providing evidence, like a citation where this can be verified. If they don't, ignore the whole thing. And if they actually do offer a citation,
look it up before you take it seriously. So many times people will offer a citation, and it just goes to a work that offers no evidence itself. If they cannot point to a source that says it--and one that predates Christianity--then it means nothing.
That "predates Christianity" is very critical. If such-and-such was stated as being born of a virgin
after the Gospels were written, then it is of no help in proving that Christianity took it from that, for it could have been the other way around. Thus, not only must a source be shown, but it must be shown to predate Christianity. Surprisingly often, one will find that the story that parallels Christianity can only be demonstrated to exist
after Christianity.
So the onus should be on those who make these claims, and they don't back them up. So technically speaking, going through them individually is unnecessary; anyone who makes this claim must be willing to provide evidence. And they almost always don't. But just to thoroughly dismantle this, let's look at these one by one.
Hermes:
From the
Homeric Hymns: "Muse, sing of Hermes, the son of Zeus and Maia, lord of Cyllene and Arcadia rich in flocks, the luck-bringing messenger of the immortals whom Maia bare, the rich-tressed nymph,
when she was joined in love with Zeus". Clearly not born of a virgin.
Krishna:
Does not appear to have been born of a virgin.
This Hindu site, discussing Krishna's birth and childhood, makes no mention of any virgin birth. In fact, Krishna is described as an
eighth child. It should be noted that even if Krishna was born of a virgin, he was part of a religion all the way over in India, and it is very unlikely that the Gospel writers knew much of anything about a religion from so far away, let alone incorporated it into their works.
Heracles:
As is relayed
by Apollodurus, "Zeus came by night and prolonging the one night threefold he assumed the likeness of Amphitryon and bedded with Alcmena"). Clearly not born of a virgin.
Adonis:
As is relayed in
Ovid's Metamorphosis, "She left the room impregnated by her father, bearing impious seed in her fatal womb, carrying the guilt she had conceived." Clearly not born of a virgin.
Mithra:
There are two versions of Mithra, the original Persian version and the later Roman version. These two actually have little in common outside of the name. In regards to the Persian one, there doesn't seem to be much information about his birth at all;
this journal article tells me "Yet, the idea of Mithras as a son of Ahura-Mazda, the Knowing Lord, or as born naturally from a woman, though attested by some late Armenian writers, did not become traditional. Mithras' birth remained an obscure affair: the principal thing was that he existed and helped anyone who lived in true obedience to his laws." So much for the Persian Mithra, and in any event this version of Mithra would have been rather unknown to the Gospel writers. Regarding the Roman Mithra, it continues: "Neither in the Western world did the authors conceive MIthras a child procreated by a father or born from a woman or even from a virgin. Both classical literature and inscriptions declare that the god was born from a rock or stone." There does not seem evidence he was born of a virgin, unless someone wants to claim that the rock he emerged out of was a virgin (which it was not; any definition of virgin I have seen says it's a person or animal who has not had sex, so inanimate objects are disqualified)
Zarathustra:
This one might be more commonly known as Zoroaster. According
to this page, "Zarathustra's father, Pourušaspa (or Purusasp), was a herdsman. According to tradition, he and his wife, Dugdowa (or Dugdav), wished to have children. To do so, they obtained milk from virgin cows, mixed it with twigs from a haoma plant and drank it. They then attempted to have sex but were prevented by demons three times. The fourth time they succeed and Zoroaster was conceived of three elements, the frawar (his soul) from the hom plant, xwarrag (his glory) from his mother, and his tan gorh (his body substance) from the milk." Now, I'm not 100% sure about the reliability of the page in question--the author is credited as an archeologist, and how much that translates to knowledge about Zoroastrianism I'm not sure. However, one of the article's sources is the Encyclopedia Iranica, which does give that story
here: "Purušāsp and Dugdhōv, the future parents of Zardušt, survived and together drank of the milk of the hōm. Their procreative union was strongly opposed by the demons, but after three attempts they accomplished it, and so the xwarrah, frawahr, and tan-gōhr of Zardušt were reunited in the body of Dugdhōv, and he was born." So not apparently born of a virgin, given his parents engaged in normal reproduction (attempting multiple times to conceive, in fact). I believe there may be some later iterations of the story that may be more virgin birth-esque... but those "later" ones appear to come
well after Christianity.
Tammuz:
There doesn't seem to be much information about the birth of Tammuz at all, but I can find no reputable source describing him of being of virgin birth. Both
Wikipedia and the
Encyclopedia Britannica make no mention of this.
So these don't add up, and the people spreading these claims appear to be just spreading inaccurate information. This is again why it's so critical that
evidence be provided for these. If <insert religious figure here> was born of a virgin, then obviously there should be some ancient writing saying they were. But those writings are never pointed to. Why? Presumably because those writings don't exist, and these claims are just false ones that people mindlessly spread due to not verifying them.
