Mad Sweeney, once again, this all depends on which gospel verse your reading. Most of the synoptic gospels attempt to center focus on a Messianic figure that came to usher in the Kingdom of God, AT THAT TIME, "this generation shall not pass until...." and so on. The imminent establishment of the Kingdom was the focal point of Mark, Matthew and Luke, in that order chronologically. The secondary teachings were that of understanding the Torah, forgiveness, and of course all the agricultural statements about bearing seed, fruit, etc. The gospel of John of course was dealing more with the types and anti-types that are associated with deeper Jewish thought, "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood" of course, reciting the later Babylonian myths, the dualism, gnosticism, etc.
Where does the whole Buddha relationship step in? Only for a few insignificant literary points, if any.
"The Jesus we know" is contingent upon what view one takes of the character in the first place. The Jesus I know, for instance, is one who was to be the son of David, high priest of Melchizedek, son of man, Moshiach of Israel, who was to unite Judah and Israel (never did of course) and who was to establish the Kingdom of God at that time. Instead, he was tried by the Roman government (insurrection being the only credible charge at that time) and hung from a tree and died. The Markan account leaves him dead in a tomb, with no sitings or resurrection. That would be the earliest known gospel account written some 70 years after the alleged event occurred.
Of course, there really is no "Jesus that we know" because all we have is hearsay evidence to his existence. The point of comparing the literary figure with other literary figures lacks tact, but that is simply my opinion, and I am sure many will dispell it.