Good points. As you say, it all depends on exactly who Jesus (Christ) was. The benefit of following the Eastern traditions is that, apart from the Hindu concept of Avatars, the teaching is not dependent on any disputable historical factors, and we can evaluate just the texts. Do we actually believe that it is possible or necessary for the ultimate spirit to incarnate as a human? This might be true but, as I have argued frequently in the past, it is far more likely that the Catholic Church interpreted the Gospel accounts literally, when they may have been intended as allegories. It certainly is true that the story of a dying-and-resurrected saviour god is a frequent motif in paganism, and the gospel accounts suspiciously resemble that motif.

You may believe, as I do, that “the message is that God resides in each and every human being”. That is indeed the teaching of the Eastern religions, but is not necessarily what the Church teaches. The more frequent teaching is that we humans are completely different from God, that we have fallen into sin, and need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. At least that is the message told to the general populace.