Krishna also makes exclusive claims in the Gita: “abandon all dharmas and take refuge in me alone” (18:66), “I am the source of all” (10:8). Exclusive language isn’t unique to Jesus, so it doesn’t distinguish him from an avatar.

An important point. Krishna’s claims in the Gita are exclusive in tone, and a Vaishnava can reply that Jesus’s claims are the same kind of thing. The argument is not Jesus made exclusive claims, therefore he is not an avatar. It is that both traditions make exclusive claims about a unique, ultimate person, so they cannot both be right, which is the non-contradiction point of the next claim. The question then becomes historical: which figure’s claims are better attested and better supported, and the Historical Jesus and Resurrection of Christ cases are where that case is made. Synoptic and Pauline texts (Matthew 11:27, Mark 2, Acts 4:12) carry the same exclusivity as John 14:6 for anyone who sets John aside.