One thing that puts me off the Doherty/Carrier 'Outer Space' hypotheses (which are related but different) is the high total number of individual pieces of written evidence that have to be interpreted in a speculative way, often by different means. The use of the word 'anthropos' for man is only one example of this from many. The consistency with which the epistles use this word to mean earthly man are set aside in favour of citing an exception, and an (allegedly) equivalent use from a different context is co-opted instead.
Incidentally, does Carrier, when (questionably in the first place, according to some critiques of the maths) using Bayes Theorem on the issue, take into account the prior probability that if a certain word is used one way, dozens of times, in a closely-related set of texts, its use in one instance is likely related to the consistent usage? I don't think so. I Believe, and stand to be corrected, that he departs from BT there and opts instead for explanation-by-conjecture. If that is the case, I can't think of a good reason to selectively do that.
The other thing that bothers me about those two hypotheses is the number of supposed pieces of written evidenced that have to be speculated existed. Carrier's/Doherty's early christian ahistorists are arguably more ahistorical than anything else they are investigating. For example, Docetists who believed their Jesus did not appear on earth, or the writers of a supposed missing version of this or that document (Ascension of Isiah for example) that would, if it existed, support the case.
Ascension of Isiah is such a cornerstone of Carrier's hypothesis that he has called it 'a blueprint for cosmic Jesus' but that only works well if certain references to Jesus, apparently on earth, are taken out of it and a supposedly-missing version of A of I, which doesn't have them, is speculated about instead. That's a different use of the phrase 'is a blueprint' than I'm used to. 'Would be a blueprint if it existed' perhaps.
Finally, another thing that occurs to me is that some mythicists, when reading early christian texts, appear to not take sufficiently into account that they were all, without exception, written after the supposed figure was dead, and supposedly celestial at the time of writing, so of course there are a lot of references to a celestial figure. Ditto for a pre-existing celestial figure. But the idea that the figure was believed not to have at any time temporarily visited earth in-between celestially pre-existing and celestially post-existing just isn't there in the written evidence. One might even say, loosely, that this missing evidence is quasi-'mythical'.
