The Bible explicitly forbids worship of the sun and stars. I read Acharya's "Christ in Egypt" form cover to cover, she uses strenuous connections and drawings (Drawings, not photographs of what she CLAIMS are actual Egyptian wall writings to build "Parallels" between Hors and Jesus that have no archeological basis.

Not to mention the numerous non-practicing Jews, who didn't want to give up their Jewish identity. They must have seen Christianity as a compromise.

However, there is a sharper conclusion to be drawn with some more certainty: the "character" originally didn't make a big impression on contemporaries.

This is a more realistic conclusion. I always wondered why Philo never mentioned Jesus, though he lived in the environment of Jerusalem for several decades and was well-connected with the local authorities.

Even if you consider only a fraction of the facts, mentioned in the gospels, Jesus would and should have been commented on. Organizing a mass meeting with 5000 people in the wilderness (not mentioning, feeding those people), a reputation as a healer (not mentioning, a miracle-worker), exorcising, organizing a (symbolic) royal entry in Jerusalem, which must have drawn the attention of the government, his furious action in the temple...

Alternatively, one may think that the influence of Jesus on his contemporaries must have been quite modest and the stories about him are mostly later inventions

Ehrman's book covers the spread of Christianity in great detail. https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Christianity-Forbidden-Religion-Swept/dp/1501136704

He notes the numbers are not all that impressive until the time of Constantine. He then covers the Constantine period fairly, with nuance and care, sticking close to the evidence.

Oh, he's back for more.

"Richard Carrier points out that there was an entire priestly class who referred to themselves specifically as 'The Brothers of the Lord'."

Nonsense. There was no such caste. That's pure supposition on Carrier's part - an ad hoc way to "explain" the term while dancing around the fact we do have evidence that it referred to Jesus' siblings. Try this - produce some actual EVIDENCE of this suppposed "priestly caste". Good luck.

"fuck off and leave me alone, R-soul! I'm bored with you!"

No thanks. I'm having a great time and only just getting warmed up. It's always funny when you uneducated wannabes stroll in here thinking you're experts because you've rote learned some Mythicist crap from the usual suspects and then whine when you start to realise you don't actually have much of a clue.

Yes there IS still a significant question about the use of the word 'brother'... whether you like it or not!

Richard Carrier points out that there was an entire priestly class who referred to themselves specifically as 'The Brothers of the Lord'. (See: "Mythicism, The Celestial Christ | Who Was Paul's Jesus? Dr. Richard Carrier & Dr. Robert M. Price").

As it refers to a priestly class, we're not just talking about 'any old believer', but a specific member of a specific priestly class... or, as you put it, a specific 'sub-group among believers'... who were NOT genetically related to your mythical Jesus.

You may not like it, but it's true, so suck it up!

And referring to someone with whom you just happen to disagree as 'stupid' most certainly IS an ad-hominem attack... especially when your own persistent refusal to recognize the validity of this argument displays such incorrigible recalcitrance.

Now, get yourself an education, learn some manners, and fuck off and leave me alone, R-soul! I'm bored with you!

"I still think there is a question as to exactly what was meant by 'brother'."

Ummm, no there isn't. Because Paul uses a quite distinctive phrase and not just the word "brother". He says this James is τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου or "the brother OF the Lord". He only uses a form of this phrase in one other place - 1Cor 9:3-6 where he uses its plural form καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου or "the brothers of the Lord". And in both cases he refers to these "brothers" alongside other believers. So "brother" can't just be a figurative term for a believer. It has to refer to some sub-group among the believers. We know of such a sub-group in Paul's time: Jesus' siblings. So that is pretty obviously who Paul is referring to by this phrase.

And you haven't dealt with the fact this brother James is referred by not only by Paul but also by Josephus.

And I have made no ad hominen's at all. Noting the stupidity of your positon may not reflect well on you, but it's a reference to your argument, not to you. I usually find people like you start throwing around failed attempts at noting fallacies when they are losing the debate and are looking for an excuse to run away. They usually then tell me how bored they are.

"Now I'm done... this argument has become repetitive and boring."

Yes, right on cue. Goodbye.

Yes I have dealt with the references to James... I don't dispute that this James existed, but I still think there is a question as to exactly what was meant by 'brother'.

You don't like it? BIG FUCKING DEAL!

To refuse to recognize this question and just brush it aside just shows how utterly stupid your position is...

And the rapidity and reflexive nature of your recourse to ad-hominem attacks (on not just me but also on anyone who questions the supposedly 'historical' nature of Jesus) does nothing to help either your argument, nor my assessment of your character, which leaves much to be desired.

Now I'm done... this argument has become repetitive and boring.