Exactly! As I've said on the other thread, as long as Jesus was believed to be a pre-Christian celestial being somehow named "Jesus", then Dr Carrier's theory is still viable on that point. "Archangel", "angel", "Logos" -- it doesn't matter.
However, this debate is just going to go round and round. And I blame Carrier squarely for this. Just like he uses his stupid term "outer space" to encompass the lower heavens and upper heavens (very, very different metaphysical areas!) causing confusion and making discussions difficult, he's done the same here.
From OHJ (my bolding):
A 'god' is not an archangel!!! "Archangels" are usually considered a specific class of beings, given names (e.g. Micha-EL, Gabri-EL, Kal-El ) and jobs. If, on one hand, Carrier is using the term as a handle synonymous with 'gods' who are messengers, while on the other hand, scholars are using the term as used in scholarship, they will continually talk past each other. This is what has been driving the confusion in arguments on this board, and misunderstandings between Dr Hurtado and Carrier. I wish Carrier would stick to "celestial being", and not use "archangel" unless he damn well means "archangel" and only "archangel".... the basic thesis of every competent mythicist, then and now, has always been that Jesus was originally a god, just like any other god (properly speaking, a demigod in pagan terms; an archangel in Jewish terms; in either sense, a deity), 15 who was later historicized, just as countless other gods were... (page 52)
... I shall use god to mean any celestial being with supernatural power, and God to mean a supreme creator deity. Though by this definition angels and demons are indeed gods, I'll sometimes (but not always) use angel or archangel to refer to 'gods' that are believed to be acting as messengers or servants of God... (page 60)
And a shake of a fist at you too, Giuseppe! You seem to love the old texts as much as I do. Don't add to the confusion!