This is an amazing response. Who else would it be given the response of Jews and believers in the disputes that centered around Jesus of Nazaareth, not to mention Paul's association with Peter, James, and others who were with Jesus? How can Paul speak of we preach "Jesus crucified" if he does not have a historical crucifixion in view of a Jesus who both he and his disputants know the identity of? The "Lord" being discussed in 1 Corinthians is the Lord Jesus Chrsit who is also said to take on flesh (as 1 Cor 1 also shows). If not Jesus of Nazareth, then who else? Remember the debates with Jews that we know about through interaction we see in figures like Justin Martyr or the Talmud (and their agreement that the charge against Jesus included the claim he was a sorcerer-deceiver points also to a known historical figure).

The error is like one I use in my class. Let me illustrate. What is the following sentence about? "The Cowboys are going to the frozen tundra to melt the cheeseheads" If you say football, you are right, but the word football is not there. You can refer to someone or somethign without having a specific term present. How would one know in the case of my illustration? It is by the combination of other features that point in that direction. Yes, the word Nazareth is not in Paul, but there is no other credible candidate for who he is discussing than a historical Jesus of Nazareth.