Jacob:

Texts and people have contexts beyond the literary remains they leave which give content to what they are saying. This is historical evidence. We know that Paul interacted with Peter and James and other believers. We know what they believed about Jesus. We know they agreed on these points. So the letters of Paul I cited belong to a context of relationships that we know about from Paul's own testimony corroborated by others. Given this, every point you make above is nullified.

It is one thng to say a text is able linguistically to mean something and to cite a parallel, which is essentially what you have done. It is another to place a text in its historical-cultural context and then read it. Paul was Jewish and believed in a deliverer that God would bring to the earth. Everything about his teaching in that originally Jewish context is against his using the mysteries as a source of his ideas. Where do we see him appeal directly to such sources in contrast to the Hebrew Scriptures he does appeal to about Jesus?

As for Paul's statement in Philippians 2, it is decidedly not docetic becasue Paul beleives Jesus died a real death (1 Cor 15:3-5). A docetist believes Jesus only appeared to die. In addition, Jesus' ability to represent humanity in his theology requires Jesus' humanity (Rom 3:20-5:24). This is why I noted earlier the gospel message requires Jesus' humanity. His ability to represent humanity requires his humanity in Paul's teaching. Romans 8:3 says Jesus condemned sin in the flesh.

Ephesians 2:15 can be added to this list - nullifying the commandments of the law in his flesh (but some do not connect this letter to Paul as I do).

As for Paul's vision, we are looking at his claim he had a direct revelation from Jesus, which led to his conversion. Now he had to know enough about Jesus and the message tied to him to convert This is why the evidence can be rooted in the thirties. No importing here, just good historical relationships.