Hi Nehemias,

You say that, according to Paul Jesus was "born of woman ".

The actual phrase he uses could be translated: "made of woman". This may seem like splitting hairs but he is obviously referring to the allegory of Sarah and Isaac in the same epistle. Christ comes from Sarah through Isaac. The woman to whom Paul is referring is Sarah and not Mary. The birth is allegorical and not real. That explains why Paul uses a less personal form of the verb.

Your translation of Rom. 9:4-5 is self serving. If the text were as clear as you pretend then we wouldn't be having this discussion. NAS: "... from whom is the Christ according to the flesh ..."

The term "Christ according to the flesh" is a reference to the messiah whom Paul believes is hidden in scripture. The fact that Paul uses the qualification "according to the flesh" suggests that he is not talking about an actual person. Why does he consistently qualify everything he says about a human Christ if everyone agrees that he is human? Paul is making a distinction between how the scriptures represent Christ and how he and his followers perceive the reality. The distinction is "the flesh". Everything Paul says about Christ comes from scripture and he nearly always qualifies it with the phrase “according to the flesh”. He does this to distinguish the plain words from what has been revealed to him and his followers in the hidden meaning.

Your claim that there is no evidence of any "Christ Myth" heresy is not true.

You are begging the question when you rule out Paul and other first century epistle writers on the grounds that they believed in a historical Christ.

also...

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
KJV: 1 John 4:2-3 (c.90c.e.?)

This is in the context of a rival group of Christians who split from the 1 John group.

It is also worth noting that 1 John gets his information from “spirits” not from Gospels. Reference to historical tradition would have been expected at this point .

You say, “pagan and jew opponents of christianity, alwayr reffered to Jesus as a real person”.

As far as I am aware in most cases pagan and Jewish opponents refer to Jesus as a historical person only in the context of repeating Christian claims or accusations made against Christians. I cannot see how we can draw any conclusions from that. If you have a specific instance where a Jew or pagan should be expected to contest the historicity of Christ then I will be pleased to know of it.

Ironically in one case, the Octavius of Minucius Felix, the Christian author places the accusation that Christians worship a crucified criminal into the mouth of his pagan protagonist. The Christian flatly denies this without any further explanation. Just as he does with the accusation that Christians sacrifice children or worship their own genitals. There is no attempt to correct the misconception that Jesus was a criminal. The whole thing is ruled out completely.

The Jewish protagonist in Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" (c.130ce) does accuse Justin of inventing his Christ. This accusation was placed into the mouth of a Jew by a Christian. I assume that this is a reflection of what Jewish opponents were saying.

Best Regards
Lepernet