spamandham

Early Christianity was a hodgepodge of beliefs. This doesn't help establish what Paul meant. If Paul thought Jesus had been an earthly being, he didn't know anything about that aspect of Jesus.

Why does Paul not refer to any aspect of the human life of Jesus - not even incidentally - ? This is an important point that must be explained. The straightforward explanation for this glaring absense, is that Paul was not talking about a human being, or at least not one from the recent past.

Fair enough, although I seem to recall that "born of a woman" is under contention.

Paul certainly might have thought Jesus had at one point been an earthly being, as long as we set that time into the long distant past (from Paul's perspective), then the bits such as "born of a woman" and "decendant of david" could fit with Paul's abject ignorance of any aspect of the life of Jesus.