Paul never (with a few arguable possible exceptions) narrates any facts of an historical Jesus--no ministry, no disciples, no miracles, no birth, no Passion, no empty tomb, no teaching quotes, no life episodes, no resurrection of the saints, no Roman responsibility or even Roman interest in the death of Jesus. Not even when he is dealing with issues that the historical Jesus is quoted about such as taxes and divorce. Further, Paul expresses no interest in these topics when he visits Jerusalem. Paul seems to think that Jesus was crucified and resurrected in a spiritual realm, a layer of heaven, some Platonic realm that has even more importance and reality than the lower earthly realm. The later Gospel writers borrowed from Paul (and many other sources) and created a fictional earthly narrative, which became very popular.
May God's love be with you!

Paul always talks about Christ crucified being a hidden wisdom. Revealed to him. A wisdom that has existed since before time began.

Notice in this part of Galatians when he is talking about the "law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith." Does he say now that Christ has come? No. What has come? "Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." But is this faith a sum of all the teachings of an earthly Jesus who had come? It would be really important to mention this right at this point in Galatians, but instead what do we get? "faith that was to come would be revealed."

But I think a fully rational time to bring up teachings or the existence of a living Jesus would have been here. But yet, it adds to the mythicist tool box.

When Paul and the other writers of NT texts were writing, they were not thinking of a "formalized" version - meaning, "gospel" was not "Gospel" (formalized, with an upper-case 'G').

So, when Paul is talking about "my gospel", the translation should really be "my good message". The connotation that "gospel" had something specifically to do with Jesus is a much, much later development.

I even see this "lack of distinction" being made in the article posted: At the end of the article, the author states "Simply put, Paul’s statements about the origin of his Gospel provide no evidence against the existence of Jesus". Note the use of a capital-G in "Gospel" - as if Paul's references were to some pre-established "qualified" understanding of the word. But, it was not. Paul was simply talking about his "good message".

I think translators have done generations of Christians a great disservice in NOT actually *translating* the Greek term into modern English (for example) - but rather, sticking with a mutation of the Old English "godspel" (which itself was an inaccurate translation of a common Greek word).

Here's a well-balanced, friendly review of Hart's translation: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/11/the-gospel-according-to-david-bentley

And what about Abraham calling his wife Sarah "sister", I think in the book of Genesis? What about both lovers calling each other "sister" and "brother"? Were all of them meaning actual soblings from the same parents?

Some married couples call each other "mom" and "dad, but they aren't parents and children. In the same vein, it is very likely that the usage of those terms had, let's say idiomatic usages, in order to refer to beloved people.

From the point of view of several christian denominations, Jesus is, actually, both celestial and terrestrial, and there is support for that in the Canonic Gospels (to take seriously them is another issue): Jesus is described many times doing terrestrial things and experiencing terrestrial situations and limitations, even hunger, fear, he needs to sleep...

But also he is claimed, in the very same textes, claiming that he is of divine nature, or origin; in Mathew and Mark, when he affirms that he has power to forgive sins -not mere offenses toward him. To forgive sins in the jewish religion is privative fo God alone. In the Gospel of John, all the times when he claims that he and the Father are one, or when he claims that he is before Abraham.

Obviously, a desbielever isn't going to take biblical claims as the truth, but the problem here is different from that; it is what was originally claimed about Jesus, and the Canonic Gospels weren't redacted hundred of years after the events they try to tell, but in some cases a few decades.

If memory serves me well, Abraham calls his wife Sarah "sister" at a certain moment. And in "The Chant of Chants", the two lovers -besides of the meaning granted to those characters- call each other "brother" and "sister", leaving the immpression that terms related to siblings were directed to any one dear to someone else´s heart.

The defeater is the one comment he makes about James the brother of Christ in Galatians 1:19.

Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that there is no reasonable interpretation of "brother of the lord" except "sibling of Jesus of Nazareth." Many mainstream scholars, most of whom agree that mythicism is an absurdity, are convinced that the extant Pauline corpus contains at least some material that Paul never wrote, added to make it more consistent with what became the historic orthodoxy. Some of those scholars, again including many who would never question Jesus' existence, think those interpolations are numerous. That being so, I don't think we mythicists are engaging in special pleading if we suggest that "brother of the lord" was another of those interpolations, consider the absence of any other defeater of mythicism in all the rest of what Paul wrote.

If you are now raising the issue of whether Catholics are Christians, that is a change of subject.

That is not an answer to any of my questions.