While I gather there is a "mythicist" intepretation for it, for me Paul is clear enough about Jesus' humanity in 1 Cor. 15:20-21:Paul is silent about Jesus. The his silence about Jesus is so intrinsic to it, and any your presumed historicist proof text is neutralized by (or even better explained by) a mythicist interpretation of the same, that the only logical conclusion is that Jesus didn't exist.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
I think in the big picture Paul just doesn't care about the human Jesus. As he puts it in 2 Cor. 5:16:
I see this "Christ according to the flesh" as being the human Jesus and the one Paul says was proclaimed by Jewish Christian "super-apostles" in 2 Cor. 11:4-5:From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
And since I regard 1 Peter as being genuine, it clarifies for me what Jewish Christian "super apostles" preached about "Christ according to the flesh," like in 3:18:For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. I consider myself in no way inferior to those super-apostles.
For me this all only works with a human Jesus, one who was thought by whoever to have been in one way or another God, Daniel's "son of man," isaiah's Suffering Servant, an angel, and/or whatever else, but a human Jesus at least too. As 1 Tim. 2:5 puts it (not that I think it's a genuine letter of Paul but I find it instructive), "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.