I'm beginning to think you enjoy getting spanked because you just keep coming back for more.
Funny. I can say the same. Particularly because, in addition to my own studies, I can actually cite many, many relevant experts.
You made all kinds of hilarious excuses because you can't keep track of a simple time line for the no more than two visits Paul made to Jerusalem
You can't provide any evidence he made only two. All you can do is cite the two visits he mentions in Galatians (and the intended visit in romans) and attempt to correlate these with Acts. You have no evidence whatsoever that Paul only made two visits.
I'm still chuckling over the fact that Paul as well as Acts has you all confused as to which James is alive and which one is dead.
The only reason you aren't "confused" is by ignoring both Paul and Acts. Acts at least clearly identifies different people named James. One dies at one point, and another is mentioned later.
Now you want to know what it means for the Son of God to be a descendant of David according to the flesh.
No I don't. What I want to know is, from your view, how you can explain by virtue of mythicist theory better than a historical acknowledgement of Jesus that:
1) Paul describing Jesus as "according to the flesh"
2) Paul, who you claim is only receiving revelations from Jesus through a spiritual Christ as opposed to a Jesus who actually lived and walked on earth, citing at one point Jesus' teaching on divorce, and then distinguishing it from his own. Why bother, if all of his knowledge of Jesus' teachings were "revealed"
3) Paul describes Jesus eating with his disciples and dying, i.e. human activities.
4) Paul states Jesus dies of crucifixion, a roman execution which would not have been implemented in Israelf until after Herod the Great.
For that you will have to look into Paul's ancient scriptures to learn the requirements necessary for the people of Israel to recognize a true Son of God. Is that the historical Jesus you are looking for?
I seriously doubt you have read, in hebrew or in translation, the scriptures Paul uses. The messiah/christ was not supposed to be the son of go; hence, Jesus as the son of God is not a readily accesible role for a Jew like Paul.
Paul sites the Lord's teaching on divorce and I already pointed out that it came from ancient scripture, the OT.
Wrong. You cited passages from the OT on divorce. But the OT makes very clear the divorce is common and acceptable. Paul, citing Jesus, says the opposite.
There is not one single reference to a parable or verse from Q found in the entire writings of the epistles.
Wrong. Just for starters, see the paper in
Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition edited by Henry Wansborough concerning Paul.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Paul was writing letters, not describing Jesus' ministry. It is small wander that the few references to Jesus' teachings (see above for citation) are not featured heavily in any way in Paul's writings.