An Idealistic Understanding of the Incarnation

The incarnation is baffling for any human mind. How can the infinite become finite? Well, let us define our terms (see the "Mind-Model" of the Trinity before proceeding). The standard view of the incarnation demands that Jesus, in His one Person, had two complete and distinct natures. These two natures (divine and human), while they do not mix, are perfectly joined. Jesus is a hypostasis-a distinct property bearer-who bears both the the properties of being Divine and human. That means, in His Divine nature, the Son of God is everything that makes God God. He is omniscient, omnipresent, etc. In His human nature, He is everything that makes a human human. These two natures, again, do not mix, but nevertheless are united in the Son of God-the Logos. So how are we to understand this? I don't think I can fully resolve the issue. But I'll try to make it as intelligible as possible. Let's define terms.

Consciousness
Consciousness is the fact of experience, as Sam Harris puts it. It is the fact of perception, of feeling, of color, of knowledge. It is the world we inhabit (see my post "How Consciousness proves the existence of God"). On idealism, consciousness is all that exists (again, see the blog post just mentioned). Consciousness is the system of thoughts, experiences, knowledge, etc that characterize reality.

Personhood
Personhood is the concept of "self" or "ego". It is my "I". It is me; I am a person. Personhood, therefore, can be described as a localization of consciousness. It is the fact that I exist and therefore I am experiencing stuff. Consciousness is an essential part of what it means to be a person. A rock does not possess consciousness, and therefore is not personal. Animals can be said to be personal because they possess (presumably) consciousness. Possessing consciousness-having a system of thoughts and experiences-is an essential part of being a Person. In fact, I'd say Personhood is identical to localized consciousness (again, the fact of the existence of the "self"). It is a distinct center of awareness.

Mind (what I'd also call the Soul) 
Then what is the Mind? I used to define this as one's own consciousness...and therefore, Personhood. But then I realized Jesus has both a human mind and a divine mind. Yet Jesus is not two persons in one Person; He is ONE Person with two natures. Yet He has a human mind. How is this to be understood?

I now suggest that the mind is a center of understanding within localized consciousness. That sounds confusing. A lot of big words. Here's what I mean by that. The mind is the means through which I experience the world. Whereas Personhood is localized consciousness, the mind is what localized consciousness does. Consider this. 

Personhood = italics
Mind = bold

I feel pain. Mind, as a friend of mine helpfully put it, is the self's perception of both itself and the world-the self's relationship to both itself, and the world. Whereas Personhood is the self, the mind is the instrument the self uses to perceive. Thus, it is proper to say that I have a soul, rather than to say I am a soul. So the mind, as the center of understanding within my localized consciousness, is the self's self-awareness. It is the way the self views itself and it's relationship to the world. As I said, having at least one mind is an essential part of Personhood. 

Bipolarism
This is going to be a helpful ANALOGY ONLY to clarify my definition of the mind. I do not want to suggest that the Person of the Son is bipolar. Rather, this can help us understand something about the nature of the mind. I was talking with a very insightful friend at church about this, and she brought up the fact of Multiple Personality Disorder. It's when a singular "self" experiences multiple modes of the self-and yet these modes can sometimes be totally disconnected from one another. What I mean by mode here is: a way of viewing itself. In spite of having multiple personalities, my friend reminded me that there is still only one Person experiencing all of these. There is only one self, yet that self has something like multiple minds (I realize this isn't a perfect analogy, again) that are disconnected from each other. In other words, the mind is the way the self views itself and its relationship to the world. Perhaps that's more precise wording on what exactly I mean by "center of understanding".

The Divine and Human Person
Unlike a bipolar person, the Son's Divine and Human natures are completely united, yet nevertheless distinct. So within the Son's "ego", the Son's sense of "I", He can have two ways of viewing Himself and His relationship to the world, and hence two minds. This is unique to the Son. The Son possesses two minds, whereas the other Persons possess only one mind. While this is mind (hehe) bending, it is not logically incoherent. It may be incomprehensible to our minds, because we only possess a singular mind. Yet within the Son's self, He possesses to ways of viewing Himself and His relationship to all things (i.e two minds). He possess a divine mind, and a human mind. So His one Person possesses two minds.

The Trinity-Cosmic Consciousness, the Universal Mind
Mind with a capital "M" is not the same as mind as I have thus far described it. On idealism, all is mind. Reality is fundamentally mental. Thus, I would define the being of God as Cosmic Consciousness. In other words, God's Being is Consciousness. He is a system of thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. Red flags may go off because I have just called God a "system". No worries, He's not an impersonal system, because consciousness is inherently personal ;) 

I'll refer to the Divine Being as the Divine Consciousness from this point on. I STRONGLY recommend you look at my mind-model of the Trinity, as this serves as an edit to it. Replace "center of consciousness" with "localization of consciousness" and I think we should be good. 

Within the Divine Consciousness, there are three distinct localizations of consciousness: Father, Son, and Spirit. To put it in terms of the creeds, there are three personal hypostasis. A hypostasis is just a distinct property bearer. Or in simpler terms, it's a thing with properties. So what this means is that while the Persons of God never operate independently from each other, and while the Father is the source of the Godhead, the properties that make God who He is (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence) are still distinctly possessed by each Person. So in the Divine Consciousness, there are three hypostasis...we can pretty much use this word interchangeably with "Person" insofar as we are applying it to personal agents. Which we are. Note: I am using the word "distinct" rather than "individual" for a reason. The word "individual" seems to imply a separate existence for each Person. But Scripture testifies wholly against that; God is one. We are not tri-theists. I mean that each Person, while inter-dependent, nevertheless each possess the attributes of God. 

Here's the key thing to remember. These Persons are not "parts" of God. Each Person is fully God. That means, on the idealist view of reality, two things. 
1.) Everything that makes God who He is is possessed by each Person
2.) Each Person shares and operates in the Divine Consciousness fully. So while these localizations of consciousness are distinct centers of information processing in the Divine Consciousness (the Divine Mind, we could say...but I won't for the sake of avoiding confusion), they nevertheless think and operate in perfect unity and accord. The thoughts of all Persons in the Godhead are fully known, and fully comprehended. 

Concluding Thoughts
So this is my model. To most people, this probably looks like silly speculation. It's not if my God exists. It's also matters a ton in how we present the incarnation to the world. We are not to present God as a logically incoherent entity-that dishonors Him. We are to present Him as faithfully as possible. 

I will call my model the "Idealist Incarnation" model. I want to mention one last thing. It is helpful to note that all of reality exists as a projection of the Divine Consciousness. Thus, at least in theory, it's not impossible for Him to unite a human nature to Himself. The common property shared between God and man is consciousness. 

Response to Earl Doherty on Galatians 4

Mythicists are an interesting group. Here, I'm going to critique Earl Doherty's eisegesis of Galatians 4. Here goes. 

"The sending of the Son"

“God sent [the verb exapostellō] his Son.” This verb of sending is used in the Old Testament in connection with the sending of spiritual beings, such as angels, or personified Wisdom as in the Wisdom of Solomon 9:10. The basic form of the verb, apostellō, is regularly used to denote the sending of the Holy Spirit. (The verb and its variants can also be used to speak of ‘sending’ a person.) The identical form of the verb in verse 4, “God sent his Son,” is used in verse 6 to say that “God sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son.” This is an aorist tense, placing both these actions in the past.Some translations of the verb in verse 6 render it in the perfect tense: “God has sent into our hearts…” but this is misleading. The question is, are the two thoughts, the two “sent” actions, more or less contemporary? Might they essentially be complementary parts of the same process? By using a perfect tense in verse 6, translators set up a “God sent…God has sent,” sequence, as though the second is completely separate and later than the first, the former representing the advent of Jesus and his life on earth, the latter the installation of his Spirit into Paul’s converts a generation after his passing. And no doubt such a translation has been influenced by that assumption. But if the two ‘sendings’ are essentially contemporary, Paul would be relating both to the time of his own activities: the sending in both cases would then relate only to the Spirit of the Son, so that we could take both in the context of the revelation of Christ by God to Paul and his congregations—as including the wider circles of contemporary Christ belief."

Doherty tries to imply that the language used by Paul ("God sent His Son...God sent the Spirit of His Son") implies that they were sent at the same time. Why? Because both are written in the aortist tense. In other words, since they have the same tense, they must have the same time. This, however, is false. Being in the past tense simply necessitate that both have happened in the past. So onto the question: are the two sendings contemporary? What Doherty means by that is that the sending of the Son is temporally co-extensive to the sending of the Spirit. In other words, since the transition of the people from the law to release from the law happens at faith, and Jesus's coming represents the time when the faith was revealed and represents release from the law, and believers are only released from the law when they believe, therefore Jesus's coming must be their spiritual acceptance of Him, not His physical coming. Let explain.

In Galatians 3, you have Paul saying this: " Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

(Galatians 3:23-26 ESV)"

So, according to Doherty, Paul believes that the transition from law to freedom happens when you have faith. Therefore, when Paul says "before faith came, we were held...until the coming faith would be revealed", he means that people were held captive until faith was revealed through Paul's gospel, since the only time they could actually have faith was when Paul's gospel was revealed. The key here is that Doherty views the "coming of faith" NOT as the advent of the historical Jesus, but rather as the advent of faith in the believer's heart. So the "coming of faith" refers to the coming of faith to the believer through Paul's preaching, not to Jesus's work. This is revealing  for why: 

"The intervening verse 24 has been rendered in translations in either of two ways: “…the Law was our tutor until Christ came,” but this contradicts the thought in the two flanking verses which say that it is “faith” that has come. The other is preferable: “…the Law was a tutor leading us to Christ,” which is literally what the Greek says (gegonen eis Xriston). The latter could be taken in any number of ways: leading us to learning about Christ, leading us to the time when Christ arrived—either in body, spirit, or the revelation of him. The King James Version, for example, translates: “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”"

So what is Doherty saying? Since the coming of faith isn't the advent of Jesus, it makes no sense to say that the Law was our tutor until Christ came. Paul said it was our tutor until faith came. Therefore, this cannot be. 

"If God sending his Son in verse 4 is focused on the act—God’s act—of producing that transition from Law to freedom, and Paul locates this transition at the time of faith (which is to say of the response to his own and other apostles’ preaching), then the “sent” of verse 4 does not refer to any arrival of the Son on the earthly scene some decades earlier. Rather, the sending of verse 4 is the sending of the Son during the time of Paul, which can only mean through revelation into minds like his (“God revealed his son in me,” as he has said in 1:16), enabling him to bring knowledge of the Son to others (“in order that I might preach him among the nations”) and produce the “faith” within them which brings about that freedom from the Law and confers the status of “sons” upon them.^2"

The trouble is that Doherty fails to realize what practically all commentators have: the two are identical. The coming of faith is not the coming of faith in the believer's heart through Paul's gospel. The thought makes perfect sense if Paul views the coming of the faith as the advent of Christ. The two are identical in Paul's mind. The "coming faith" was revealed when Christ came. Why? because Christ's coming was the time when faith came as the means by which you were justified. Thus faith arrived (i.e was explicitly revealed-it's not like God changed His game plan) as the means through which you inherit God's promises, not in people's hearts (yet). Whenever Paul talks about a believer receiving Paul's Gospel, he always talks about it in terms of means. In other words, faith is seen as having an object (faith in Christ). Verse 25 is is telling: " But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

(Galatians 3:25-26 ESV)"

Paul is distinguishing the period where "faith has come" from "you are all sons of God through faith". How do I know this? If, in Paul's mind, the fact that "faith has come" represented the advent of faith in the believer's heart, Paul wouldn't have needed to reiterate that you "are all sons of God through faith". That point was already made; it would just be repetitive. It would be like saying "But now through faith, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ you are all sons of God through faith." 

So how does it make sense for Paul to identify "the coming of faith" with "the coming of Christ"? For Paul, the coming of Jesus is the coming of faith, because Jesus's work itself marked the transition from "law" to "faith". In other works, Jesus's work marks the arrival of faith as the means of justification. Here's another (even more decisive) exegetical point in my favor: So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24 ESV)

Christ came in order that we might be justified by faith. In other words, Christ's coming enables justification by faith. It cannot be identical to it-other wise Paul wouldn't have used a hina clause (an "in order that" clause, were the stuff after the "in order that" expresses purpose). 

Let's take a look at at his argument in Galatians 4, because this is where it really matters in terms of a historical Jesus.

"If we allow the thought of 3:23-25 to govern 4:4 (which it should, else Paul is contradicting himself), we arrive at this scenario. If God sending his Son in verse 4 is focused on the act—God’s act—of producing that transition from Law to freedom, and Paul locates this transition at the time of faith (which is to say of the response to his own and other apostles’ preaching), then the “sent” of verse 4 does not refer to any arrival of the Son on the earthly scene some decades earlier. Rather, the sending of verse 4 is the sending of the Son during the time of Paul, which can only mean through revelation into minds like his (“God revealed his son in me,” as he has said in 1:16), enabling him to bring knowledge of the Son to others (“in order that I might preach him among the nations”) and produce the “faith” within them which brings about that freedom from the Law and confers the status of “sons” upon them.^2"

So here's the logic:

1.) God sending His Son is God's act of producing the transition of the law to freedom in verse 4

2.) The transition is faith in Paul's gospel

3.) Conclusion: God sending His Son is when God produces faith in you (i.e reveals Christ so that you can spread the Gospel like Paul) through Paul's Gospel

In other words, God's act of "sending the Son" is at the time of faith. It's an ingenious argument, to be sure. The only problem is that it's completely wrong.

 " But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

(Galatians 4:4-5 ESV)"

Two things. For one, even if we take Doherty's view of "faith coming" has the birth of faith in the believer's heart, that STILL doesn't support his view of Galatians 4. Paul wouldn't be contradicting himself-that makes no sense to say that he would. If the sending of the Son is focused on God's act of sending the Son into the world as a necessary prerequisite to redeeming people, then it can easily be said that God sent His Son into the world to redeem people under the law.

Secondly, a hina clause is used here. That's a problem for Doherty's view. God "sent forth his Son...to (i.e in order to) redeem those who were under the law, so that (another hina clause) we might receive adoption as sons. If, in Paul's mind, God "sending forth his Son" was God's action of revealing Christ in the minds of those who were hearing Paul's Gospel (i.e transitioning people from the law to freedom...which is what redemption from the law is), then why would he say that the purpose of sending Christ was to redeem those under the law? Paul didn't identify redemption of those under the law with sending His Son-rather, it's God's goal in sending His Son. In other words, God sending the Son isn't identical to redemption from the law (i.e transitioning from law to freedom by revealing Christ in people's minds); rather, God's act of sending the Son enables the transition. So in Paul's mind, "redemption under the law" is achieved by the sending of the Son, but is not entailed by it. If (as Doherty agrees) the action of redeeming those who were under the law focuses on God, then it makes perfect sense to say God sent Christ in order for God to redeem those under the law. In His mind, sending Christ is a prerequisite for His action to redeem those under the law. If the sending of the Son was identical to transitioning someone from the law to freedom, then the phrase "to redeem those who were under the law" is completely superfluous. Paul, therefore, has those acts as distinct from each other; the sending of the Son is a necessary prerequisite to God's act of redeeming those under the law. It would be like me saying "I took the AP Calculus BC test in order to take Calc III."

Doherty's logic requires us to believe that the "coming of the faith" was the revelation of the Son in believers that produced the transition from law to freedom. But that's not what Paul is saying. The two actions are distinct in Paul's mind, with one action achieving the other. They're not identical. If they had been, Paul would have said God "sent forth His Son (i.e revealed him in your hearts to produce the transition from law to freedom) so that we might receive adoption as sons." Unfortunately for mythers, that's not what Paul said.

Nor does Paul explicitly say this in verse 6 of Galatians 4. He doesn't say He sent Christ AS the Spirit. The Spirit and Christ are numerically distinct in Paul (1 Corinthians 12-one God, one Lord, one Spirit). Rather, the Spirit operates in perfect unity with Christ. Paul was a thoroughgoing trinitarian. Richard Baukham has done excellent work demonstrating this. The Spirit's work is never independent of God or Christ. Thus, the Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8), because the Spirit shares the same being with both.

"The “now that faith has come” (3:25) is Paul focusing on himself and his own time. (Referring to a past “faith” that was in response to Jesus’ historical death and resurrection would have been too oblique; any reference to the past would have been to the saving events themselves.)"

This is also problematic. As I've said before, the time when "faith has come" refers to faith as the means of justification. It refers to the time when faith, not the law, is revealed as means through which you are justified-it's not talking about justification itself. Jesus's saving events are entailed in "now that faith has come", because it's His work that makes it possible for "faith" to arrive as the means by which you are counted righteous in God's sight. 

"Even though the epistle of Titus, one of the Pastorals, was written probably half a century later, it still preserves much of Paul’s thought. In its opening verses, the writer, presenting himself as Paul, has this to say:

2  …the hope of eternal life which God, who does not lie, promised
before the beginning of time [pro chronōn aiōniōn],
3  and now at the proper time [kairois idiois] he has revealed his word
[NEB: openly declared himself] through the preaching entrusted to me
[i.e., Paul] by the command of God our Savior.

Thus the “proper time,” an idea equivalent to Galatians’ “fullness of time,” is indeed the time of revelation and preaching by Paul. "

Two totally different contexts. The logic doesn't work. There is no necessary exegetical connection between these verses and the verses in Galatians. Then Doherty tries to argue that "born of woman" and "born under the law" is an interpolation. Keep in mind that not ONE manuscript lack these phrases. But here's his reason for why that is: 

"In what way would being born of woman and born under the Law be items worthy of highlighting as important in this context? It would go without saying that if Jesus had lived on earth and been crucified as a human being on Calvary, then he was “born of woman.” That would hardly contribute anything to the primary act or strengthen it; it would be merely gratuitous and redundant. In fact, since orthodox interpretation of the passage assumes that the sending of verse 4 already means the life of Christ and his saving act of death and resurrection, Paul would have no reason to say that he was “born of woman.” Thus the presence of the phrase provides a justification for suggesting interpolation."

This is bizarre. The phrase "born of woman" is meant to emphasize Jesus's humanity-because according to Paul, Jesus wasn't merely human. By saying God "sent His Son, born of woman" emphasizes His humanity, which is instrumental in God's act of redemption. The sending of Jesus is primarily focused on Him being sent into the world-no one has ever said the sending of Jesus means His life death and resurrection. The phrase "God sent His Son" means that God sent His Son into the world-THAT'S been the orthodox interpretation. Thus, the phrase "born of woman" isn't pointless, but rather describes how God sent Jesus (i.e the manner in which Jesus was sent into the world): born of woman (incarnate human!), born under/subject to the law (i.e as a Jew, since only Jews were subject to the Law). This actually fits well with the flow of Paul's thought. Jesus's incarnation enables redemption from the law. He then tries to argue that being "born under the law" is likely an interpolation too because it has no role in saving us. Galatians 4 is supposed to be about freedom from the law-so in what sense would being born under the law help? Paul specifies that elsewhere: 

"For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:10-14 ESV)

When Paul says "the curse of the law", he's not calling the law a curse. Contra Doherty, he has a positive view of the law (Romans 7-"the laws not a bad thing, it's just that people suck" my translation). Rather, he's saying Christ redeemed us from the law's curse, which applied to everyone (since everyone has failed to keep God's law). Jesus redeems us from the law's curse by becoming it. Jesus being "hanged on a tree" confirms that He is under the curse of God. The only way he could become the law's curse-the only way He himself could take it on Himself and suffer through it-was if He was under it. Otherwise, if the law didn't apply to Jesus, he never would have been able to become the curse. However, if the law applied to Jesus as well, and if Jesus took on the sins of the world, then He was counted as one "who does not abide by all things of the law". He took our penalty.

Much much more can be said on this-specifically on the topic of imputation. Jesus's obedience to the law is credited to our account. But I think the point made above is enough to refute Doherty. 

"But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not so much to express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterize the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he performed his mission.”

For those phrases, Burton is not ruling out the understanding of a temporal relationship to the verb, but he is saying that it is not grammatically necessary. Yet if they can be seen as not qualifying the sending, this further frees the ‘sent’ thought in verse 4 from having to be a reference to the arrival in the world of the incarnated Christ in a human body."

This is shocking to me. Burton says exactly what Doherty doesn't. He's not saying that a temporal relationship to the verb is not necessary. He's saying that "born of woman" and "born under the law" describe Christ Himself. It describes the manner in which Christ was sent under which he "performed his mission". That undercuts Doherty's whole point! It doesn't free verse 4 of a reference to the arrival of Christ. It necessitates it. No heavenly figure was ever "born under the law"-that's nonsense. There's not one example of that in extant Jewish literature. Not one. 

"This is a passage which, despite its context clearly linking the woman and her child with the time of the prophet, was widely regarded as prophetic of the Messiah. If Paul felt compelled to interpret this as a reference to his spiritual Christ, he would not have refrained from stating it (even if he didn’t understand how it could be that the spiritual Christ could be “born of woman”). Perhaps he simply assigned it to the world of myth and God’s “mysteries”—which were unfathomable anyway, and had to be accepted on the basis of scriptural revelation; just as he accepted that the spiritual Christ was of David’s stock because scripture said so. "

Again. Words fail me. When did "born of woman" ever mean something other than "born of woman"? And when does Paul use the phrase "mysteries of God" in reference to anything other than God's salvation achieved in Christ's work? He doesn't. I will address the idea that the "spiritual Christ was of David's stock (sperm)" too. No kidding-these people, Carrier, Price, Doherty-all think that Paul thought God took a sperm of David and created Jesus out of it. 

"As a final consideration on whether Paul was likely to have written “born under the Law,” we ought to examine his attitude about what being under the Law meant to him in the first place. To his way of thinking, it was entirely a negative condition, useless for salvation, an enabler of sin. God needed to free believers from it. “No human being can be justified in the sight of God for having kept the Law: Law brings only the consciousness of sin,” Paul says in Romans 3:20. Would it not have occurred to him, or to his readers, to wonder how Jesus, if he was born under Law, was exempt from this terrible fate? Would not the two statements, Romans 3:20 and Galatians 4:4, constitute something of a contradiction—at the least requiring clarification? The very fact of the inclusion of “born under the Law” in Galatians 4:4 implies that Christ was in fact a subject of the Law and therefore a prey to all its impediment"

So this is the last bit I will be addressing. You can see the flaws yourself for the rest of the article. Doherty says "would it not have occurred to him how if Jesus was born under the law, it would not have exempted Him from this terrible fate?" (i.e being conscious of one's own sin) Doherty makes a similar point in Romans 7-that if the law aroused Paul's sinfulness, why didn't it do it for Jesus if Jesus was truly under the law? This is also bizarre. In Romans 8, Paul explains why: Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh. Sarx, in Romans 8, is a clear reference to human nature (which Paul views as depraved). Mythicists like him try to take this to mean that Jesus was like a human but wasn't. However, that's not at all what Paul is saying. He's not saying that Jesus wasn't human-rather, Jesus wasn't sinful. Thus, Jesus's passions weren't arouses because He wasn't sinful. For Paul, it was "sin in him" producing death. 

" Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

(Romans 7:13-14 ESV)"

The law was good, but sin in Paul produced death. He says "I am of the flesh"-his sinful, corrupt humanity. Thus, because Jesus was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, He didn't have a sinful nature. Thus the law had no such effect on Him. He is the new Adam-and unlike Adam, Jesus obeyed God. 

"Here we have an identical situation to that which I have pointed out in regard to Paul’s concept of “living kata sarka.” If living in the flesh, as Paul so consistently emphasizes, is full of corruption, temptation, sin, contrariness to God, even ‘death’ (figuratively speaking), the question had to arise as to how an historical Jesus who ‘lived in the flesh’ was not a party to all this. "

This is where mythers CONSISTENTLY get the point wrong. Sarx, the vast majority of time Paul uses it, refer to the sinful human nature. Jesus had a human nature, but not a sinful one. He had a soma, but not sarx. Hence, He was sent in the likeness of sarx-He resembled us in that He was human. He was a man (anthropos) according to Romans 5. But He wasn't a sinful man. 

"“But as for you—you may bear the name of Jew; you rely upon the law and are proud [lit., you boast] of your God; you know his will; you are aware of moral distinctions because you receive instruction from the law; you are confident [lit., have convinced yourself] that you are the one to guide the blind, to enlighten the benighted, to train the stupid, and to teach the immature, because in the law you see the very shape of knowledge and truth. You, then, who teach your fellow-man, do you fail to teach yourself? You proclaim, ‘Do not steal’; but are you yourself a thief? You say, ‘Do not commit adultery’; but are you an adulterer? You abominate false gods; but do you rob their shrines? While you take pride in the law, you dishonor God by breaking it. For, as Scripture says, ‘Because of you the name of God is dishonored among the Gentiles’.”

The tone of the whole passage is critical. Paul is almost sneering at those he is addressing, those Jews under the Law. If the spirit of an historical Jesus werestanding at Paul’s side, he would be cringing, waiting for Paul to make the obvious exception for himself. (“Surely he’s not including Me in all that sarcasm about Jews who, having knowledge in the Law and being teachers, do not practice what they preach? Have I dishonored God by breaking the Law? Is he saying that because of Me ‘the name of God is dishonored among the gentiles’? Surely not!”)"

Oh boy. This is the level of exegesis you should expect from mythers and their ranks. Paul is being critical of the Jews not simply because they were under the law, but because they broke the law. He's bashing them not for relying on the law, but for relying on the law while at the same time breaking it. Obviously Paul thinks that Jesus didn't break the law. That goes without saying. 

"There is not a word anywhere from Paul about how Jesus the teacher behaved while being “born under (or subject to) the Law.” Moreover, with Jesus supposedly looming in the background, he could have been brought forward by Paul to illustrate how this particular Jew “instructed in the Law” had shown how to properly behave even in such circumstances and not dishonor the profession and the name of God."

Except there is a word about how Jesus behaved while being subject to the law. "He who knew no sin became sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21

Paul's whole thinking presupposes the fact that Jesus obeyed God perfectly (Romans 5) and was obedient to the point of death (Philippians 2). 

I've yet to see mythicists address the "offspring of Abraham" problem in Galatians 3 as well. My guess is that they will talk about how those who have faith in Christ are referred to as offspring of Abraham. This won't do however. We are called offspring of Abraham in Christ. What's true of Him becomes true of His people ("I have been crucified with Christ...united to Christ in a death like His, etc"). So Jesus's status is conferred on those who believe. The trouble is that the promise to Abraham was this: through you the nations shall be blessed. God proceeds to make the nation of Israel out of Abraham. So the promise, then, involved genealogical descent. Paul says that Jesus is the fulfillment of this promise-the one to whom the promise had been made (that through your offspring-Jesus-the families of the earth would be blessed). So Jesus could only fulfill the promise made to Abraham (through your offspring the nations of the earth will be blessed) if he was Abraham's offspring. Otherwise, if Jesus wasn't descended from Abraham, how is it that Paul can view Jesus as the One who inherits the promise ("through you the nations of the Earth shall be blessed)? How does God bless the nations through Abraham if Jesus wasn't Abraham's descendant? We're not told.

This is why mythicists will forever remain in their own, isolated little camp, demanding to be heard yet being taken seriously by no one. Why? Because of pseudo-scholarship like this.