First, notice that no biographical data or words of Jesus of Nazareth are found in Paul's letters. So if this is the best that you got, then it is weak at best.
Essenes taught in the Dead Sea Scrolls that Messianic figures were like a Son of God. Paul taught that believers are sons of God. Moreover, the New Testament teaches that believers are "born of God". Last time I checked nobody on earth is "born of God" without first being "born of woman".
Since Paul teaches that Jesus indwells his saints then the Lord Jesus suffers with those persecuted and killed for their faith. IOW, nothing to see here. There remains no solitary Jesus of Nazareth, no biographical data, no words of Jesus. You have nothing but what you presume is a vague statement referencing the mythical stories in the Gospels.
"I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." (Galatians 6:17)
Not written by Paul so it is pointless to bring up unless you are trying to mislead others. Hmm....?
Wikipedia
"Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that
First Timothy, along with
Second Timothy and
Titus, are not the work of Paul, but rather are unattributable Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd centuries.
[1]Most scholars now affirm this view.
[2][3] As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the Pastoral Epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul's day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works."
Still no biographical data and no words of Jesus. Taken as a whole the book of Hebrews is describing a cosmic or heavenly Son who died at the foundation of the world, according to the type of Adam in scripture, who also died at the beginning of creation. Imagine that! What a coincidence. Maybe..., just maybe... Adam is a type for Christ, ---Oh wait, Paul said exactly that: (Romans 5:14) "Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."
For example,
“Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly
since the foundation of the world (Greek: cosmos). But as it is, he has appeared [Greek: phanero = to make known or reveal) once for all at the end of the ages [Last Days] to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:25)
This verse implies that the Lamb was slain at the foundation of the cosmos once for all time, which precludes any historical, solitary Jesus of the Gospels. What has been REVEALED, MADE KNOWN in the Last Days, per the author, is the Lamb slain at the foundation of the world.
It is that “revelation of Christ Jesus” as the cosmic Son of God that ushers the individual into the New Covenant.
The manifestation of the Lord Jesus in his saints could be a reference to the Teacher of Righteousness (TOR). Maybe the TOR was a descendant from the tribe of Judah. The TOR was considered a Messianic figure. He is considered the founder of the Essenes in the pre-Christian age, who arguably are the precursors of Paul's Christianity. Paul, in fact teaches the same ideas that the Essenes taught. Paul in fact, briefly references about the Lord instituting the Eucharist which is first described by the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Still no biographical data for a Jesus of Nazareth, still no words of Jesus.
Adam was shamed and killed by a tree at the beginning of creation. Do you see the type-thing going on here?
Still no biographical data for a Jesus of Nazareth and no words of Jesus.
Nothing precludes the coming of the Lord "in his saints" as all the epistles attest to. So I have no disagreement with this clause. As far as the mythical stories found in the Gospels written later, --even you concede the supernatural events did not occur. Therefore, if they did not occur then they are mythical like stories. Maybe you have some fancy jargon to avoid calling them "mythical" in order to avoid the ire of fundamentalists but it is would be arguing over semantics.
Still no biographical data of a Jesus of Nazareth and no words of Jesus.
You clearly have a house of cards holding up your position for a historical Jesus of Nazareth. I don't want to argue with you so you are welcome to believe whatever you want.