I see a compromise though

in what the later church put together.

The genealogies don't fit with an immaculate conception. That was a compromise - some of both.

Gospel Jesus was the perfect flawless revelation of Paul's gospel in the beatitudes but he was the severe no-nonsense projected King of the Essenes when he spoke of burning the chaffe, killing enemies and beating servants.

Paul's writings make no mention of Jesus of Nazareth and he vehemently denied EVER being involved with the Jerusalem church for the first 17 years of his ministry.

Acts, however, has him very closely allied with the Jerusalem church from the outset ... has him being "trained" by them ... shipped back to Tarsus by them ... being recalled from Tarsus by them ... and has Paul saying to King Agrippa that the voice of Jesus in his conversion experience said "Jesus of Nazareth" and also spoke in "the Hebrew tongue."

I see that as compromises in the narrative of Acts to accommodate the source man -on whom the human Jesus was created- from Nazareth ... which perhaps was contributed by the Ebionites. Paul HAD to be one of their own creations ... or they wouldn't release the script!~

-Vince