That's a lie. From the very beginning, Christianity had major differences. Reading the New Testament we even see those differences among the twelve disciples themselves. We see contradictory portrait of Jesus in the four "gospels", one portrays him as a Jewish rabbi, another as a demigod.
I am sorry but some people's ignorance doesn't make other people liars. If fruitful discussion is desired, then I suggest you address your opponents in this thread properly and respectfully. If we look at the topic, "reading" the New Testament seems to resolve the problems for this individual. First he claims that these Scriptures are corrupted, but then he builds his case over these Scriptures. Intellectually dishonest but yet bold. NT accounts in actuality doesn't clearly address the individual differences of Christ's disciples. They do appear engaged in dialogue with their Master, however there is NO contradiction between them. The portrait of Christ given to us through the Apostles who wrote the gospels clearly indicate that they addressed their gospels to difference audiences at different times and places. Gospel harmonization is still intact even though St. John refers to Christ as the Word of God or St. Matthew's gospel refer to Him Son of Man, Rabbi reference only comes from those appear in the Gospels, as a method of respectful salutation. There is no argument worth considering here.
The early Christians were divided into numerous sects, the followers of Paul, what modern western scholars call the "proto-orthodox",
Another misconception based on the term addressed by
one scholar who is actually agnostic, hiw views actually ignore the Tradition of the Christian Church that was passed on by different means, either through patristic or oral sources.
I highly suggest you read Barrie Wilson's How Jesus Became Christian
Wilson should have read more widely, because he makes one enormous error after another. Among them:
He claims that during Jesus' lifetime "Judaism was put...on the defensive" (p 17) because of cult of Mithris. False. If he had done some research he would discover the Mithric cult developed after 100 AD.
He claims Judaism was put on the 'defensive' because "it did not possess a robust sense of the afterlife" (p 17). False. Only the Sadducees, about 2% of the population at the time, did not believe in an afterlife. By the time of Second Temple Judaism, the vast majority of the Jews believed in a very robust afterlife. Has he never read Maccabees?
He argues, against all recent scholarship, that Second Temple Jews were 'Hellenized" (p 25). The most important book on the subject is Martin Hengel's 'Judaism and Hellenism'. Hengel pointed out that the threat of hellenization had made Second Temple Jews more, not less, religious. They became fiercely monotheistic. And you would think that Wilson would have noticed that the Second Temple Jews had two bloody wars with Rome some decades after the crucifixion. Surely anyone, noting those two wars that brought utter ruin to the Jews, might have guessed that Second Temple Jews were less than hellenized. But not Wilson, apparently.
He actually thinks that "Jesus' desperate cry...'my God, My God, why have you forsaken me'" was Jesus' realization that the Kingdom would not materialize. Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, one of the most popular of psalms in his day. It also states, 'They have pierced my hands and my feet...for my clothing they cast lots'. The psalm ends in a note of triumph for God, another point escaping Wilson.
Incredibly, he insists that "Jesus was an orthodox Jew" (p 95). Has he never read the New Testament? Why does he think all those Pharisees called him a blasphemer? Jesus touched lepers, ate without washing his hands, forgave sins, threw moneychangers out of the temple, made Pharisees furious with his nonorthodox statements, including claiming to be God Himself, and, as a result, many demanded his death.
Wilson thinks the Ebionites were the inheritors of the James/Jesus group. He forgets to mention to Ebionites were Gnostic heretics with a great many odd beliefs, most of which appear to have nothing to do with Judaism.
I laughed out loud at Wilson's irritated question, "What happened to Jesus' demand that his followers practice a pattern of righteousness stricter than that observed by the Pharisees" (p 105). Right, as if telling his followers never to remarry after a divorce (something no other religion in history had asked for), insisting that you forgive everyone no matter what the offense, and saying you are never to lust in your heart can't be called harder than anything before. In all instances except the legalisms, Christianity was much, much stricter.
"Paul was a Hellenized Jew" (p 109) he argues, who was familiar with the "beliefs and practices of the mystery religions" (p 110). This is an old argument. Many scholars believed it...around 1900 AD. When it became known as the 'History of Religions' theory in biblical scholarship. It is now utterly refuted. Two modern books that cover this theory and why it was discarded are "The Gospel and the Greeks" by Nash and "The Jesus Legend" by Eddy and Boyd. Among the many reasons this theory was discarded was that the mystery religions only arrived after the 1st century, the only exception being the Orphics. At any rate, this theory is now considered so dead and gone that I find it utterly amazing that he could make this claim with a straight face.
Then there's his main thesis. About that, where do I begin? It's like a huge knot with thousands of strings hanging out. There's so much to pull on I hardly know where to begin.
Wilson says there were two Jesus movements, "two separate religions" (p 148) one started by Paul. Then where did the Christians Paul was sent to persecute come from? 'Ediokon' and 'eporthoun' are the words Paul used to describe his persecution, and both indicate harsh, even violent action against the early Christians. But why if the religion hadn't been invented yet? It makes no sense.
And if Paul simply invented a new mystery religion, why did he call pagan gods 'demons'? It's not as if mystery religions were exclusive; you could belong to 20 at one time if you liked. Why did he forbid Christians to eat the meat that came from animals sacrificed to pagan gods?
Besides, scholars have shown through textual evidence that, among other places, 1 Cor 15:3f is proof of an early creed. This creed was created probably a decade or more earlier than any of Paul's epistles. The creed proclaims Jesus God and Messiah. Where the heck did that come from if Paul created Christianity? Where did the 'traditions' Paul keeps talking about come from?
Wilson claims Paul's "was a Hellenistic religion with very little--if any--Jewish content" ( 125). Talk about false! Paul's epistles are drenched, soaked in Jewish culture and, even more, in Jewish scripture. Practically every other sentence refers to a Jewish concept or is a quotation from the Old Testament. I cannot imagine how Wilson could read the epistles and claim there is "no Jewish content". This has got to be the single most ignorant and telling statement Wilson makes, and perhaps the most easily refutable statement I have ever read.
Wilson says Jesus was just an orthodox Jew who wanted to overthrow the Romans. Funny how every single statement in the New Testament argues against this. The resurrection! The miracles! Blessed are the peacemakers! And let's not forget forgive your enemy seventy times seven! Because forgiving your enemy forever would have been of no help in overthrowing the Romans.
Thousands and thousands of people who knew Jesus were still alive when Paul was writing, and even when the gospels were written. And nobody thought to ask one of these people any questions??? Even when Paul insists that he can give them the names of people who are still living who saw the Jesus alive after his crucifixion?
This was during a time when Roman roads made travel easier than at any time until our present day. No questions were asked? Nobody noticed this strange Paul going around telling lies that could be easily refuted? He met with Peter and others and talked to them and they didn't care he was lying? How could these untruths circulate during a time when Jesus' relatives were still alive? Wilson's theory, again, makes no sense at all.
For that matter, why would Paul want to go around telling lies, when there was clearly no benefit in it? Paul himself says he was beaten again and again, nearly died, and was hounded from place to place, nearly starved, etc. A lot of trouble for some mild Hellenistic mystery religion.
If Wilson were correct and Christianity was yet another Hellenistic mystery religion, why were Jews persecuting them? Why were Romans sentencing "an immense multitude" to be burned alive? And why choose Christianity as your mystery religion when you were expected to give much of your income to charity, attend endless meetings singing hymns to God, never lust in your heart, and forgive your enemies? Isis would be much, much easier.
Then there's the fact that Wilson keeps insisting that James was just an orthodox Jew. Oh for pity's sake. Then why did the Jewish authorities stone him to death? So clearly, he wasn't just an orthodox Jew.
Among the other topics Wilson seems to know nothing about you can include his misunderstanding of covenant, of the kingdom, and of the honor/shame society of Second Temple Judaism.
Oh yes. And then there's the fact that, hilariously, Wilson lists Dan Brown of "Da Vinci Code" among his sources. One historian said of Brown's book that he managed the incredible: he got every single fact wrong, including the location of the bathrooms at the Louvre. Not exactly a source anybody else would rely on. Read more:
www.amazon.com/review/R2DPVAFTN7PN0f
That's great you understand that. 
