Ted Hoffman

This is a red herring. Its like raising an objection like "If string theory is sound, how come Einstein never said anything about it?".

The question of if and why "the people following Paul had no idea that he was referring to such things" is a separate question from the question of what Paul meant or had in mind.
Having said that, remember that, by definition, gnosticism assumed only a few had access to certain knowledge. Paul said he had met, died and resurrected with Jesus. He got his knowledge through divine revelation. He was priveledged (chosen) - they were not.

If we agree (and I am not sure I do) that "the people following Paul had no idea that he was referring to such things", it would only be because of obvious reasons (they were not chosen, they were still in the flesh or any such nonsense - frankly, I don't care - they were simply ignorant people who knew no better) besides, that gap of understanding would suit them well because it would only imbue them with a feeling of reverence towards Paul as he babbled the gibberish among the people and collected money from them.

Worshippers, mostly , don't seek to understand. The wilful ignorance they maintain is like an expression of humility/submission - asking questions and seeking to understand is a demonstration of lack of faith - sort of like questioning God.
How many of us, while young, asked questions only to be told "the ways of the Lord are mysterious, my child".

So I would think it would be hardly remarkable if it were the case that "the people following Paul had no idea what he was referring to".

Oh Jesus - why do I have to add? Haven't you shown that they were more than two natures of Jesus already?
Since you have said "early" sects, you give me plenty of leeway.

Apollinarianism -- Jesus fully God -- partially or incompletely human--Argued that Jesus was human physically but His soul was divine; Jesus had no
human soul.

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Ebionites-- Jesus regarded as prophet rather than divine Word of God--
Ebionites originally were a first century Jewish-Christian sect. They emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul's teachings. Most considered him to be a man, not God. Later use of this term refers to anyone who minimizes the divinity of Christ. They believed the Christ spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove

Eutychianism-- Christ has but one nature, divine

Docetism-- Jesus wholly divine -- his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real (Marcionism of course falls here with its two gods).

Dynamic Monarchianism Jesus a human who became a God

Modalistic Monarchianism Argued that the Trinity is one God with different modes of divine action rather than distinct persons.

Monophysitism--Jesus was a God with human attributes; he had one (mono) dominant nature: divine

Monothelitism-- Jesus's acts expressed one divine-human energia instead of two cooperating wills

Nestorianism--Nestorius believed that Mary was mother only of the human Jesus, not the divine Logos and in the Antiochine "two-nature" Christology. They believed that Jesus Christ had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth.

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Arianism: Jesus Christ was thought of as a special creation by God for man's salvation. Arianism was the form of Christianity that the Goths adhered to, and it was popular in all the areas they conquered, including Italy, Spain, and Africa.

Other brands of Jesus are available, or wholly inexistent under Pelagianism, Manicheanism, Donatism etc etc. Then you can look at "the son" as an intermediary figure in Shepherd, Odes of Solomon and 1 Clement - whose role is similar to that of Sophia (Jewish personified wisdim) in Sirach and so on and so forth... Doherty refers to this multiplicity and variegation as "riotous diversity" (a departure from Crossan's simple dichotomy of th Jerusalem and Galilean tradition). The eternal Jesus in John - the word that became flesh. The HJ of the Gospels etc etc

My sources:
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/christology.pdf
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/heresies.html
www.wikipedia.org
The glossary that we started developing and then got lazy:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=66829
(I think its time I completed this)

You first have to show to what extent they were exposed to Pauline Christology before you can prove they did not believe in it.

Secondly, I repeat, its plausible thay they assumed a Gospel HJ into Pauline epistles. They simply ignored what didn't fit or found what was questionable to be innocuous.
Can you do that?

Besides, Paul's kerygma doesn't dwell on the life of Jesus on earth. It focuses on teachings and his revelatory message. That hugely diminishes the points of conflict observable between Paul's Jesus and a HJ.

And from your questions, have you accepted the idea that a Pauline Jesus was not a HJ? If you have, fine, if you havent, you should focus on what Paul wrote.

And remember, these are red herrings because how they early Christians regarded Paul's work does not change what we can derive from Paul's writings - its a tangential matter. Arguments have been made regarding the need of the early church to construct an apostolic tradition. Once an apostolic tradition was fabricated, they burnt books and pounded the hapless people with a HJ: his birth, suffering and death became the focus and the cross became the official symbol. Marcionites and other heretic sects gradually got banished into oblivion.

"Being exposed to the same environment of Paul" does not entail that they believe the same things as Paul. This is a fallacy of division. And I think we have the bandwagon fallacy veiled in your statements.

Carrier has explained that. If you are dissatisfied with his explanations, you would do better to ask him.
However, out of my charitable nature and good disposition today, I shall respond like this:
The concept in question is the idea that dying and resurrecting does not entail that the saviour figure was a flesh and blood man/woman who walked the earth.
The proof of this concept is Innana who died for three days and resurrected yet is not assumed to have been an earthly woman but a godess (in the bible she is Ishtar/Asherah). This applies to Attis too. By providing these examples, Doherty's case of a mythical Jesus is bolstered because the concept was not new to christianity.

The question of the sublunar realm relates to the Platonic worldview which is available in the ancient myths and legends - and which Plutarch partly describes.

Thanks for the links to Plutarch's work.