robto

Clive and Vincent, I don't think you understood my question correctly. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not asking if Doherty's interpretation of Paul is correct. I'm asking (not stating dogmatically) if there are any extra-canonical writings that express the view Doherty ascribes to Paul.

As Roger said:
Or, I might add, from the Nag Hammadi writings, the non-canonical gospels, epistles, and apocalypses... ANYTHING outside the Bible. As far as I can see, the evidences presented in this thread have included none such, apart from some brief comments in Ignatius that are susceptible to other interpretations.

Roger Pearse

Robto, thanks for your note, which put my query to Vincent rather better than I had managed.

Yes, of course heretical writings where extant would do as well, or indeed any reference in Roman or Greek texts of any sort.

aa5874

The historical Jesus was deemed heresy over 1800 years ago, as least as early as the 2nd century.

Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" writing near the end of the 2nd century wrote:

Against Heresies 1.26 "Against Heresies" 1.25 So, there were early Christians, in the 2nd century, based on Irenaeus, who had already proposed an historical Jesus, but of course, Irenaeus considered HJers to be evil, liars and falsifiers of the oracles of God.

This is Irenaeus' view of heretics, HJers included:

Preface to "Against Heresies" The HJ position is not recent at all.

Gamera

This is rather obviously specious.

You have reduced the historical Jesus to the issue of his birth. Of course that's ridiculous. The issue of Jesus's birth, and whether it was miraculous or not, is not a question of his historicity (at least not for historical Christianity).

It's not Miraculous birth on one side and historicity on the other. It's miraculous birth versus common everyday birth, both in the context of an historical Jesus.