His chronology is a bit confused. He placed Paul as a contemporary of the gospels when in fact his writings are considerably older, and in fact the first parts of the NT to be "published". And quite a bit at odds with the gospel accounts, particularly when understood in this light. Jesus was allegedly crucified in about 33 CE, and IIRC Paul's first letter was written in about 47 CE, the first gospel about 70 CE, the gospel (and the Revelation) of John around 90 CE.

He IS correct that there were "many version" of Christianity, not least Paul's gnostic-leaning take vs the gospel's depiction of Jesus as a flesh and blood god-man. And that these were not resolved (and then only by force) hundreds of years later.

The rest of his analysis is also generally spot-on. Most modern evangelicals, especially in America, imagine the "primitive" church as something they'd recognize and in whose meetings they would be completely comfortable, despite language barriers. In fact, there's much they wouldn't recognize, especially since a time machine set to pick a random 1st century CE church service would have probably about a 50% chance of landing in a gnostic congregation. Gnostics were Christian mystics, worshipping a "spiritual" Jesus "seated in the heavenlies". All those statements of Paul have been re-interpreted to suit the dogma cranked out by places like Dallas Theological Seminary, but they originally meant just what they say, not some "positional truth" that's disconnected from or somehow reconcilable with a miracle-working god-man.