Difficult read, good refutation of Jesus Sem., weak theology
359227
Very scholarly. The first part is pretty slow & hard to get through, but does a thorough rebuttal of many of the Jesus Seminar errors. Later chapters affirm reality of the now living Jesus, but are weak on scripture's ultimate authority & divine inspiration. This is the biggest flaw in the book I think. While weakly affirming truth & power of Jesus it seems to deny & distance itself from the full truth of the Bible. I would read this book with care & let it help you defend attacks on the Word, but then beware of accepting all the author says about correct interpretation of scripture, especially as he seems to float towards reinterpreting scripture in light of our day & age - as the Catholic church (author is Catholic) has in regards to Genesis & evolution for instance.
1777398
Telford seems to be unapologetically liberal in his scholarship, yet he still lays out all the options. I still found the difference in our theological views hard to get past at times, as many of his conclusions I disagreed with. I would have preferred less form and redactional criticism, and more treatment of the gospel as we have it. After all, it is ostensibly a book on the theology of Mark's gospel.
55260
Earlier this year I received Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, PhD. Misquoting Jesus (Amazon.com price, $[...]) is a peace of popular, critical scholarship that attacks the notion that the New Testament could be divinely inspired. While the first four chapters of that book are universally admired, Dr. Ehrman completely fails at his given task. Since its publication Misquoting Jesus has become a media darling, leading to an NPR interview, various press reports, and detailed refutations from blogs.
After my review I received a copy of Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus: Why You Can Still Believe, from the publishing company, Nimble Books. Mr. Burroughs (ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary) wrote the book-length criticism of Misquoting Jesus to correct some of Ehrman's errors and generally restore biblical criticism to its primary task of buttressing the Christian faith. This project is successful. (Read on to see how.)

Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus: Why You Can Still Believe is essentially a literature review of the controversy. I recently completed two much smaller literature review on narrower topics (on OODA and PNM theories), so I can imagine the troubles Burroughs went through.

The bulk of the book is composed to the basic criticisms of Ehrman's fallacious Misquoting Jesus. Burroughs aptly separates true things Ehrman says from false things, and it careful to not ambiguous points as well. It is perhaps this last task that is the most important, because a dish of deception with a dash of truth is poison. For instance, the non-controversy false Trinitarian formula in the New Testament is disposed of, because no Bibles before the Modern era had that incorrect verse. (This, it was irrelevant to the evolution of Christian doctrine.) Likewise, the question of Christ's anger before a healing is well described.

Burroughs is a critical scholar, and Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus is an excellent example of such a work. Near the end of the book the author describes how anti-Christian texts can be responded too, and displays an excellent grasp of unintended consequences of hasty actions. Christianity is an essentially political religion, going back to Jesus and Paul, and Burroughs' work is a fine contribution to that tradition.

The weakest section of Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus is chapter 9, "Women's Issues in Misquoting Jesus." The controversy over sex and gender roles in Christianity is sidesteps, in spite of its fascinating implications for Christian victory. Perhaps the author is avoiding the issue out of fear of controversy. If so, too bad.

Several of Burrough's comments would make for fine discussion topics. A serious consideration of King James Only arguments was informative. (While the KJV-Only Movement is almost certainly wrong, every proponent I have heard argued with reason and conviction.) Likewise, many of Burrough's strategic comments can placed along the spectrum of meaningful conflict, if one wished to use modern Christian apologetics as an example of ideological struggle.

Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus is a fine summary of Christian responses to Misquoting Jesus. I am grateful to the publisher for supplying me with a copy.
822267
This is a book that every Christian should read and interact with, even if you do not agree with it in totality

As a person who went through years of theological training (5 years of Greek, 2 years of Hebrew), culminating in a ThM from Dallas Seminary, I thoroughly get David Bercot's point.  The study of theology was interesting to a point, but ultimately I found it to be quite empty.  In doing careful study and teaching of the book of Acts and now teaching and studying Matthew, I have come to the conclusion that there is precious little common ground between the teachings and practice of Jesus and the teaching and practice of the contemporary church.

Kudos to the author for standing up and making this point.  Is he the only one that sees the problem?  Can everyone be that blind?  Or is it simply much easier for the career theologians and religionists to simply "go along to get along."  Might that be the wide path that leads to destruction?  But I digress . . .

The author's key issue is right on target.  Instead of finding meaning in putting the basic teachings of Jesus into practice, these "scholars" have tried to find meaning and significance in drawing finer and finer lines of theology, as if theology is an end to itself.  Theologians tend to speak without basis and tend to like to stay with the herd.  Conservatives like to decry the lack of free expression in the liberal institutions of learning, but the truth is that political correctness has become an absolute art form within the institutional church and its related organizations and denominations.

It is difficult to be the one who stands up and points out how far the church has strayed from the original teachings of Jesus.  There is a definite price to be paid for not going along with the crowd.

One area where I was not satisfied was the explanation of the relationship between fruit/works and salvation, and truly this is a difficult area to explain.  The author makes it sound as if we are going to be ultimately judged by our works, and there are verses to demonstrate this point, but ultimately we are all unworthy and fall short as the Bible also teaches very clearly.  In the end, we are only saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, his Son.  The evidence of fruit is simply demonstrative of a changed life, and there will be varying levels of fruit.  It is the 'no fruit' life that is condemned.

I am also left with questions of "what now?"  What do we do with this knowledge?  What does a true New Testament church look like?  Where do we go from here?  Maybe one of his other books will delve into this in greater detail.  I hope so.  I am reading the other books now.

God bless you Mr. Bercot for the courage to speak the truth.
675972
The author speaks of Jesus as though He was just another Rabbi of the first century, not as the Son of God.  That "Jesus... was the product of the religious milieu that emerged in the 1st century..." (p. 37)  The author fails to understand that Jesus is not the product but the source.  He was not 'influenced by' the culture of the 1st century but being the creator entered into the world at the time He designed and through His providence prepared. As a result, I cannot believe that the author is a Christian.  The reader must keep this in mind as he reads this book.

Certainly the Jewish rabbis had some good and appropriate things to say, but Jesus did not copy them, He provided the Scriptures from which some rabbis were able to discern truth.

The key is, who is Jesus?  Just another rabbi or the Son of God.  The author seems to believe the former while I hold firmly to the latter.
215296
If you are not a Christian, this book would be a poor introduction to Christianity and will probably have little appeal to you since it does not present Jesus as a religious figure.  If you are a Christian, the mere assumption that there are "literary creations" within the Gospels will draw you away from this book.  Of course, if you're an atheist, this book will hold no appeal for you.  So this book begs the question: who is it written for?

The writer tries his best to pretend to be impartial in his view of Jesus, but to say he comes up short would be a stretch.  Rule number one of an impartial approach to any study is not to bring your own assumptions into your subject.  But that is not what the author does.  In fact, from page one he assumes that the Gospels are full of mere "literary creations", and that dooms the book from the start.  Bottom line about any study performed on the figure, historical or otherwise, of Jesus is to approach the subject willing to consider that whoever wrote the Gospels was either a)inspired by the Holy Spirit as it is widely believed by Christians or b)that the authors had no need to embelish the life of Jesus since His teachings and works were pretty amazing of themselves.  If you're not willing to consider any of these two possibilities, you will end up with the biased study contained in this book.

This book takes the gnostic approach to Jesus: that he was simply a man.  A great man, whose teachings were intended to start a theological revolution much like Muhammad (Mohammed) or Confucius, but just a man.  It casts doubt upon the veracity of the works of Jesus, including the many miracles He performed, by dumping them into the "literary creations" category.  Sometimes this is subtly implied, but a lot of the times it stops short of actually denouncing Jesus' life and works as figments of someone's imagination.  Instead, this books focuses more on Jesus' ministry being one of teachings in front of an audience, a teacher for the masses.  It sort of turns Jesus into a jewish Dalai Lama, all style and nothing to support his claim of divinity.  Furthermore, it does not even consider the posibility that the Gospels are reinforced by the Epistoles of Paul, who lived in Judaea during Jesus' ministry and who may or may not have been a witness to it.  Certainly, if the Gospels erred (or incurred in "literary creations") chances are Paul or any other New Testament author, like John of Pathmos, would have at some point contradicted them.  They never did.

Also, the author fails to acknowledge that in those first 100 years or so after Jesus' ministry, there was no organized church.  Christians did not even decide on a time or place where they would meet again, they simply did (guided, Christians believe, solely by the Holy Spirit).  We get this from pagan historians of the era (like Suetonius, Marcellinus or Tacitus), not from Christian historians.  Therefore the assumption is that a pagan historian, since he has nothing to gain by advancing the early church's "agenda", must be telling the truth.  When the early Christians met, it was not to decide on an "agenda" but to either share on the messages of Jesus' ministry or, like the Council of Jerusalem, to discuss differences of opinion on whether gentiles should be approached with Jesus' message and how.  Early Christians were, simply put, organized only in the fact that they believed Jesus to be the Messiah and Savior.

Once you fail to take all those facts into consideration you end up with the erratic views expressed in this book.  In the old Gnostic church, this would be a best seller.  Today, it is merely an unscientific study of one man's life from the point of view of another without taking into consideration the overriding facts surrounding his subject.  It pretends to sound scientific and from a historian's point of view, but it never ceases to be a pretender.
3874666
Blomberg's book does a nice job handling some general information about the Bible. However, this book is problematic because of the methods he employs to interpret Scripture. He doesn't like church history's view on inerrancy. He redefines it by trying to make a case for errors that are genre specific. (It is obvious he has a problem with the truthfulness of certain passages of Scripture). Quoting his conclusion is probably that best way to show what he is up to: "How much of the Bible must be historical for Christianity to be true?" He goes on to say "I must distinguish between the more essential and more peripheral parts." That means that it is up to Blomberg (or anyone, I suppose) to decide whether something in Scripture is essential. If it's not, it can be errant. Whatever genre it is in can then be declared as "error-possible." Anyone can be Lord of the text.
4945988
Jack Spong's quest into non-literal interpretation of scripture and de-deifying Christianity is nothing new to theologians, indeed it began in the rational age starting in the late 18th century. Mr. Spong's writing and "theology" is nothing more than a slick re-packaging of Schleiermacher, Rauschenbuch, and Hegel, with a dash of Nietsche. What a depressing exercise. Jesus acknowldged sin, the omnipotence of God His Father, and grieved mightily over man's reluctance to repent of sin -- Sure Spong parrots parts of the Sermon on the Mount (those that mirror his liberal leanings - but discounts (is even derisive) of teaching such as "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This Truth defines both a penitent relation with a real God (Spong redefines eternal truths like sin into his own liberal cultural views) and acknowledges God's eternal kingdom (Heaven, which Spong denies). In essence Spong is guilty of the same selective tendencies for which he despises in those he labels the fundamentalist "religious right." The prior review stereotyping orthodox people with the face of Tom Delay is not helpful. I would also expect better of a "cleric" than caustic and derisive language to those of more orthodox faith. This book really just preaches to Spong's current chior.
2209789
I have read the book and had intended to refute it with a book called "Killing O'Reilly". However, the authors did not approach the theological aspects in enough detail to make it a worthy project.

I have read Dugard's book, "Into Africa" and observe that he must have written most of "Killing Jesus". In my opinion, Bill O'Reilly was most likely not deeply involved with the writing of this book.

I do have a couple of issues with "Killing Jesus". First, the author--oh wait--authors (?) imply that Jesus was born in 5 BC and died at the age of 36 in April of 30 AD. This is obviously in error. Apparently, the authors believe that there were year zeroes between BC and AD. Second, the authors used the New International Version of the bible as their point of reference. This "dynamic equivalence" version is, without a doubt, the most corrupted version available. In addition to "thought for word" translation, this version uses a minority text as its basis.

The authors did not account for the contradiction between Luke 23:55,56 stating that the women (Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James) went and prepared anointing spices and oils BEFORE the Sabbath and Mark 16:1 stating that they bought them AFTER the Sabbath. The implication in these verses is that there were TWO Sabbaths that week, one being the annual Passover Sabbath and the other the normal weekly Sabbath. Bilbo the clown did NOT write this...I can tell you that right away. He did the research, and sloppy at that.
2278301
Tragically disappointing. Sad to see a loveable college prof take the Bible apart like some literary essay or poem for dissection and reassembly just the way he likes suited to fit neo-modernist philosophical tastebuds.

 The 'homework assignment survey' of the Gospels' uses of hell (btw/lol, deceptively selective: where's John 3:18,36;5:28 and other key passages??!?) totally twists the plain meaning Jesus invested them with. Instead of Jesus' stated point in the text, we are given the switcheroo with the personal point-perspective of Mr. Neo, blunting the point to a dull stub. Presto! We have one friendly fellow's 'rhetorical purpose of the passage in question' based uncritically on the assured results of modern liberal-fringe scholarship parroting through the pen of a likeable yet unilluminated(ing) individual on a personal quest to redo his faith to a liveable creed (one absent any real horrendous Hades/Gehenna/Tartarus and minus any actual devil or demons: all this stuff is rhetorical, metaphor, literary devices, mythical, Hebraic legend.)  For the benefit of any who will be taken in by such legerdemain, our friend willfully unilaterally redraws the fixed archived established-fact map to Jesus with a flatlander world vs. the full-orbed 4-dimensional reality God created and sent His Son to save the souls of.

 Read this western cultural revamping of genuine Christianity if you must. Then read the Book of Acts without commentary straight through to get an apostolic digest of what Jesus REALLY means in His Kingdom Message. You'll find how hellishly wrong a nice author's sincere attempts to revise the Bible's own version of loving warnings for lost souls can be. Akin to rewriting a prescription without a license or fudging the Dr.'s charts to a non-serious diagnosis! The patient will die without the whole truth and correct medicine/treatment! Spiritual malpractice to the nth degree!

 One of Jesus' closest eyewitness disciples said it best about how to approach the Holy Bible: "You simply must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

(What was Last Word Tales New Kind of Doubt carried away with??)

 When someone professes to lecture the rest of us about hell and other Bible content yet dares deny this clear settled fact, it's evident that Jesus' own voice is muffled by a disgruntled person's own fabrications of how he chooses reality to be. (This is what Jesus seems to be saying, but I'm declaren' to you this is actually what he means and my publishable interpretive opinion is definitive enough to formally tabulate as for-certain talking points for the uninitiated reader).

 Christianity comes in 2 flavors: our terms; Jesus' terms. The flavor of this author's Last Word on the subject is one scoop short of honest to the biblical text on its own unreinterpreted terms. Time for a new optometrist: the Holy Spirit and a Large Print Bible.
42938
They say write what you know. The author clearly does not know theology. There are plenty of things wrong with this story but as someone who has a thorough understanding of modern theology, this book was too painful to read.
For a start, it has been taught for a very long time that the various different creation accounts in Genesis were written as parables and never intended to be taken literally. But the stories themselves, including Cain and Abel specially state that there are other people. That's why there's a need for the Mark of Cain, so those who aren't part of "gods people" do not kill him.

If you want an actual good story with deep characters and a proper understanding of theology, try Orson Scott Card or Darren Mark Wright.
2119873
This is a bunch of pseudo psychology, self-esteem nonsense.  The author clearly has an attitude about being raised in a traditional Christian home and his response to it is to create a God that suits his needs and viewpoints.  Mostly a lot of feel good emotionalism based in the abstract.  He equates spiritual with emotional.  I prefer a little more intellectual and concrete concept of God based in a Biblical world view.  I feel that God's worldview is likely to be more reliable and consistent than my emotions.  The author clearly has a poor understanding of scripture as indicated in his inability to answere life's hard questions.  This is reactionist propaganda from a man who claims to be Christain but failed to embrace or even understand what Christianity is.  Good luck with that.
82367
I approached Mr. Vermes book with my curiosity peaked, since this was recommended by a good friend.  Unfortunately, I think my expectations were a bit too high as I was continually disappointed with the assumptions and conclusions of the book.
First of all, I had a difficult time following the reasoning behind the idea that mere translations of the bible had transformed beliefs about the historical Jesus.  It would seem that a right understanding of the original texts could get one back to an accurate understanding of the person of Jesus - if that has been swayed and changed over time.  Going back to the original texts was never mentioned in the book.
Mr. Vermes states that by the end of the first century an accurate understanding of Jesus had been departed from as the original message was lost.  However, Vermes fails to compellingly point out why this happened, or provide evidence for this speculation.  He ignores the fact that many eyewitnesses would have still been around and would have refuted or at least attempted to correct inaccurate information.
Unfortunately, I found the book to be rather biased, and containing weak reasoning.  I'm starting to wonder if scholars feel they need to come up with something original in order to promote their careers.
Simply because there are not a large number of first-hand accounts outside of the biblical accounts does not necessarily mean the biblical accounts are false.  This is the type of reasoning one has to endure while reading through this book.
The big assumption Mr. Vermes makes is that the historical details surrounding the life of Jesus are inaccurate.  This was an enormous leap with very little persuading evidence.  He then attempts to get to the kernels of truth under these errant details.  However, the author fails to provide any objective criteria regarding how this is done, nor does he provide any criteria for how some passages are reliable and others not reliable.  It seems he suggests the passages which point to supernatural occurrences are incorrect and those suggesting Jesus wisdom, humanity, and political workings are correct.  In short, he appears to have a strong anti-supernatural bias.  If the bible is approached in this manner, then he is not being objective, but is reading into the texts what he has already determined is there............... his bias is never supported with reasons, logic, and deduction.
608800
I am going to recommend Chris White's book, False Christ, even though I disagree with his main premise.  It can be good to read about views you disagree with.  White does try to take a very logical unbiased approach.  And he is not motivated by any Anti-Semitism, or The Church is now Israel, type doctrines, in-spite of those problem lie at the source of this theory.

So I encourage people to read his book with an open mind.  I will explain now some of my key objections.

John 5:43 I come in my Father's name, and yes receive me not: if another come shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

This is the core verse to teaching that The Antichrist will be a Messianic Claimant that the Jews will accept.  The Problem is, elsewhere in this same book White's discussion of both Micah 5's Assyrian and Psalm 83 points out how those are in purely hypothetical contexts and therefore we shouldn't build Prophetic Doctrine on them.  Yet in terms of this verse he completely ignores the use of the word if.  This verse is also hypothetical and not one to build Prophetic doctrine on.

If it is Prophetic at all, I see it as Bar-Kochba.  White says none of the early post 70 A.D. Messianic claimants were significant enough to possibly fit this verse.  I find that disappointing, the significance of Bar-Kockba is sadly greatly underestimated.

Bar-Kochba persecuted Christians when they wouldnt accept him as The Messiah.  This persecution is when the full schism between Judaism and Christianity really happened.  The earliest Christians faced persecution from Jews documented in The Book of Acts, but they had no trouble following the example of Stephen. Father lay not this Sin to their Charge.

Lots of Anti-Semitic ideas entered the Early Church after this period.  It wasn't till after this revolt for example that any Christians started teaching that The Lord's Day was Sunday rather then Saturday/The Jewish Sabbath.  And started insisting on separating Easter from Passover.

And that brings me to White's discussion of the Early Church Fathers.  If he had a single example that could be proven to predate the Bar-Kochba revolt I'd be much more impressed.  But he doesn't, the earliest is Tertullian and Ireaneus.  The Didache makes no connection to him being Jewish, it's brief study on Eschatology just calls him the World Deceiver.  Other early Apocryphal works like the Ascension of Isaiah only talk about his connection to Rome, no Jewish link.

Tertullian's scenario with the Jewish and real Antichrist defeating a resurrected Nero makes him sound a lot like Bar-Kochba.  Bar-Kochba gave the Roman Empire one of the most humiliating military defeats in their history.

In the case of Hippolytus, White misrepresents his views.  I've read Hippolytus and I don't recall him saying anything about The Antichrist being a Messiah the Jews will accept, just that he'll be descended from the Tribes of Israel.  And the quotations White provided don't contradict my memory.  White insists the Tribe of Dan thing is a pet theory but is not the reason Hippolytus holds the view he does.  I'm afraid that's simply wrong, Hippolytus's discussion of The Antichrist begins with Jacob's prophecy of Dan in Genesis 49, just as his discussion of Messianic prophecy begins with Jacob's prophecy for Judah.  Dan was the foundation of how Hippolytus viewed The Antichrist.

As for Daniel 11:37.  The typical debate about this is a waste.  I agree it implies a Judeo-Christian background.  But what everyone overlooks is he's an Apostate.  I personally believe he's an Apostate to Islam.

On Tumblr and Twitter I'm JaredMithrandir.  I have an Invisionfree forum called MithrandirOlorinBlog  I have many Bible Studies there where I address the many other flaws of this theory.  Including one on Jerusalem, Babylon and Throne of the Beast.

I do agree actually, for the most part, about the Gog and Magog invasion being Post-Millennial.  So that part of the book I can highly recommend.
1963539
Little Golden Books have a long history of providing quality picture books for children, including books with religious themes. Unfortunately, their Story of Jesus by Jane Werner Watson is a politically correct version of Jesus' life, not well suited to Christians.

The book begins by showing Jesus' infancy in a stable, without mentioning the miraculous way he entered the world. The author then goes on to say that his parents, Joseph and Mary, took him to Egypt to flee the wicked King Herod. When the king dies, the family moved back to Judea and as Jesus grew, he worked with his father as a carpenter. When Jesus was 12, the author says he went to Jerusalem and his "heart rejoiced when he entered the temple...Jesus knew, even then, that his life's purpose would be to work for his Father in Heaven..." The author then tells us of John the Baptist, saying:

"John baptized Jesus in the river Jordan. As the two men prayed, God sent a dove down from Heaven - a sign that He was pleased."
This is definitely whitewashed; the Bible tells us that "At that moment [of Jesus' baptism] heaven was opened, and he [Jesus] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'" (Matt. 3: 16-17)

Afterward, the author says that Jesus went off to be by himself, praying "for God to show him the way to live his life." This, again, is inaccurate. Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted by - and refuse - Satan (see Matt. 4:1-11).

The author then recounts how Jesus taught the people of Israel and performed miracles. The book doesn't delve into Jesus' arrest, time on the cross, or his resurrection. Instead, the last page says that:

"After Jesus' death, his followers took his teachings all around the world. And the stories he told are still known and loved and retold today in every land on Earth."

In essence, the author makes Jesus sound like another of the brothers Grimm. No where is Jesus' status as God's son mentioned, nor is his miraculous resurrection and what it means for us.

What I Like: There are some things to like in this book. For example, the author does a nice job of describing the settings (Jesus was born in Bethlehem, "a town in the rocky hills of Judea;" later, the family settles into "a small stone house in Nazareth.") The illustrations, by Jerry Smath, are warm, friendly, and realistic without being drab.

What I Dislike: The political correctness. It's pretty clear this book was designed to please those who believe Jesus was just "a good man." Lots of important information is left out, leaning toward the side of being biblically inaccurate.

Overall Rating: Poor.

Kristina
editor at Christian Children's Book Review
1619231
It was a tough read. Had some good points n he uses scripture but i felt he never got to the point of how to go to the court room of heaven.  Basically he says you need to know what accusations saying is bringing again you. I would not recommend.
1464078
Bart Ehrman is normally writing with polemical intent against his erstwhile evangelical Christian brethren.  In this book, however, he argues against those who sit on his side of the theological spectrum - but even farther toward the edge than he does.  That is, he's writing against "Jesus Mythicists" - those who believe that a historical Jesus of Nazareth never existed.  (They may be so far to the left as to actually have fallen off the spectrum.)

In the book's introduction, Ehrman describes himself as "an agnostic with atheist leanings."  This is no surprise to anyone who knows him.  Neither therefore should it surprise anyone who knows him when he explains his purpose in writing this book which he gives in its conclusion:

"In my view humanists, agnostics, atheists, mythicists, and anyone else who does not advocate belief in Jesus would be better served to stress that the Jesus of history is not the Jesus of modern Christianity than to insist--wrongly and counterproductively--that Jesus never existed. Jesus did exist. He simply was not the person that most modern believers today think he was."

Thus, Ehrman's target is not actually the mythicists.  Rather, it's still the believers among whose ranks he once marched.  Ehrman believes the mythicists have the right goal (destruction of faith in Jesus), but the wrong tactic ("Jesus is a myth and not history").  (I used the term "destruction" advisedly because Ehrman and the mythicists don't just reject faith in Jesus for themselves; they want to spread the word that it's not a good idea for anyone else to have faith in Him either.)

Nevertheless, Ehrman inadvertently does faith a service by demonstrating the folly of denying the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.  In part this is because he dismantles Jesus' mythicism not with the arguments of conservative Christianity but with the arguments of liberal scholarship. The irony in this is rich because the mythicists in many cases have simply followed to their logical conclusion paths originally cut by liberal scholars.  The mythicists must therefore surely feel betrayed by Ehrman.  They were probably much less offended when conservative Christian J. P. Holding wrote his much more substantial refutation of their position - at least they expected as much from someone like Holding.  (See&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Shattering-the-Christ-Myth/dp/1606472712/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Shattering the Christ Myth</a>.)

It surely cannot be fun to be a Jesus Mythicist.  It must be even less so now that they've been left in the lurch by someone they thought they could count on.