One of the most common claims about my books, coming mostly from Christians but also from a few atheists, neither of whom have any credentials or body of work to their names, is the accusation that there is nothing new in them. I think the reason they say this is because it makes them sound intelligent. For it's very very difficult to come up with a new argument in this late stage of human understanding. Anyone can say this with little fear of being wrong (except when it comes to new scientific findings). Any ignoramus can say such a thing too. It makes them sound superior without actually doing the hard work themselves, of in-depth researching for the best arguments in the available literature and then trying to make a good case themselves. Confound the ancients, they've stolen all of our ideas! So here's my attempt at disabusing them of this claim, something I recently wrote in response to an atheist who said it about the book God or Godless?:
let's now discuss what you're reading. What d'ya think?
[By the way, that is a damned good book even if I say so myself]. Victor is defending the "truth" but also the ridiculousness of the three-tiered world that is required in order to believe Jesus ascended into heaven (i.e. the sky). How does he do it? He rhetorically asks: "And if God is going to show first-century people that he went to heaven, how would you suggest he go about doing it?" My response: 
It's a book I wrote a blurb for and recommend highly. Here is their interview:
He said some really nice things about my book, 
Here's the money quote: 
I wrote a three part review of it, which 
