I was surprised to find this sentence: "Ehrman is not a debunker of Christianity," in a recent article in the Charlotte Observer (link to article).
On what basis does the author of the article make that claim? On the basis that Ehrman acknowledges that Jesus was an historical figure. Apparently, to be a "debunker of Christianity" today, one must not only be opposed to the miraculous, but also a denier of the most-well attested historical figure of 2000 years ago.
It's amazing what the world's come to.