Uh, I don't quite know how the books author could come away with that, if taking the texts at face value. It would take a lot of explaining away to end with saying the NT doesn't portray Jesus as "only begotten son of God". Mary, the virgin birth, etc? Perhaps a close relative like James (actual brother, Mary & Joseph parents of himself?) might have trouble with seeing Jesus as truly son of God, but, uh, couldn't Mary explain the situation? So what gives? I wonder if this writer is trying to plant the seed that Jesus wasn't who He said he was, then have the reader decide on their own to reject the Resurrection (even as the writer is alleged to posit it to have occurred?)