First of all, that's the genetic fallacy, reducing a theory to its point of origin. Second, notice how I don't quote from any nineteenth century source. There's no need. You simply have to study the basics of Egyptian myths to see the similarity.
Ehrman focuses on the more dubious, conspiratorial similarities charged by the early mythicists, such as the birth on December 25 and so on. Again, I don't posit that hackneyed list of detailed parallels, and refuting them amounts to a strawman argument. The specific similarities I posit are in the section "The Signature of Osiris."
Third, Ehrman's defense against the Christ myth theory has been widely trashed. See, for example, Carrier's response to that link you provided, and his review of Ehrman's book on Jesus's historicity (second link below).
There's a lot more evidence for widespread pagan belief in a dying and rising god than there is for the historicity of Jesus.
I have at least two other articles coming out within the next couple of weeks that will explore the Christ myth theory further, including the dubious tactics used by Christians in defense against it.
Also, most Jesus scholars are Christians, so their consensus begs the question and bears little weight, what with history not being a real science and all.
