Spinoza got in a lot of trouble for publishing this, and he knew he would, but times have changed. Certainly the job of any reasonable analysis will be to analyze his arguments not in light of what was cutting-edge and new in his day, but according to the modern philosophy of today. These days, it is not unusual at all to find philosophers and theologians who agree with Spinoza's arguments, but there is ample criticism against him even from within his own camp.
Perhaps one way of making sense of these disagreements is by remembering that the subject of these discussions is not necessarily just the theology of the Bible or the traditions that exist around it. Spinoza is also criticizing what isn't there yet—he is prophesying of a new era to come, one that he had almost no evidence to believe in. If the prophets of the Bible wrote to invoke the "Day of the Lord," then Spinoza says, "Come quickly, oh Day of Reason."
In other words, Spinoza's arguments are a little inconsistent sometimes for these two reasons: He is motivated by a passion for philosophy and reason that one might possibly categorize as religious, which leads to funny ironies in his argument, and also because Spinoza's arguments are attempts to do something in the public sphere that had never been dreamed of.
Think about how much credit Luther got for criticizing the church. This is Spinoza carrying that same torch of religious skepticism, but a wise reader will notice that Spinoza doesn't say, "There is no God at all, and everyone who believes in God is stupid." That's not his argument; more precisely his argument is that humans should not live in a state of shame or fear regarding religion or the Bible. Certainly modern religious people have him to thank for our modern agreement with that. He feels shameless philosophy is the true religion.
