19-20th century ``religious criticism``, there are two directions or two starting points. One of them was the ``religious criticism``, or ``atheistic Christian criticism`` attempted by L. Feuerbach (1804-1872), Karl Marx (1818-?) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Another direction of ``Religious criticism`` is ``theistic Christian criticism`` attempted by Rudolf Bultmann (1850-1976), Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945). The attributes of this presentation is to understand two directions of ``religious criticism`` mentioned above. Saying profoundly, in the following research, characteristics of ``religious criticism`` criticizing the Christian Gospel on the ``philosophical or psychological`` perspective and of the claiming of the ``Entmythologisierung`` and ``Non-Religionisierung`` of the Christianity on the theistic perspective are to be interpreted analystically. According to the research results, the ``religious criticism`` attempted by Feuerbach, and Karl Marx and Freud Freud in the 19th century is ``the critic of Christianity`` as the products by the human mind. The starting point of these ``religious criticism``, needless to say, is just ``atheistic``. According to the anthropological religious criticism by atheists, the Christianity is considered as the production of human ideals. So atheists have understood the Christianity under the ``ideological Idol`` of the human being. Bultmann as a theistic critic of religion insists on the non-mystical interpretation of the holistic ``massage (kerygma)`` of the Testament. According to him, because the Christian Gospel is written mythically in the semantic. ``Entmythologisierung of the Christian Gospel``, namely of ``Kerygma``, for him, however, made the Christianity corrupted into the religious ethics. In other words, Making a history of the God`s transcendental work, Bultmann has identified the self revelation of God revealed in the history and in Jesus Christ within lessons for human life. As a result, his ``Entmythologisierung`` of the Christianity made it a religion as human ethics without God. Against to Bultmann`s ``Entmythologisierung``, however, K. Barth has taken God`s self revelation taken place in Christ to starting point of the Christian understanding. Emphasizing the transcendental work of God in the history, Barth has criticized ``religious criticism`` which is worked to that time antithetically and restored the theology of revelation. So he took God`s self revelation in Jesus Christ, the starting point of interpretation of the Bible as well as all the doctrine. He confirmed that the Christianity is not the projects of human about God, the absolute, but the testimony for God`s self revelation in Jesus Christi. In the discussion with Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer criticizes him as the idealistic positivist of the revelation of God and has refreshed the Martin Luther`s theology of the cross in the prospect ecclesiology. He claims, transcendental revealed theology always stays in the theological tendency that God is called as only the ``mechanical Deus ex machina``. Therefore he interpreted ``self revelation of God`` as Jesus Christ existing as the Church on the ground. In other words, the church on the ground for Bonhoeffer is the existential form of Jesus Christ.