Anytime someone has their mind made up before they look for something, they always find what they are looking for. Just like when tobacco companies funded research to prove tobacco was safe. They found just what they were paying for.
I do enjoy seeing some of these comments insulting all religions and anyone who follows them. As if their line of thinking is the only simple minded one in the world..

"in fact he may be the only fictional character in literature whose entire life story can be traced to other sources. Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left."

-So once one looks past all the evidence of something there is nothing left... I don't understand the logic there to say that if one overlooks other historical accounts outside of the bible there is nothing left. Sounds like circular and redundant logic to me.

"This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern." -duh, that kind of the point...

Is this the beginning of the end of Christianity? "Probably not," grants Atwill, "but what my work has done is give permission to many of those ready to leave the religion to make a clean break. We've got the evidence now to show exactly where the story of Jesus came from.

-Not really as this is not something proven to be true just one scholar's opinion and hypothesis based on his observation.

for stuff like this to be "debunked", religion has to prove their stories first, wich never happened.

So Emperor Constantine had the empire convert to a fake religion that they themselves had invented a few hundred years earlier? Perfect. Totally makes sense.

Invented a few hundred years earlier according to whom?

Additionally, it would be pretty ironic that the Roman empire created a religion, collapsed as an empire, but lived on as the most powerful and richest state in the world.

Yeah. Not buying it. Christian scholars have fragments from texts quite early in the first century, which is about as early as you can reasonably expect. They have enough early documents to definitively identify Gnostic gospels as written later, and that is not an easy task.

If you were trying to pick a religion to make a cult from in the first century, Judiasm would be the last thing any Roman aristocrat would have thought of. The people were obsessed with tradition, laws, and their own cultural history. All of those make them difficult to manipulate. Compare this to Rome's own religions and mythology, which were shamelessly revisionistic to the needs of the present, and would have been ideal for starting cults. Regardless of whether or not Christianity is true, for any Judiasm-based cult to take root as a religion would have required many well educated Jews who genuinely believed what they were saying.

I will buy, however, that it's an author making an outlandish claim in an attempt to sell his book.

Jesus is not in the Jewish texts.

And don't be too sure about what people will believe. The Jews didn't exactly accept the Christians, as shown in the fall of Alexandria.

Let's not forget that most Christian/catholic holidays also occur exactly on previous pagan holidays, and also let's not forget Jesus' similarity to previous religious leaders.

Buddha:

Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:

“When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self–possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty–nine years of age… “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). Both were tempted by the “devil” at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.” To Jesus, he said: “All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the “devil”: “Get you away from me.”

Jesus responded: “…begone, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic’s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.” (Matthew 5:29).

Krishna:
According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

Zarathustra:
Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

Attis of Phrygia:
Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

Horus:
Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

Interesting how most of these come from areas that the Roman's occupied.

So... The roman government invented the messiah, and then they prosecute its followers

makes sense

Actually, Jesus Christ is a copy of Mithra/Tamuz

But the real messiah has nothing to do with it

If this is ture, keep in mind that Rome was not the only culture that dabbled in throwing away the old religion in favour of monotheism. Take the Egyptian sun disc Aten for example. Given the arguments at the time between polytheism and monotheism (where multiple gods can be influential on other gods and sometimes make mistakes over it, compared to monotheism's concept of a all-knowing, can-do-no-wrong being),  the texts of Abraham were most likely giving the believers of the Roman gods a hard time trying to justify their beliefs. If it happened, Rome merely emulated what it already knew of a monotheistic culture.

The guys story doesnt make sense and has about as many flaws as the thing hes trying to disprove