Well one thing you're right about is that I haven't studied it. But that doesn't matter because the whole thing is a circus. None of it is true, with all due respect.

That'd be fine if it wasn't for the fact that the bible does tell quite a bit of history and has quite a bit of history backing it up.

Where you make your mistake is by making the same mistake as that critic.   You are treating the bible as if it is one source.

It isn't.

The difference between Grant and the guy you listed, is that he is more or less treating the bible as one source.

While in reality it is a collection of sources collected together by the romans.   Some more historical than religious.  The Gospels for example aren't classified as relgiious texts.  But instead, as biographies, that mention mythical aspects.   So they are very much seen like Plutarch's lives of the Roman Emporers.  Which coincidentally I remember as being quite a fun read from my jr highschool days.  Next time i'm back hom i'll have to pick up my copy.

Again you'll find scant a historian to suggest that jesus didn't exist.   Outside obvious crackpots like Atwill.   Your entire premise is flawed just on the basis of it... well not being true.

You can argue and come up with a bunch of reasons why historians all eat with their forks in their left hands.   Yet if every hisotrian is eating with his right...? 

You can come up with all the justifications you want, and yet, we're standing in the cafteria at lunch time, and the results are directly observable.  Your arguement on what historians believe is simply undone by the facts on the ground.

Crossan, Ehrman... really every secular expert just takes the historical jesus as fact.

Christianity?  If you want to take that stance it's fine.

Though you shouldn't let that stance make it so that you cling on to every claim that further pushes that truth without ever really researching or understanding such the claim.

Taking things on faith, to disprove faith does a diservice to atehists everywhere and simply makes it easy to paint atheists as god haters who's beliefs don't even rely on sceintific priciples.

You essentially turn atheists into satanists and betray your own principles and reasoning for atheism... turning your atheism into nothing more but a differnt belief system.

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.

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.

Look, I'm not pushing any specific facts. Sure I'm talking out of my ass a bit, but I don't need to be entirely accurate to make a point. If I wanted to stick to strong arguments only, I could say:
1. Well, the Christian Bible is put together mainly by the Romans.
2. Out of the Roman Empire came the papacy, which is arguably the most wealthy entity in the world. A counter-argument earlier was "why would Rome invent Christianity and then persecute them?" Well...why would Rome control the church when they persecuted their own people a hundred years earlier and killed their Messiah?
3. Nearly the entirety of Jesus life happened a dozen times with previous mythological and human Messiahs.
4. Most Christian/Catholic Holidays occur on previous pagan/Messianic holidays
5. The Catholic institution of saints closely resembles polytheism. Ask Catholics how many pray to Jesus or God. A survey was done a while back. Guess who was number one. Mary.

I don't need Atwill to say anything. I don't need any more proof.
Jesus the man hasn't even been proven to exist, much less Jesus the Messiah.
The only evidence that exists is some records, and those can be fabricated. We have no real evidence of existence.