What's Cascioli's Motivation for Jesus Trial?

I've just had one of those "Ah-Ha!" moments! I have found the missing element that clarifies just why an atheist judge like Luigi Cascioli would have the goal to persecute and put on trial a former friend (who just happens to be a priest) by claiming that Jesus Christ never existed. What was his motivation to inappropriately use his bench and black robe for evil in this totally ridiculous and bogus trial?

We could surmise several reasons. An obvious one could be that a silly childhood rivalry has surfaced its ugly head in adulthood. But that is probably much to simple to ascertain. Besides the fact that this Cascioli clown is an atheist, what I think is truly telling about his motivation here is that he wants to draw attention to, and sell more of his crummy little blasphemous book! Cascioli wants to sell his work of fiction as the truth!

Hey! It worked for that James Frey character! Just turn the tables around a bit. Frey created a work of fiction and when he couldn't find anyone willing to publish the book, he decided to pass it off as "truth" by lying about himself and others in a slimy and false account of his life! He duped Oprah into leading millions to purchase the book through her book club. The result? He sold over 3 million copies!

So, since Cascioli's limited audience of atheists would not get many of his books sold, perhaps he decided to bring some extra publicity and attention to his book through this stupid and crazy trial. Maybe he could get some Christians duped into purchasing his book?

Bottom line? His motivation is probably money. Ta da! And the truth shall set us free!

There has probably been several bloggers who have already made this connection. I haven't had the time to read many on this topic yet. But wouldn't you agree that the trial publicity in order to sell more of his dopey book to earn a lot of money could be his true motivation in all this?
Stirring up some controversy to make some money seems to be a logical pagan thing to do, so why should we not presume that one of Cascioli's motives was just that? He wanted to peddle more of his disgraceful books so he set up this priest in a phony, truly asinine trial! This so-called judge sounds more like a whiny two-year old starving for attention than a judge that deserves any respect whatsoever.

No skeptic or atheist (in their right mind) bothers anymore to contend that Jesus Christ was not an historical person. Jesus of Nazareth is as established a figure as any other individual in human history. If you decided that there was not enough evidence to prove His existence, then you'd have to question the existence of Caesar and Aristotle and a thousand other well-known figures from the past.

Usually, skeptics just stick to challenging the reality of the resurrection. But with five hundred documented accounts of respected individuals who saw our Lord and Savior after He was raised from the dead, wouldn't this amount of testimonies pass the test in a court of law? These were people who could have easily been challenged, even persecuted, for what they said. But in the face of adversity, they stuck to their stories.

As we know, some of them were men who ran away the moment Jesus was arrested, a bunch of men who denied His name when they honestly believed He was the Messiah sent by God. but it was this same group of cowards who, three days after the crucifixion, rose up with a new power and conviction and a total commitment to the Christ they had betrayed with their actions. They were the same men who preached His gospel throughout the whole world. They were mocked and tortured and killed for what they preached. People who once ran away when Christ was crucified would not typically endure such things if what they had seen could just be labeled as a myth. And, if Christ had died and stayed in the grave, these men long since would have been forgotten in the march of time.

Plus, there is contemporary evidence that stands up to contemporary standards. Dr. Simon Greenleaf was considered the world's greatest authority on legal standards of evidence.

As his "Testimony of the Evangelicals" begins:

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

There is also historical, manuscript, and archaeological evidence as well that to any unbiased person is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that christianity is based on historical facts. I hope you enjoy Dr. Greenleaf's examination of the internal evidence of the gospel writers."