You're listening to, atheistically speaking. Oh, Hello and I'm

I'm your host.

welcome to atheistically speaking.

This is episode 286 and I'm your host Thomas Smith.

All right, here we go with part two with Dr. Robert Price.

Very excited for this one and I will just get right into it and see you afterward. So it's not like there was that people were just free to write any whole thing.

I guess but then it seems all really coincidental to me that we've got the I

get the idea that the basic story of this hero mythology could have evolved sure

definitely possible I'm not saying it's impossible or anything but it does seem weird

that they're reconciling all these facts that all of a sudden were very

crystallized right around the first century, you know, like why?

So I get that the gospel writers aren't just making it up from whole cloth.

It sounds like you're admitting or you're not admitting rather, but you're saying they're not making

it up whole cloth because that's obviously not true because they're trying to reconcile

all these things.

But it sounds like rather than them reconciling actual details about a person, which seems to me like a compelling reason for the, I mean that seems to me just a natural reason why

50 years later, 60 years later, 70 years later, whenever the given gospel was written,

seems to make sense that maybe some details would be fuzzy,

especially back then with bad record keeping and just loose oral tradition.

But it seems weirder to me to suspect that there would be this fake guy who evolved over time he is a kind of a hero story but then right around that time there are all these crystallized sort of bits of knowledge about his biography that had to be reconciled.

Does that make sense as a question?

It just seems a little crazy.

...