A Giant Jesus and a Walking-Talking Cross: The Fascinating Gospel of Peter

Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
One of the most intriguing non-canonical Gospels to be discovered in modern times is the Gospel of Peter. Unlike the New Testament Gospels, which were written anonymously (only later to be given the titles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), this Gospel actually claims to be written by an apostle, Jesus' own right-hand man, Peter. The account we have is only fragmentary: an alternative version of Jesus' trial, death, and resurrection. And what an account it is, involving an actual record of Jesus emerging from his tomb at his resurrection, as tall as a mountain, followed from the tomb by a walking-talking cross. What is this fascinating account really all about, and why did someone write it, falsely claiming to be the disciple Peter?
Megan asks Bart:
-What makes this gospel different from the NT gospels?
-Could you talk about the giant Jesus and the walking cross?
-How does that get interpreted theologically?
-Why would it be necessary to preach to those who are already dead?
-Do we have any other fragments that hint at what else might have been in the gospel of Peter?
-How long have we known about it?
-What is docetism, and is the Gospel of Peter actually a docetic text?
-How do we know that this is the same gospel of Peter that Serapion was dealing with?
-Is it plausible that Peter was actually the author? Are there other books claiming to have been written by Peter?
-Why would the writer claim Peter as the author?

[@markwilson5857]

University level education is priceless yet somehow cost nothing. Thank you Bart and Megan... and KZbin.

[@hippipdip]

I can't help but imagine the walking talking cross looking like the lil guy "Clippy" who pops up in Microsoft Word to help you figure out how to format a table correctly or add page numbers to the footer.

[@cullenjohnson0]

“You look like you’re trying to resurrect the dead. Do you need help?”

[@KingOfHarlots86]

​@@cullenjohnson0😂😂😂 These exact words were used during our D&D campaign over the weekend 😂

[@tomhutcheson66]

Thanks Dr Ehrman - I’m an atheist but I’m also really interested in the bible because of its huge cultural significance. Your work has really helped me understand and appreciate it in a way that helps to inform my view of the world and my atheism. Keep up the good work. Dr T

[@oldmanballs]

"How do you know if someone is an atheist?"

[@TruthAboutJesus-pz4mb]

@@oldmanballs jamesboswell If they say they are, they are. Dr. Ehrman says he is.

[@zapkvr]

The cultural influence is overrated. The bible reflects the culture it doesnt drive it. If you think it does, when did it stop? Or is,it still doing it?

[@zapkvr]

​@@oldmanballshow do you know if someone is jewish? Or vegan? Theyll tell you a dozen times the first time you meet

[@alexreid1173]

@@zapkvrAnd if they don’t tell you, you’ll never know lol

[@robertloader9826]

Loving Megan's glasses today!! ♾️

[@Fee___]

Yeaahhhh ☺ me too☺

[@DavidRayBurroughs]

Raised a JW, I honestly had no idea what the excitement and interest in the harrowing of hell was and what it about. Now it makes me wonder at the interest and belief in a form of immortality or at least a belief in life and conciousness after death. Now, it teaches me people were delighted in that day to believe their lost ones were somehow continuing on and were being cared for in regard to their spiritual well-being.. Don't believe any of it, but this has been excellent in educating me how the first century christians were dealing with their losses and worries. Thanks!

[@teucer915]

This reminds me of the Dream of the Rood, an Old English poem presenting Jesus as a warrior-King Who defeats death, narrated by the Cross.

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

The more I hear Bart's explanations about what's in the BUYBULL , the more I am incredulous about intelligent people believing it... shaking my head in 'disbelief' listening right now.

[@510tuber]

Starts at 3:44

[@geraldmeehan8942]

Thank you Dr Erhman and Megan this is very enjoyable, entertaining and enlightening series. Keep up the good work!

[@3-meo-2-oxo-pce]

definitely interested in seeing breakdowns of other apocryphal gospels

[@eurech]

I have Bart's 'The Other Gospels' and when I was reading the Gospel of Peter and came to the resurrection scene, I legit couldn't stop laughing. Thank you giant Jesus!

[@BobHutton]

I have been looking for "The Lost Gospels" by Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Plese (mentioned at 52:50), but can't find it. I'm guessing he actually meant "The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament" by by Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Plese.

[@macroman52]

And of course the fish eating risen Jesus is totally not funny?

[@MrDalisclock]

I'm a little sad the gospel of Peter didn't become canon. Having to work the giant talking cross into the doctrine would have been interesting

[@macroman52]

@@MrDalisclock According to JD Crossan, the traditional ressurection pictures in the Eastern Orthodox church frequently show multitudes of "those who sleep" coming out of the tomb with the risen Jesus.

[@thomasdequincey5811]

Listen to Dr. Mark Goodacre's take on the "walking, talking cross". He thinks it's a simple matter of the original meaning being "lost in translation", as it were. His "conjectural emmendation" (I think that's correct) is that the shorthand for 'The Crucified One' has been mis-transcribed/mis-copied as 'cross'. If you now read the passage in the Gospel of Peter, but replace 'cross' with the 'The Crucified One', it makes much more sense...you know, for a story about someone rising from the grave.

[@Fee___]

Yaay my favorite glasses is baaaack!! Thanks meg💗😅🙏🏻

[@Will4fun]

I would DEFINITELY like to see episodes involving/explaining the Harrowing of Hell. I took classes at an Eastern Orthodox church and they have a different view from the Catholic church on this. And, of course the Mormons/LDS church has an even more confusing viewon this.

[@Jeremy-am]

Could some of these gospels, "lost" books, letters of Paul, and potentially other New Testament books be stored in the Vatican? In other words, could the Vatican have the missing pieces that would clear up a lot of these disputes?

[@ericwachira6742]

ofcourse

[@Professor_Pink]

Your aunt could be your uncle, but until you see her bits, we have no reason to suppose that. And the Vatican library is open to scholars.

[@toneg3768]

So at some point we have to come to terms that these ancient writers were making things up. I mean come on.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

What? You don’t believe in talking crosses?

[@toneg3768]

@@jeffryphillipsburns nope, or virgin births either lol

[@Helmy67]

If the author of Harry Potter was living in those times, we would have a wonderful gospel 😂

[@davidchess1985]

Fascinating as ever!

[@tookie36]

The cross is to be carried by everyone. Those who are asleep are us. We are dead and only awaken when we understand and carry our own cross. This was the same message in Mark

[@DavidWilliams-creative]

Bart you talked about your book with this Gospel of Petter in it but you also have a book (that I have) called "Lost Scriptures" that has this in it as well.

[@zapkvr]

Theyre not lost. They were deliberately ignored as canon because they were too silly

[@JamesRichardWiley]

It's fascinating to witness how much Jesus paraphernalia has spread around the world with no sighting anywhere of the famous super hero. Instead we have stories of long, long ago repeated and kept alive by human imagination.

[@spankduncan1114]

Whoever wrote "Peter" must have decided to call and raise all previous "bets". The Joseph Smith of the 2nd century.

[@Matthew-xb1zn]

As a life-long (upstate) New Yorker, I'm inclined to agree.

[@AtomHeartRunner]

wonder if ancient Joey also had to quickly re-write his "revelation" after a smart smart smart woman called him out on it

[@planmet]

Historians of Roman Culture seem to agree that people who were crucified were left there until their bones were picked clean by scavengers and birds and after that their bones were disposed of at Golgotha, the pile of skulls.

[@kencreten7308]

I'd still be a Christian if there was a walking and talking cross. I mean... it makes total sense! heheh

[@black6master]

I would still be christian if there never was jesus at all, .....that was sarcasm

[@cmk1964]

Ye of little faith.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

@@black6master I’ve considered myself a Christian my entire life and still do. I became an agnostic at age eleven and an atheist at age twelve and remained a Christian. I don’t attach a name to my beliefs anymore and remain a Christian. This isn’t sarcasm; it’s simple obvious logic. My Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with my particular individual changing religious beliefs and everything to my with my cultural upbringing. It would be absurd for someone to cease calling himself an American just because he disagreed with Thomas Jefferson. My particular individual changing political beliefs have nothing to do with my status as an American. Just so with Christianity. The amazing thing is how few can see this. Presumably it’s because they’ve been brainwashed.

[@black6master]

@@jeffryphillipsburns so if I understand correctly if you were born in Pakistan you would be muslim now

[@thewb8329]

@@jeffryphillipsburnsSimilar concept in Judaism as a cultural identity as well as religious. Half of all Jews identify as atheists. The difference is that different sects of Judaism don’t attack each other on whose different beliefs and practices are correct and don’t go around using organized religion to control public policy and control individuals personal thoughts and behaviors that are natural and not harmful to themselves or anyone else.

[@chadmccoy8032]

It has a personal feel to it.

[@Robert_L_Peters]

Thank you

[@JFTL81]

Looking forward to the conference, I’ll be joining online. 👍🏻

[@thegovernor1146]

I love Dr Ehrman's posts. Gonna take a different tact from usual posts...I admit, I am drunk, but what music do you have quietly playing the background while listening? Dance Macabre by Ghost for me.

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@johnjohnson1657]

I absolutely Love this show. Kudos. It's appreciated.

[@M2O-]

I have questions about the Authenticity of the first book of adam and eve. Like the odyssey a lot of crying and god sending most of the 60 odd chapters resserecting adam. Any comments would be appreciated.

[@dr.nabilalayyoubi5122]

I don’t understand !! Can god make a religion so difficult to understand and his entity so obscure and confusing then he judges us if we have believed or not !!

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

Yes, he is a bit of an ar*ehole really.

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

@@joeydutch7178 well obviously. But if he was real he would be an arse hole.

[@thomasdequincey5811]

Dr. Mark Goodacre thinks the "walking, talking cross" is a Scribal error. He thinks the shorthand for "The Crucified One" has been mis-copied/mis-transcribed as "cross".

[@choptop81]

Then who is the giant guy getting taken out of the tomb before the cross shows up supposed to be?

[@grumpylibrarian]

There's nothing in the gospel of Peter that can't be reasonably explained by the author being entirely familiar with Mark, but none of the others, if we have Matthew AFTER Peter. There are story elements that are shared with Luke or John, but none that are implausible to have been generated independently and/or also contradict the similar elements in Luke and John. Luke's apparent crossover is mainly regarding Jesus's stoicism and potentially docetic elements, but we also get "My power, O power, you have forsaken me" in Peter with no analogous cry in Luke and a seemingly anti-docetist, anti-stoic reaction when Jesus reaches his breaking point. This is definitely an embellishment of "my god my god why have you forsaken me." Peter also has one of the wrongdoers speak in Jesus's defense, but not at all close to Luke's conversation between Jesus and this man, just a passing rebuke of their tormentors. The best case for Luke as a source is the presence of Herod, whom only Luke mentions. But Peter has Herod and Pilate directly talking and in the same room, whereas in Luke, Pilate "sends" Jesus to Herod, who "sends" him back. Herod is in Jerusalem, but not in the same place as Pilate. John says that Jesus requested a drink in 19:28 to "fulfill the scripture," the only other gospel writer to say anything like this, and it certainly looks a lot like Peter's description of when the soldiers gave him the drink, "they fulfilled all things and completed the sins on their own head." But this is the last time Peter mentions anything like this, while John goes on to claim scriptural references to "None of his bones shall be broken" and "They will look on the one whom they have pierced." So while Peter says the drink fulfilled the last prophecy, John would care to disagree. There is a garden tomb in Peter and John, but this would be an entirely unsurprising place for a tomb. The best argument for John to have been a source would be the reference to "no leg-breaking" in Peter, which is referenced only in John, but these are otherwise very different: John has Jesus already die so that his legs didn't need to be broken, while Peter has "the people" order no leg-breaking as a means to prolong the torment. These have very different motivators, and are likely unrelated. Now there are a LOT of story elements in line with Mark, some exclusively, and some common but not found in Matthew. Jesus is put into a purple robe to be mocked in Peter, Mark, and John, and in Luke he's put into an "elegant" robe with no noted color. In Matthew, this is a scarlet robe, not purple. In Mark and Luke, the inscription above Jesus reads simply "King of the Jews." In Matthew and John, the inscription is "This is Jesus, king of the Jews / Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews." Peter has "King of Israel," not identical but much closer to Mark/Luke and not at all like the others. When the women walk to the tomb, they wonder who will roll away the stone, a sentiment found ONLY in Mark. Inside they find a young man, found ONLY in Mark. The story ends with a reference to Levi of Alphaeus, who is found ONLY in Mark. Now when we look at the elements common with Matthew, we can see a lot of similarities, but it is at least as compelling of a case to be made if not much more so that Matthew derived his story from Peter, and not the other way around. We have, as Dr. Ehrman mentioned, Pilate washing his hands found only in Matthew. The people offer wine mixed with gall to Jesus, and Matthew is the only one to specifically mention gall, but in slightly different contexts: Jesus is offered a drink in two places in the gospels, gall was in the first drink in Matthew, but Peter only mentions the second drink. Peter and Matthew have Pilate give the order to seal and guard the tomb, but when they fail they return to Pilate in Peter, whereas in Matthew they kept this from Pilate, just promising to smooth it over if he does hear of it. There is an earthquake when the stone is rolled away, but the stone rolled away itself in Peter and is rolled by the angel in Matthew. Matthew opens the tomb only after the women arrive, but it's already open in Peter and the other gospels. Now the really interesting thing is Peter's "proclamation to the fallen-asleep." This is VERY similar to 1 Peter 3:18, where Jesus "made a proclamation to the spirits in prison." Whether or not this is the same author, this could be the same community. The problem of what happens to those who've already died is treated in very different ways, here where Jesus goes down to Sheol to preach, John of Patmos in Revelation has the people of Hades (Sheol) shuffled over to judgement and potentially to Gehenna (the lake of fire), and Matthew... has a zombie hoard. Matthew went a very different direction from Peter and 1 Peter with this, with his zombie hoard being a potential means of giving the dead a chance at redemption now that Jesus had just died for their sins. This was already plausible without the context of potentially sourcing Peter, and it seems likely a direct response if he has. For Peter to have copied Matthew, he would need to be familiar with at least Mark as well, and draw elements from both as he saw fit, as many of his details match Mark but not Matthew. For Matthew to have followed Peter, then Peter might have been helped from the other gospels, but would only have NEEDED to have drawn from Mark. By Occam's razor, Matthew drawing from Peter is more plausible than the other way around. Besides the theological implications especially to the fundamentalists that try to place Matthew very early, we do have traditional dating of Matthew to the 80s CE and Peter to maybe the 120s CE. But Matthew sourcing Peter isn't the only reason to doubt this date. It's a whole other thesis, but I can demonstrate how it's more plausible that Matthew sourced from Luke rather than Q or the other way around, and Luke is becoming increasingly dated to post-100 CE in scholarship. We have reason to believe that Papias was unfamiliar with Matthew as early as 95 CE and possibly as late as 110 CE, as his version of Judas's death is entirely incompatible with Matthew's. We don't have all of Peter and quotes of the gospels weren't attributed to Matthew Mark Luke and John until Irenaeus in 180 CE, so some early quotes by Ignatius or Justin Martyr might have actually been from the rest of Peter and not the gospels we think they're from. And frankly, while we all like to marvel at the giants and the talking cross, the rest of the text isn't any more implausible than the other gospels. We're just more used to things like Jesus walking on water than talking crosses. Nobody seems to care the Philip was Star-Trek transported 50 miles for no apparent reason in the middle of Acts, or talking donkeys and snakes. If someone hadn't sniffed a whiff of docetism, Peter would likely be in our bibles today.

[@jamesbarringer2737]

Interestingly, I just learned in Wikipedia, according to Eusubius of Caesaria, Mark would have written the Gospel according to Mark while traveling with Peter, and because of Mark's travels, that would put the Gospel According to Mark being completed by about 43 AD. I don't know if Eusubius would be a credible source, but I had never heard of a source asserting a Gospel authorship such a short time after the crucifixion and resurrection.

[@TheDanEdwards]

The idea that there was a real "Mark" who traveled with Peter is popular exactly because of the likes of Eusebius. Eusebius is the source for much of what we think we know of the first three centuries of the belief systems that became known as Christianity. This is a well known problem, over-reliance on Eusebius, because so little material remains from those centuries of relevance to Christianity.

[@stevearmstrong6758]

@@TheDanEdwards Irenacus is an earlier source and is reported to have said: “After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing the things which Peter had proclaimed.” That would put Mark somewhere in the mid/late sixties to the early seventies.

[@TheDanEdwards]

​@@stevearmstrong6758 First, we only know what you wrote about Irenaeus because Eusebius declared he had what Irenaeus wrote. Secondly, Irenaeus himself has no sources and he writing in the late second century. For many topics, Church historians rely on only one source: what Eusebius claims Irenaeus wrote. Scholars have long concluded that Mark was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, by an unknown author.

[@stevearmstrong6758]

@@TheDanEdwards True. I was simply responding to the original comment which dated Mark to the forties by suppling another piece of information. That Eusebius could quote Irenaeus over a century later has always been a bit suspect in my book…but it is a data point that has to be considered when dating Mark.

[@germanboy14]

Eusebius is dependent on Papias. PAPIAS description of "Marks" gospel he knew and that of "Matthew" dont fit to our todays gospels. So, we can be pretty certain that there were many gospels attributed to the apostles but our todays are not. our Mark also doesnt portray Peter in a good light at all.

[@jasonengel]

I absolutely appreciate the George Eliot reference.

[@KaiHenningsen]

These kinds of forgeries, which scholars like to call *pseudepigraphy,* seem to be pretty close to what today we call *"identity theft".*

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Within Don Quixote, which was originally published in installments, Cervantes complains about forgery knock-offs.

[@mikewilson858]

That’s interesting about the state the text was found in. I had assumed it was found fragmentary. But now it seems that some had a fragmentary copy of the gospel of Peter and decided to just copy what he had into this anthology. I suppose they thought it was important but I guess he did not know the rest and didn’t want to fill in blanks but simply preserve what they had.

[@saseenkawzally5909]

Nice glasses megan

[@spankduncan1114]

It seems Bart uses his understanding of human nature and psychology to interpret the meaning and intentions of these ancient writers. I can't think of a sounder way to go about this endeavor. Thank you professor Erhman for your dedication to the field.

[@2-minutechristianity]

Bart: I heard Mark Goodacre discuss the talking cross in the gospel of Peter. He said (approximately) that "cross" in Greek is written almost the same as "crucified one." Could this confusing passage be cleared up simply by seeing it as a typo? Seen this way, the gospel sounds a lot less nutty. Assuming I'm stating his point correctly, do you buy it?

[@tookie36]

I’m no expert but I don’t think a giant cross is shocking. It’s symbolic and carries meaning just like the other gospels. Such as young Jesus killing someone. To symbolize the god of the OT being viewed as a killer. And then he grows up and becomes the self sacrificing Jesus.

[@chriseliothernandez]

And they actually do that in the beginning of John: without him was made nothing that was made/ that which was made in him was life.

[@RandiRain]

How does a cross "walk"? Wouldn't it be more of a bouncing motion? Probably makes a "boing boing" sound.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

I imagine it moving from side to side, the way you might transport a large object without wheels too heavy to lift. People commonly call that “walking” the object. On the other hand, maybe this “Peter” conceived it as sliding and just said walking because he wrote loosely.

[@multigerbs550]

I thought that too, it was hard to shake the comparison to Zebedee from the magic roundabout.

[@AureliusFan]

Thank you so much for your amazing efforts, you allow us the ability to gain so much knowledge, so easily. Much love

[@jerrie1946]

your book, "The Other Gospels," is $43.00 at Amazon. Wow. $43.00 is too expensive for this poor senior citizen living on a tight budget. Alas. I will keep following these podcasts and hope you cover them all.

[@Noneya5555]

You could borrow it from the local library...?

[@TheDanEdwards]

Many libraries have Ehrman's books.

[@colincampbell4261]

​@@TheDanEdwardsborrow them before the republicans burn them.

[@leedoss6905]

Magen does Mother Owl with those glasses.❤ Great episode.

[@planmet]

Why would Pilate detail a Roman soldier to guard the tomb so Jesus's body wouldn't be stolen?

[@11kravitzn]

Is there any possibility that "the cross" is an abbreviation or "the crucified"?

[@mikeharrison1868]

My guess is not. My Greek is a long time in the past, but the way Greek works, with lots of tenses and cases, means there's usually less ambiguity. For example, you can put the words in any order in Greek, and you can still figure out the meaning because of all the word endings.

[@11kravitzn]

@@mikeharrison1868 I saw this idea brought up in an interview. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3a7qYN9ncRoY68si=oCdD_8sxKMcJBRJi It could be an abbreviation or contraction, possibly. I think it makes more sense than a talking cross.

[@franzfleischer3476]

Dr. Mark Goodacre thinks the "walking, talking cross" is a Scribal error. He thinks the shorthand for "The Crucified One" has been mis-copied/mis-transcribed as "cross".

[@hearstboy]

Questions: How common was the name Peter? Is it possible for the author to be named Peter without claiming to be the apostle Peter? Or does the authorship claim specifically suggest to be the apostle Peter?

[@edwinlucianofrias1643]

The author does claim to be a disciple of Jesus named Peter, brother of Andrew.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

@@edwinlucianofrias1643 Hi, I’m Larry, and this is my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl.

[@hearstboy]

@@edwinlucianofrias1643 Thank you!

[@nadirkhan9430]

Đọc, I want to know your opinion upon Gospel of Thomas, and predictions mention thereof👍👍

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Covered in an earlier episode.

[@dodo1opps]

Has Magan had any experience with Ogham? I've been watching too much "Time Team" again.

[@seoigh]

I was under the impression that the walking/talking cross is a recopied early mistranslation in that "cross" and "crucified one" are extremely close in the original Greek. It would be akin to calling someone a "crucifixion"... which even in English *kind of* works. Yes, that does imply a Jesus *and* a crucified one leaving the scene of the tomb -- but that makes sense because in this Christology, a separate Christ is a divine being that entered the human Jesus -- and left him at the cross as told in this gospel.

[@seoigh]

@@realitywave ???

[@dodo1opps]

A walking cross?...Like a "Triffid"

[@odenwalt]

What is the difference between the gospel of Peter and the apocalypse of Peter?

[@gnarfgnarf4004]

12:45 you are describing Mormon doctrine.

[@MissMentats]

I think what Marc goodacre said about this seems the most likely: that the abbreviation for Christ and the word for cross are so similar that it’s possible it could be read as it’s actually Jesus speaking

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Is this in Aramaic or Latin? Because in Greek the two words and abbreviations are to me vastly different.

[@Mythyval]

@@edwardmiessner6502 I believe it’s actually the Greek abbreviation for “the crucified one”, a term used for Jesus elsewhere in the text.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

This is about a ten-page fragment that went missing for over a millennium, an interesting curiosity maybe, but scarcely consequential. Let’s cease treading water and cut to the chase: What did Jesus, weaponized by ruthless capitalists and unscrupulous politicians enthrall to ruthless capitalists, actually say about monetary acquisition?

[@TruthAboutJesus-pz4mb]

He was pretty rough on it. Jesus Laid Bare -- James Boswell II I think Jesus would today be for government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not government of, by, and FOR the wealthy.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

@@TruthAboutJesus-pz4mb I think you’re probably right, but I’d like a prominent and unbiased New Testament scholar to weigh in- at length.

[@BibleSymbolism]

I don't see the walking-talking cross to be as ridiculous as many here seem to think, but as a part of the tree symbolism prevalent in the Bible, and all likely stemming from the two trees in the Garden of Eden. So we have the "walking trees" of Mark, the "Branch of David" in Jeremiah, the curse of the "man hung on a tree" in Deuteronomy, the mustard seed becoming "a giant tree," Jesus withering the fig tree, Jesus' parable of the barren fig tree, and the extensive "grafting" and other tree symbology of Jesus and Paul. I think this symbolic tradition saw the Menorah as a tree with branches, and the Gospel of Peter's "walking-talking cross" symbology as tying into these ideas. For the great heights of our players, consider how a forest tree "reaches into the heavens," but its saplings, its "children," are small in stature. "To whom has the Arm [or "Menorah branch"] of the Lord been revealed? He grew up beside him as a tender sapling, and as a root out of dry ground." -- Isaiah 53:1. Google images of "Menorahs Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic" for examples of the menorah/man/tree symbology.

[@tookie36]

Exactly. The gospel of mark is filled with this kind of imagery. Which makes me think the gnostics were using the gospel of mark as well.

[@anthonyjames4319]

Is it possible that “the cross” was a reference to Jesus? Like how he is referred to as the rock, the stone, the word, etc.

[@TheDanEdwards]

You don't think a giant Jesus is _real_ ? Why not? Oral Roberts saw a giant Jesus while he was riding in an airplane.

[@FlagAnthem]

8:50 hey, that's how God first appears to Homer Simpson!

[@PresidentPaul2028]

The beings that are taller than the sky appear in Hildegard von Bingen’s book, “Book of the Rewards of Life,” with an explanation of their symbolism.

[@MTerrance]

If TARS (the slab robot from Interstellar) had a daddy, it would be the walking and talking cross.

[@TheSoteriologist]

Begins 3:44. Cover the left part of the screen to avoid seizures.

[@ZiglioUK]

The Lonely Planet's (©) Guide to Heaven, celestial!

[@rastaoiiii]

Where can I find a copy of the Gospel of Joe Schwartz?

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were one. Written in America within the last century or so, though, and never published.

[@Margo714P]

20:00 Now I know how Saran Wrap got its name. 😉

[@mrnarason]

Want to to hear episode about harrowing of hell

[@bocajmilan]

First 😅🎉 love the show!

[@jdaze1]

Those who are asleep in the new covenant is referring to those who are spiritually dead not literally dead.

[@iainmacvicar3728]

Does she make her own glasses 😅 never seen anything like them

[@JSizzlicious]

Don't you realize this podcast exists solely to provide for her glasses, hair dye, and piercings?

[@iainmacvicar3728]

@john-davidfiling4110 probably true enough, as I usually know everything Bart says already from watching all his older content on KZbin lol

[@bettyasaleh2831]

Being a Course in Miracles student I believe the ones “asleep” aren’t the dead, but us who are asleep dreaming this dream we call life. So the cross confirmed the message of resurrection: there is no death. However it was delivered to the spiritually asleep: us. So I think the message was delivered but us being asleep, are still processing it. 😊🌸💕

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Not sure what “Being a Course [sic] in Miracles [sic] student” is supposed to mean, but I doubt it trumps being a prominent and highly respected New Testament scholar. In any case, your view leaves unaccounted for all those who died before Jesus and couldn’t thus be saved through no fault of their own.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@jeffryphillipsburns Of course even that leaves unaccounted for all those who died after Jesus, but who, due to where they lived, couldn't have even heard of Christianity during their lives. Something Church doctrine tried to address later, but which remained hard to handle.

[@Ichibanboushi]

Look, I love you. I think you're great. But when you where those glasses, I have to move the video off screen because they make my eyes feel like they are trying to move in different directions. Please, I'm afraid of what will happen if I try to look directly at those glasses for too long.

[@rpoorbaugh]

11:27

[@turtlefront]

Every video her glasses somehow get worse

[@GlorifiedTruth]

Maybe it wasn't Jesus they saw coming out of the grave. Maybe it was MC 900 Ft Jesus.

[@Thomasw540]

The Gospel of Peter overlays perfectly with the time boundaries of Mark 15:1 - 16:8, The Gospel of Perter is the original harmonization of the Roman testiomny during their chain of custody, including the 9 seals on the Stone plaed fnfront of the Tomb, This Roman seal is the conneciion between the Gospel of Mark and Peter with Revelation, At no point do ou requie Pauline THeology to advance the narrative. Among other things, the Resurrection is the validation of the God Hypothesis, The Taliking Cross connects the dots between the Book of Job, the Resurrection and the US Constitution by way of Cornelius. the Italian Regiment, and the intelligence archives of the 10th Legion, The difference between The Old Testament and the New Testament is the difference beteen the Real, or Primative, Warfare of David and Goliath and the True Warfare of Flavious before Jerusalem, The Talking Cross ia all about the True Warfare of Rome and the bais of Just War Doctrine and Clausewitz.

[@susanstein6604]

This is slightly off-topic but since Bart use the word “anti-Judaism” have either of you read Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition by David Nirenberg? I highly recommend it.

[@rpoorbaugh]

26:07

[@jamesbarringer2737]

This is an interesting use of pseudopegriphical authorship - especially in light of - what I believe is the general belief - that the Gospel according to Mark is essentially the Gospel story from Peter's perspective. For those who may not know, within Christianity, right or wrong, it is believed that Mark was a close associate/helper of Peter, and that Mark's Gospel is based off of Peter's sermons and testimony. I.E the Gospel of Mark - to many, for all practical purposes - is believed to be the Gospel of Peter. It is interesting that the Gospel of Mark is so minimalistic in its earliest forms - yet the Gospel of Peter which Bart points to is so baroque.

[@mikeharrison1868]

The general view is not accepted by most non-Christian scholars - i.e. those who don't have an axe to grind.

[@davidkeller6156]

I find it highly unlikely that Peter, illiterate and Aramaic speaking, found a highly educated scribe who could translate from Aramaic to Greek, to follow him around and write the story. Papyrus was expensive so he needed money. And why would the Gospel end like it did with the women at the tomb telling no one what they saw. Wouldn’t Peter have wanted to mention how he found out about the risen Christ? Wouldn’t he have wanted to mention what he was told by the risen Christ? It just all seems highly unlikely to me.

[@jamesbarringer2737]

@@davidkeller6156 I completely disagree. Indeed, you seem rather oblivious to the two facts1) that Greek was the Lingua Franca of it's day within Rome. Most books of all sorts, even though Rome was in rule, were writtent in Greek. To perform business, administration, etc. throughout the Roman world, Greek was an essential language for roles that required literacy. 2) While scribes had a hard-to-obtain skill - literacy - that made their services important enough that scribes as a profession would have been important and populous. Compared to work like fishing, farming, soldiering, etc, Scribing would have been seen much like computer programming is today. Like computere programmers, scribes of ancient days would have been in demand, and reasonably well compensated, without needing to perform hard manual labor. Thinking it was at all unlikely that professional scribes would have been among the people of the early church - a profession that was probably as common or even more popular than computer programmers are today. To think Peter and Paul wouldn't have used scribes just seems to imply an inability to understand what the world would have been like in a time where written documents were extremely important, but when the masses would not have been particularly literate. We don't have scribes today - or even personal secretaries today, because not only do we have high levels of literacy, but we also have tools like word processors and PCs, so that you do not need a practiced hand to write in a professional way. But have you seen ancient manuscipts? It's clear they are virtually all produced by a highly skilled cadre. It makes complete sense that anyone who wanted to send a respectable document, written in a well-practiced hand, would have employed scribes. I don't mean to be rude, but to think otherwise is quite frankly, very stupid indeed. It's a failure to understand what a semi-literate, yet highly organized and vast culture would have to be like. It doesn't make sense ANY of the books of the Bible were written in the physical hands of the people who authored them. It does make sense they would have worked with professional scribes, both to ensure readability, and to avoid all the problems less practiced hand-writers would necessarilly face.

[@davidkeller6156]

@@jamesbarringer2737 I know Greek was the Lingua Franca in those times. I also not all scribes would have been trained in writing narratives like the gospels. I don’t know where the idea comes from that the person that wrote Mark was a follower of Peter. I haven’t heard that from any scholars I read or watched. Regardless, I was just stating my opinion. Not really trying to start a debate.

[@rpoorbaugh]

34:29

[@spankduncan1114]

I think if Jesus appeared as a giant there would be lots of people on the ground, going about their business that day that would have noticed. Why is there no historical evidence of this amazing event? Stories are fun, but they don't fly when the laws of nature don't apply.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

You think?

[@spankduncan1114]

Bart claims that in ancient times plagiarism was fround upon. That rings true to me. The Goldren Rule had been in affect long before written language. Practice it. It's the oldest, best rule.

[@fortyofforty5257]

@bart Was Jesus a real person?

[@edwinlucianofrias1643]

Bart believes Jesus was a historical figure.

[@fortyofforty5257]

@@edwinlucianofrias1643 Yes, I thought I remember reading or hearing that. It might be an interesting video, the evidence for and against.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Bart certainly believes Jesus actually existed and wasn't erased from history.

[@spankduncan1114]

Paul's writings are the oldest to be found in the new testament. Did he have access to any written documents or is his perspective from oral tradition and his own "vision".

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Not really relevant. He isn’t a gospel writer. He merely recounts his personal experiences and proffers his strong opinions.

[@ramigilneas9274]

The walking cross are the resurrected jewish saints that were already mentioned in the gospel of Matthew. Those were the first dead people who were saved by Jesus and then sent to heaven. It all makes sense if your imagination and your willingness to harmonize the stories are limitless.😅

[@simonbattle0001]

Hello. Thank you both for this conversation. For me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'll call it my final nail in my concluding Christianity is nothing more than a hot mess which in my opinion the world would be a better place without it along with every other religion. I appreciate that it means a great deal to people and it will remain so.

[@ounkwon6442]

Not so fast. ALL religion are men-made with every doctrine, creed, dogma, teaching, rule, rite, ritual, practice and traditions are men-made for effective control of life and mind of people - with ecclesial power. The problem is that every one has to choose one of them or to find one or to make one of its own. Don't give up a hope for that

[@simonbattle0001]

@@ounkwon6442 Get no argument from me. I use to like a German wine. It had a Nun on it. The wine was good, I still have no idea why the Nun was their. Point is just because in my opinion religions suck I still love the sound of a cathedral pipe organ; you can have one without the other and still have a good time.

[@christopher17701-D]

I’m no expert, but isn’t it written in the NT that Jesus said no one can take his life from him, but that He lays it down willingly? So should that put an end to the discussion of whether the Romans or the Jews killed Jesus?

[@jdaze1]

Hebrews 5:7, Psalm 18, 41, 91. There was no literal crucifixion. He lived a long life and saw his descendants. Isaiah 53. That's the point of the Passover feast. We are delivered from the death angel if we obey Gods word. The Passover isn't a sin offering.

[@christopher17701-D]

@@jdaze1 Thank you for your blessed reply. This is a statement of your belief system. No right or wrong!!! Of course their are other beliefs, again no right or wrong!!! Who really knows what THE REAL TRUTH is? We just have our beliefs, which we are either born and raised in or even for some who converted either way. For me? I don’t know what THE TRUTH is, only OUR CREATOR knows. The bottom line is, is humanity going to choose to LOVE one another, or keep on sectioning off into tribalistic behavior? We ALL come from THE ONE source. Our Creator! G-d bless you, may peace reign for all humanity!

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

It's interesting that even when this manuscript was written, it seems that only this fragment was known, at least to this scribe. Is that common among old manuscripts? I'd thought that normally when we only have fragments of old works it's because we found parts of a presumably complete manuscript or because a text that was preserved quoted parts of the older work - again presumably having had access to a complete manuscript then. This suggests that the ancient scribe himself was trying to preserve a lost text that he only had pages from.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Manuscripts are continually lost along the way, especially manuscripts written before the invention of the printing press. Why wouldn’t they be?

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@jeffryphillipsburns Absolutely. Nothing strange about manuscripts being lost. It's just that this is an interesting glimpse into the middle of the process. I haven't heard about ancient manuscripts where the manuscript itself was a copy of only a fragment of the original text.

[@eldarrissman4172]

Question (tangential to this video, but I always wondered): When did Hades stop being a God, and start being a Place

[@lauriehermundson5593]

A valid question!

[@KamranPasha72]

The idea that Jesus doesn't suffer on the Cross is in line with the Islamic belief that he was not crucified, but only "appeared" to die on the Cross. The fact that Jewish Christian groups used the Gospel of Peter suggests that this is another parallel to Islam, as the Jewish Christians shared Islam's belief that Jesus was a human prophet.

[@theguyver4934]

First of all the crucifion of jesus (PBUH) is an undeniable fact of history even non christians agree on that also every apostle of christ including st paul preached that jesus (PBUH) was only a prophet including the church fathers so it's not just islam that say's that jesus is only a human and i'm saying that as a muslim

[@mrandersson2009]

The gospel of Peter is fan fiction... fan fiction on acid

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

Most of the bible is fan fiction too.

[@hive_indicator318]

A new testament that's only the earliest manuscripts (that are currently known) would be nice

[@markwaldron8954]

And in the order they were written. Marcus Borg did this once. The NT reads very differently when read in order. Though Borg didn't chuck the six Pauline forgeries.

[@daviddiaz529]

Having a book of main differences is where A.I. comes in.

[@ounkwon6442]

A comedy

[@jimmoore9490]

Shroud of Turin

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Either it's a fake or Jesus was teleported.

[@jimmoore9490]

@@edwardmiessner6502 So you don't beleive in science because they have studied it. So you must beleive that we evolved from a pine tree as the evolution tree shows in your religious science books. Got it

[@jimmoore9490]

@@edwardmiessner6502 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZ_Pfmp6is14d9ksi=JqPmTgaR5d8dzEyo

[@quetzelmichaels1637]

Everything needs to be interpreted, including the Crucifixion, which is also imagery and prophecy. The Cross is the Idol made in honor of the First Beast whose mortal wound was healed. The Caduceus (Bronze Serpent) was destroyed because people were worshipping it. He was lifted up like a Serpent because he was given the power and throne along with great authority of The Dragon (Serpent) as the Red Dragon or First Beast on the Day of the Lord (Sacrifice) when he leads them astray as if with a bridle in the jaw of the people on the day of the great slaughter. Jesus rules from David's throne and over his kingdom. David is the Morning Star. The king of Babylon is the ruler of the whole world, wherever man may dwell. The King of Babylon is the Morning Star. David's people set out from Babylon seeking a heavenly home. David became corrupted. David has an everlasting covenant with the Lord working for his salvation. The ruler of this world is Satan. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of David and is promptly addressed by Jesus as Satan. The Serpent is the Shining One (Snake???) or, Morning Star. The Serpent was 'striking at the heel' like Jacob gripping the heel of Esau. It is imagery. Warning of the impending Day of the Lord, he was swallowed by the Beast out of the Sea and spewed out upon the shore as the Beast out of the Earth, as the sun beat down upon his head and a burning east wind began the Way of the Lord in the Desert. The way of the Lord in the desert needs to be put into context with the previous passage: Sacrifice - Indeed, she has received from the hand of the LORD double for all her sins. Resurrection - Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God! (Isa 40:2-3 NABO) Just as it is appointed that human beings die - be judged - appear a second time, (so also Christ) Heb 9:27-28. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Esau, the firstborn, lives by the sword (sacrifice) and serves his brother, Jacob, who was born gripping (striking at) his heel. Isaac blessed Esau saying: Ah, far from the fertile earth shall be your dwelling; far from the dew of the heavens above! (Gen 27:39 NABO) you will not always have me (Mat 26:11 NABO) I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Mat 28:20 NAB) My kingdom does not belong to this world. (Joh 18:36 NABO) Where I am going you cannot come. (Joh 8:21 NABO) Then I took my staff "Refuge" and snapped it asunder, breaking off the covenant which I had made with all peoples (Noahic covenant) (Zec 11:10 NABO) Then I snapped asunder my other staff, "Heritage" (Deu 32:8) breaking off my brotherhood with Judah and Israel (Jacob/Israel/Shining One-Snake). (Zec 11:14 NABO) the one who ascended far above all the heavens themselves (Eph 4:10 NABO) never to return to corruption (Act 13:34 NABO) "By your sword (sacrifice) you shall live, and your brother you shall serve; But when you become restive (weak; faint; infirm; a worm; man of suffering; restless; wanderer in the desert; way of the Lord in the desert), you shall throw off his yoke from your neck." (Gen 27:40 NABO) Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau! (Gen 32:12 NABO) Esau ran to meet him, embraced him, and flinging himself on his neck, kissed him as he wept. (Gen 33:4 NABO) Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light. (Mat 11:29-30 NABO) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus is, so to speak, from a galaxy far, far, away. He rules form David's throne, preserving and restoring it for him. Yahweh/ David, Is under his protection. No one comes to the Father except through the Son of David. Perspective: Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham. The origin of the story is that Lilith, Adam's wife, gives Eve to Adam, the Christ, when he begins his work of the salvation of the kingdom of Eve's Shining One (Snake???) David, the Morning Star. I’m inclined to believe that David is saving those behind the gates of hell.

[@ounkwon6442]

Someone like Bart can afford to find time to read it. The gospel by the first Pope, O boy May be for Catholics to entertain

[@wizzelhoart]

Homegirl’s glasses are making me dizzy.

[@timothyneumann6586]

The Patripassian heresy is that of God the Father suffering the pains of crucifixion instead of the phantom Christ. There are those who condemned it. The Father suffered only the abandonment of the Son on the cross to the death of it. The Son suffered the physical pains of the crucifixion process and died.

[@russellmiles2861]

Oh, Professor E. Like a good comedian reusing lines. We've heard the Walk-talking Cross joke. The Bible is such a rich source of humour. Can we have some new material, please.

[@Valdagast]

Megan has some fancy glasses.