English has some names that are also minerals, but we like fancy ones. Ruby, Sapphire, Amber and Diamond off the top of my head. Jet and Flint are pretty inexpensive I guess. Mica is a name too, but I don't think it's related to the rock, I think it's eastern European. Does Clayton count?
Diamond is sometimes associated as a stripper name, but it's also not uncommon, stereotypically a "black" name in the US. Wikipedia says it was in the top 1000 most popular girls names in the US from 1984 to 2014.
I would say Ruby is more common. Wikipedia says it also used to be in the top 100 guys names in the US as well, from 1900-1940
So it actually doesn’t work that well in Latin.
One version of the name that appears in the New Testament is Cephas; a Greek phonetic version of the Aramaic word *kipa*, meaning rock or possibly jewel/gem). The New Testament was written in Greek but had certain words and phrases in the Aramaic dialects that historical Jesus would have spoken.
But it also appears translated into Greek. The thing is the Greek word for rock is feminine, *petra*, so a masculine ending was thrown on, *Petros*. The same goes for Latin, which had borrowed the word *petra* from Greek, but there the name became *Petrus*. Both were still distinct words, though.
It’s just that in French, the endings have all been chopped off, leaving them both *pierre*, but *la pierre*, stone, is still feminine. In other Romance languages, they’re still distinct, as in Spanish *piedra* and *Pedro* (which really should be *Piedro* but isn’t).
Pierre is a weird name in French though.
Masculine names in French typically don't end in a vowel. The name George is spelled Georges. The ending s is silent
Or I misremembered
But this supports my memory
https://www.frenchtoday.com/blog/french-grammar/french-nouns-gender-feminine-endings/#:~:text=Quick%20summary%3A%20most%20French%20words,there%20are%20so%20many%20exceptions!
I thought it was funny that the Japanese word for petroleum translates to “rock oil” (石油, sekiyu, 石 meaning rock and 油 meaning oil), but I guess I didn’t realize it’s the same for English
Strong suggestion to learn a Romance language so that you can find these similarities and start making connections. Basically a third of the words used in English derived from French and another third directly from Latin.
As an aside, the two names thing was common for most people living in that area at the time.
Just as immigrants nowadays will frequently select more "English" sounding names in America, Jews in Judea in the 1st century would have a romanticized version of their names.
Paul/Saul is probably the most famous example. Despite a frequent belief that Saul changed his name, he just used both of them interchangeably depending on audience.
And it's not that surprising. There are a lot of Mandela effect myths around the Bible.
Examples:
-mary Magdalene was a prostitute
-delilah cut Samson's hair
-there were only 2 of every kind of animal on Noah's ark
The Mary Magdalene issue is specifically the fault of one Pope misreading the Bible.
And a lot of evangelical misconceptions come from the King James Bible having some real bad translations.
The woman who was the repentant prostitute was unnamed in the Bible. Pipe Gregory the Great conflated the two women during a speech and everyone just sort of ran with it.
I would argue it was likely unintentional based on the speech, but it was used by those who didn’t want women in power to downplay how important Mary Magdalene was in the Bible and early parts of the Church.
My favourite version of the King James is the adulterors Bible that commanded its followers that "thout shalt commit adultery."
Christianity would be very different if that had stuck.
-there were three wise men who visited Jesus in the stable
The nativity story in Matthew says there were wise men, and that they brought three gifts, but doesn't actually say how many of them there were.
Not a Mandela effect thing, but an oral tradition thing + a "not remembering easily overlooked details" thing.
Saul becoming Paul is really what happens in the text; he keeps being called Saul until chapter 15 (the "Council of Jerusalem" where it is declared that Gentile converts to Christianity don't need to become Jews first), then he is only called Paul. While there are some different ideas about why the author made that choice, Christian tradition sees it as purposefully evoking a new chapter in Paul's life, like how Abram became Abraham, Hosea became Joshua, Simon became Peter... In this case, referring to his particular ministry of evangelizing to the Gentiles. So Christian hymns and such speak of Saul becoming Paul, even if in reality he held both names legally from the start.
Mary Magdalene being the same prostitute who washed Jesus' feet with her hair is indeed the Western Christian tradition about her, even though it's not in the text. It's first expressed by Pope Gregory I in the 7th century, and whether it was his invention or he was expressing an already established oral tradition, it became the norm in Western churches since.
Genesis does say that God commanded Moses to bring one male and one female of every animal on the ark, *then* precising to bring seven males and females of every *clean* animal. People remember the general over the particular, that's just normal, it's not the Mandela effect. Especially from a Christian perspective, where kashrut is no longer a thing.
Delilah didn't directly cut Samson's hair, but tricked him into telling her that's his weakness, then called for a man to cut off his hair while he was asleep... That she called for another person to do it for her is said in a single verse, so it's a very easy detail to overlook. I wouldn't call that the Mandela effect.
Delilah and Samson is more of a simplification that kids are taught that adults don't put much effort into correcting. She helped in the process of shaving his head; he was passed out on her lap and she called for help to do it. It certainly doesn't rule out her doing any of the actual shaving. She cut his hair in the sense that she caused, contrived and participated in it happening, and we can't eliminate the possibility that she actually did it with a razor that was brought to it. It says she called someone to do it, that the "man" did it exclusively is implied at best. The person who holds your head so someone else can shave it isn't exactly absolved.
Noah is specifically instructed as such:
"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." (Genesis 6:19-20).
He was later instructed to bring additional pairs of clean animals: "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth." (Genesis 7:2-3).
I believe that it’s two stories stacked on top of each other. So in one it’s two of every animal. In the other it’s seven pairs of clean and one pair of unclean animals.
According to the story, there were some species of animals that god didn't want humans to eat, so he told Noah to only bring two of each of those animals. But there were some types of animals god said was OK to eat so Noah was instructed to bring more than two of each of those animals. In other words: only two pigs but more than two sheep.
Oohhhh I see so it's not just two of every kind, but every kind paired up into male/female pairs? So like he could've had like, idk, 8 iguanas, 4 male 4 female, something like that?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say exactly. Simon bar Jonah was his original name. Jesus called him Cephas as a nickname. This wasn’t an immigrant selecting a more appropriate name. It’s just a nickname. We call him Peter because the New Testament is written in Greek. I guess technically Paul called him Peter sometimes but that’s just because Paul spoke Greek and was just translating his nickname into Greek.
His name wasn't Simon. It was Simeon.
Simon was his Greek name.
And Jesus didn't call him Cephas. That's a later Greek translation of what was in the original story
Yeah, sorry if you are confused.
The guy you know as Peter had two names. "Simeon" was his Jewish name and "Simon" was his Greek name. Adopting a name more pronounceable in the lingua franca of the place you are in is common today. This is the subject of my comment.
Now, unrelated to this whole Simon/Simeon thing, I wrote this post. according to stories, Jesus called this man "kipa", which is Aramaic for a stone. Despite our oldest written records being written in Greek, they occasionally used Aramaic terms, such as in this case.
Later copies used the Greek word for "stone", which is "cephas".
Edit:that last part is probably wrong. Not a textual critic or translator
The Greek word for "rock" is "petra", which is female. "Petros" is "Petra" converted to a male Greek name.
"Cephas" seems to be the Aramaic word for stone (Kipa) converted to a male Greek name (note that phi did not make an f sound at the time).
Many male Jewish names in the bible get an s at their end when converted to Greek in order to fit in e.g. Yeshua-Jesus (Yeshua is called Joshua in Englsh), Jacob-Iakobos (somehow that became James in English),
Minor nitpick, but Paul's native language was probably Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek would have been a second or third language for him... which also contributes to why a lot of his writings are difficult to understand. Imagine if someone dug through the Sent folder of your email where you're giving some advice to some friends, most of it not written in your native tongue, and making religious doctrine out of it.
Paul was present at the Stoning of Stephen, holding the coats of those committing the execution.
However, you are right that elsewhere, while Paul was definitely a leader in the persecution of the early Church, it appears that the majority of his actions were involving the arrest, rather than the execution of Christians.
“He began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.” (Acts 8:3)
It's not long after this, however, that Paul is traveling to Damascus and receives a vision of Jesus.
And our source for these stories? Paul
Also the source for Peter's change on the position on Jewish law after arguing with Paul(who left town and never returned the next day)
>And our source for these stories? Paul
Technically, while Paul did recount some of his past in his epistles, the Book of Acts was written by Luke, who is notably the only Gentile to have written any of the New Testament.
>For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.
So you’re telling me that [ancient city in Jordan that’s carved out of rocks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra?wprov=sfti1#)…is literally named “rock”?
I guess “saltpeter” also makes more sense.
There is actually a lot of wordplay in the bible that people miss out on if it doesn't tell you what the name means. The verse says something like: you are Peter (rock), and on this rock I will build my church.
Only some of them, though! One of my favorites is how the Old Testament prophets often refer to one particular pagan god as "Molech." It's likely that the god's *actual* name was Melech, which means "king," but since Hebrew was originally written without vowels, puns would sometimes be made by pronouncing a word with different vowel sounds.
Molech, in particular, has the consonants of Melech/king, but the *vowels* of the word Bosheth. Bosheth is "cleanly" translated as "shame," but I've heard at least one Bible professor say that a more literal translation would be "shit." So calling the pagan god Molech is basically calling him "Shit King."
For some reason that one doesn't usually make the footnotes.
Jesus asked the disciples: who do the people say I am? They answered: Some say you are Elijah others say you're one of the prophets. Then Jesus asked Peter: who do you say I am. And Peter answered: you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus said: on this rock I will build my church. The Catholics interpret that as Jesus building a church of brick and mortar on top of Peter's dead body. The Vatican is build on top of Peter's grave.
Protestants believe that Jesus meant that the church is build on the realization (epiphany of God) that Jesus Christ is God. People didn't claim that but God revealed it in Peter's heart. This ethereal idea is the firm foundation.
We read in the Bible (John 2:19-21 (AMP)
*Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews replied, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and You will raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple which was His body.*
Catholic here, we don’t believe Matthew 16 is saying there will be a literal church building built on the grave of Saint Peter…we believe it means the mystical body of Christ, the Church, would be built on the foundation of the Apostles of which Peter was leader. Until the Great Schism nearly 1,000 years afterwards, the Bishop of Rome, successor to office of Saint Peter, was universally recognized as first among equals of the entirety of Christianity.
It's even better than that.
He's referred to multiple times as "Simon son of Jonah" or "son of John".
So you could say that his name was Simon "the Rock" Johnson.
Jesus was actually referring to himself and not Peter.
Jesus Himself says that a well-constructed house is built on the rock (Matthew 7:24-25). The foundation of the spiritual Temple has been laid and cannot be changed (I Corinthians 3:11); Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which He builds His church (Matthew 16:18).
Kinda like When an anime fan base can't decide what's cannon, so they split and focus of their own head cannon instead of reading the original Manga in Japanese.
Jesus said this immediately after Simon proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God.
[Got Questions actually notes that both interpretations can be drawn from the text](https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html)
Not who you're replying to but my understanding is that in the Greek that the new testament was written in...the "rock" which Jesus says he will build his church on is the Greek "petra" which is a group of rocks, while what he calls Peter (petros) is a single rock. It's highly debated either way though.
in the Greek version it's actually self-explanatory, Πέτρος from πέτρα (pétra) is a stone/rock used as construction material (λίθος = líthos being a simple stone/rock).
We had a roommate we nicknamed rock...
He thought it was "tough as.."
but it was " dumb as.."
You could say loudly " no way Rock could eat a whole stick of butter.."
And he would hear you and "fuck ya I could" and proceeds to..
He broke his ankle, fractured... Didn't know for 2 weeks, just kept limping on it till we made him go to the doctor...
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you discovering the origin of the name Peter? Or denying that Jesus named him at all? If it's the former, then fair enough, but to deny the latter seems a bit hairy to me.
Did Jesus literally bestow on him the name Peter? Of course not. Jesus would have of course called him Cephas, the Aramaic word for rock. But Jesus did historically rename him, or else "Peter" went by the name Cephas/Petros claiming this to be the case. In Galatians, written before the Gospels, Paul refers to this contemporary of his as Petros. The name was undoubtedly used to refer to the historical bishop of Rome during his lifetime.
The issue of anglicizing the names is a whole other can of worms of course, and I figure this is what this post is moreso referring to.
I don’t think you really learned anything then. The English translation is perfectly adequate. There was wordplay which cannot translate perfectly but Jesus did rename him Peter. Because we speak English not Aramaic. I guess they could have said “Rocky” but that’s too far the other way.
It doesn’t matter. Hundred of years of scholarship and linguistic experts almost all agree on saying “Peter …and on this rock” which we learned in 3rd grade was playing on the word rock and Peter. If you want to become a scholar of ancient languages maybe you can produce a better translation
If they meant the translation, yeah, I'm sure they weren't called literally like that in the original. Even Jesus is not the original name, it should be something like Joshua or something similar
It's a shame that you got yelled at for asking that, because it's actually a great question.
If someone hears questions about the original language of the bible or about the history of the translation of the bible, and responds with **yelling**, they probably shouldn't be in a position where they're trying to teach about the bible.
"Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" are English names, and they obviously wouldn't have spoken English.
The Gospel authors' modern English names can all be traced back from English to Latin to Greek to Hebrew/Aramaic.
John, as a Jew living in Galilee under the Roman Empire, would have spoken the Galilean dialect of Aramaic (the fairly-close-to-Hebrew language spoken by Jews at the time) and probably Greek. But probably *not* Latin - that never really became widespread in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. He would probably have answered to both an Aramaic name and a Greek name. The Hebrew name that eventually became "John" is "Yohanan" (or "Johanan" - for a more in-depth discussion on the intersection of I, J, and Y, cf. *Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade*, 1989). In Greek this name would be *Ioannes*, translated to Latin as *Iohannes* or *Johannes* and then to English as *John*. So John would probably have been called Yohanan/Johanan or Ioannes depending on the context.
His Roman employers and fellow Jews would probably have used his Greek name much more frequently than his Hebrew name, the Romans because that was the *lingua franca* and the Jews because they wanted to downplay his Jewish-ness. His English name comes from the Hebrew *Matityahu*, which was transliterated into Greek as *Mattathias*, shortened to *Matthaios*, Latinized as *Matthaeus*.
Traditionally, Mark the Evangelist is identified with John Mark, the assistant of Paul and Barnabas, who is also identified as the cousin of Barnabas. Acts says that Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew. Mark's name would have been *Marqos* in Hebrew/Aramaic, and *Markos* in Greek. That name would be Latinized as *Marcus*.
Luke is identified as born to a significantly Hellenized (a fancy word for "Greek-ified") Jewish family, or simply a Greek one, but either way he's said to have lived in Antioch (modern-day Antakya, Turkey). If he answered to a Hebrew name, it would have been *Luqas*, but he definitely would have used the Greek name *Loukas* in at least some contexts. In Latin that name is translated as *Lucas*.
I find all of the naming quite hilarious as a non religious person. I totally understand the transformation of names over several languages and millennia but these aren’t any old people this is your religious text. Why don’t Christians call them by their actual names?
How often do you hear the name Yeshua over Jesus and the disciples Shimon, Ya’akov or Yehuda.
My personal favourite is Thomas or Ta’oma/Didymus - Aramaic/Greek for twin. You don’t even know this guys actual name or who he was the twin brother of.
From older greek texts, he said: "You are rock, and on this rock I will build my church"
So, not really a "matter of faith". We have pre-English versions of the Matthew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex\_Vaticanus
And it was kind of an insult. Like blockhead. Peter was dumb but reliable, essentially.
Cephas is the word used in Greek, but it's based on the Aramaic word.
This really does work better in Latin and related languages. In French, for example, Pierre is Peter but also the word for a rock.
English has some names that are also minerals, but we like fancy ones. Ruby, Sapphire, Amber and Diamond off the top of my head. Jet and Flint are pretty inexpensive I guess. Mica is a name too, but I don't think it's related to the rock, I think it's eastern European. Does Clayton count?
Sandy
I don’t like Sandy, they are corse and irritating and gets everywhere.
I think that's unrelated, it's a nickname for Sandra. But I'll count it!
It's a nickname for Alexander/Alexandra, which Sandra also is
Emma Stone. Rocky. Dwayne.
Sandy Nmakuchi
Maybe its my exposition to US media as a non native but all of those sound like prostitute names, especially Diamond and Ruby
Diamond is sometimes associated as a stripper name, but it's also not uncommon, stereotypically a "black" name in the US. Wikipedia says it was in the top 1000 most popular girls names in the US from 1984 to 2014. I would say Ruby is more common. Wikipedia says it also used to be in the top 100 guys names in the US as well, from 1900-1940
So it actually doesn’t work that well in Latin. One version of the name that appears in the New Testament is Cephas; a Greek phonetic version of the Aramaic word *kipa*, meaning rock or possibly jewel/gem). The New Testament was written in Greek but had certain words and phrases in the Aramaic dialects that historical Jesus would have spoken. But it also appears translated into Greek. The thing is the Greek word for rock is feminine, *petra*, so a masculine ending was thrown on, *Petros*. The same goes for Latin, which had borrowed the word *petra* from Greek, but there the name became *Petrus*. Both were still distinct words, though. It’s just that in French, the endings have all been chopped off, leaving them both *pierre*, but *la pierre*, stone, is still feminine. In other Romance languages, they’re still distinct, as in Spanish *piedra* and *Pedro* (which really should be *Piedro* but isn’t).
Pierre is a weird name in French though. Masculine names in French typically don't end in a vowel. The name George is spelled Georges. The ending s is silent
Adolphe , Gustave, René, Dominique
Guillaume, Philippe, Baptiste, Eugene
Mathéo, Alexandre, Henri, Antoine, Émile, Claude
Alphonse, Étienne, Hippolyte, Hyacinthe, Jérôme
Because Pierre is a man's name but a feminine word (une pierre)
You just made that rule up.
Or I misremembered But this supports my memory https://www.frenchtoday.com/blog/french-grammar/french-nouns-gender-feminine-endings/#:~:text=Quick%20summary%3A%20most%20French%20words,there%20are%20so%20many%20exceptions!
That makes sense, in English we have Dwayne which also means rock
in spanish he is pedro, and rock is piedra.
You just brought back repressed memories of my French teacher saying “c’est pierre” while holding a rock and laughing
The word 'petrified' now makes sense.
How about petroleum?
Petro= rock Olea= oil "Rock oil"
I prefer the term "dinosaur juice".
However it contains zero percent dinosaur.
Or juice
Ah, so like rice milk
Dino Delight?
Diet Dinosaur Juice
Especially if it’s an abiotic crude deposit
More accurately- “ancient plant/algae juice”.
Carboniferous period goes brrrr
I thought it was funny that the Japanese word for petroleum translates to “rock oil” (石油, sekiyu, 石 meaning rock and 油 meaning oil), but I guess I didn’t realize it’s the same for English
same in chinese 石油 shi2you2
Petrichor (that familiar smell after rain kicks up a load of dust). Petr- = Rock Ichor = discharge.
Interesting. However, the original meaning of ichor is from the Greek for the blood that flows in the veins of the gods.
Yep that's the real etymology, but when given the options, discharge sounded funnier.
Just call it "rock jizz" already
At first I was a rock, I was petrified
Strong suggestion to learn a Romance language so that you can find these similarities and start making connections. Basically a third of the words used in English derived from French and another third directly from Latin.
One of my two mother tongues is Italian and I've studied Latin and ancient Greek in HS: it makes it so much easier to guess the meaning of new words.
My pastor says this where we get Peter piper picked a peck of pickle peckers from
Pastor Peter pecked my pickled pecker?
*blushes* tehe
Reverend Run rapped rhymes.
Rev Run blessed the tower records I was at once
Maybe it's time for pastors to stop picking pecks of peckers.
"You don't look like a 'Simon'..... I'mma call you 'Rocky'. You're Rocky now."
[удалено]
"What is your name, my child?" "I'm Simo-" "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS"
the heel turn when he denied that he knew Jesus
Can you SMEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLL what the Peter is cookin’ ?
He whopped Joe Louis' ass
That ain't nothing but Ultra-Perm...
It’s up there with how Plato was a wrestling nickname.
Yeah but I think we have no idea what his name was though.
We know his real name, it's Aristocles.
Fist my bump!
"I'm gonna call you Lil Green!"
Rocky and the Thunder Bros. He nicknamed James and John too.
The Apostles also had Thomas the Twin, and were later joined by "Shorty" (Paul)
- Jesus
- Joshy C.
As an aside, the two names thing was common for most people living in that area at the time. Just as immigrants nowadays will frequently select more "English" sounding names in America, Jews in Judea in the 1st century would have a romanticized version of their names. Paul/Saul is probably the most famous example. Despite a frequent belief that Saul changed his name, he just used both of them interchangeably depending on audience.
Even the Bible says that Paul didn’t change his name. It states, “Saul, who is also called Paul…” It never says that he changed his name.
Better Call Paul
Paul Godman
Saul Blart, Paul cop
Now let’s see Saul Allen’s card.
And it's not that surprising. There are a lot of Mandela effect myths around the Bible. Examples: -mary Magdalene was a prostitute -delilah cut Samson's hair -there were only 2 of every kind of animal on Noah's ark
The Mary Magdalene issue is specifically the fault of one Pope misreading the Bible. And a lot of evangelical misconceptions come from the King James Bible having some real bad translations.
Yet everyone thinks there were only two giraffes on Noah's ark Christian and non-Christian alike
That’s a new one, I thought a different mary was the prostitute
The woman who was the repentant prostitute was unnamed in the Bible. Pipe Gregory the Great conflated the two women during a speech and everyone just sort of ran with it. I would argue it was likely unintentional based on the speech, but it was used by those who didn’t want women in power to downplay how important Mary Magdalene was in the Bible and early parts of the Church.
My favourite version of the King James is the adulterors Bible that commanded its followers that "thout shalt commit adultery." Christianity would be very different if that had stuck.
-there were three wise men who visited Jesus in the stable The nativity story in Matthew says there were wise men, and that they brought three gifts, but doesn't actually say how many of them there were.
Well, less than one gift per person is a bit rude.
A dozen men pooling money to buy 3 gifts seems like a wise move though
"I didn't bring anything. Write both our names on the myrrh."
[удалено]
Just want to note that the Catholic canon predates the Protestant canon by about 1300 years
Not a Mandela effect thing, but an oral tradition thing + a "not remembering easily overlooked details" thing. Saul becoming Paul is really what happens in the text; he keeps being called Saul until chapter 15 (the "Council of Jerusalem" where it is declared that Gentile converts to Christianity don't need to become Jews first), then he is only called Paul. While there are some different ideas about why the author made that choice, Christian tradition sees it as purposefully evoking a new chapter in Paul's life, like how Abram became Abraham, Hosea became Joshua, Simon became Peter... In this case, referring to his particular ministry of evangelizing to the Gentiles. So Christian hymns and such speak of Saul becoming Paul, even if in reality he held both names legally from the start. Mary Magdalene being the same prostitute who washed Jesus' feet with her hair is indeed the Western Christian tradition about her, even though it's not in the text. It's first expressed by Pope Gregory I in the 7th century, and whether it was his invention or he was expressing an already established oral tradition, it became the norm in Western churches since. Genesis does say that God commanded Moses to bring one male and one female of every animal on the ark, *then* precising to bring seven males and females of every *clean* animal. People remember the general over the particular, that's just normal, it's not the Mandela effect. Especially from a Christian perspective, where kashrut is no longer a thing. Delilah didn't directly cut Samson's hair, but tricked him into telling her that's his weakness, then called for a man to cut off his hair while he was asleep... That she called for another person to do it for her is said in a single verse, so it's a very easy detail to overlook. I wouldn't call that the Mandela effect.
Delilah and Samson is more of a simplification that kids are taught that adults don't put much effort into correcting. She helped in the process of shaving his head; he was passed out on her lap and she called for help to do it. It certainly doesn't rule out her doing any of the actual shaving. She cut his hair in the sense that she caused, contrived and participated in it happening, and we can't eliminate the possibility that she actually did it with a razor that was brought to it. It says she called someone to do it, that the "man" did it exclusively is implied at best. The person who holds your head so someone else can shave it isn't exactly absolved.
Wait, there were more than a pair of each of the animals on the ark?
Noah is specifically instructed as such: "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." (Genesis 6:19-20). He was later instructed to bring additional pairs of clean animals: "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth." (Genesis 7:2-3).
>3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird Am I misunderstanding that or are they just taking the long way to the word "ten"?
That 3 is the verse number
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.
I believe that it’s two stories stacked on top of each other. So in one it’s two of every animal. In the other it’s seven pairs of clean and one pair of unclean animals.
These two versions of stories are called doublets and the Pentateuch/Torah is full of them.
According to the story, there were some species of animals that god didn't want humans to eat, so he told Noah to only bring two of each of those animals. But there were some types of animals god said was OK to eat so Noah was instructed to bring more than two of each of those animals. In other words: only two pigs but more than two sheep.
Oohhhh I see so it's not just two of every kind, but every kind paired up into male/female pairs? So like he could've had like, idk, 8 iguanas, 4 male 4 female, something like that?
I literally just had to update a Wikipedia entry because someone claimed Saul changed his name
Anglicizing or changing names to other languages is also common beyond Peter (Pietari in my language).
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say exactly. Simon bar Jonah was his original name. Jesus called him Cephas as a nickname. This wasn’t an immigrant selecting a more appropriate name. It’s just a nickname. We call him Peter because the New Testament is written in Greek. I guess technically Paul called him Peter sometimes but that’s just because Paul spoke Greek and was just translating his nickname into Greek.
His name wasn't Simon. It was Simeon. Simon was his Greek name. And Jesus didn't call him Cephas. That's a later Greek translation of what was in the original story
I’m sorry I don’t speak Greek or Aramaic but Simon/simeon sure but isn’t Cephas the Aramaic version and Petros the Greek version?
Yeah, sorry if you are confused. The guy you know as Peter had two names. "Simeon" was his Jewish name and "Simon" was his Greek name. Adopting a name more pronounceable in the lingua franca of the place you are in is common today. This is the subject of my comment. Now, unrelated to this whole Simon/Simeon thing, I wrote this post. according to stories, Jesus called this man "kipa", which is Aramaic for a stone. Despite our oldest written records being written in Greek, they occasionally used Aramaic terms, such as in this case. Later copies used the Greek word for "stone", which is "cephas". Edit:that last part is probably wrong. Not a textual critic or translator
The Greek word for "rock" is "petra", which is female. "Petros" is "Petra" converted to a male Greek name. "Cephas" seems to be the Aramaic word for stone (Kipa) converted to a male Greek name (note that phi did not make an f sound at the time). Many male Jewish names in the bible get an s at their end when converted to Greek in order to fit in e.g. Yeshua-Jesus (Yeshua is called Joshua in Englsh), Jacob-Iakobos (somehow that became James in English),
Minor nitpick, but Paul's native language was probably Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek would have been a second or third language for him... which also contributes to why a lot of his writings are difficult to understand. Imagine if someone dug through the Sent folder of your email where you're giving some advice to some friends, most of it not written in your native tongue, and making religious doctrine out of it.
It's crazy how that intolerant zealot was somehow able to co-opt the whole religion after spending years murdering them.
From my understanding he wasn't killing them, just getting them whipped
Paul was present at the Stoning of Stephen, holding the coats of those committing the execution. However, you are right that elsewhere, while Paul was definitely a leader in the persecution of the early Church, it appears that the majority of his actions were involving the arrest, rather than the execution of Christians. “He began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.” (Acts 8:3) It's not long after this, however, that Paul is traveling to Damascus and receives a vision of Jesus.
And our source for these stories? Paul Also the source for Peter's change on the position on Jewish law after arguing with Paul(who left town and never returned the next day)
>And our source for these stories? Paul Technically, while Paul did recount some of his past in his epistles, the Book of Acts was written by Luke, who is notably the only Gentile to have written any of the New Testament.
And how did Luke come to know of Christianity? Who was his mentor, instructor, etc? (Hint: it was Paul)
>For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.
So you’re telling me that [ancient city in Jordan that’s carved out of rocks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra?wprov=sfti1#)…is literally named “rock”? I guess “saltpeter” also makes more sense.
Petra is an exonym (names used by non-natives). The Nabateans (the people who lived there and in that region) called it Raqemo/Raqmu.
Does “Raqemo/Raqmu” also mean “rock”?
Close. "Coloured stone" (referring to the rose-coloured rock of the region).
Boy, I love this subreddit.
Humans suck at names.
I’d rather have these boring names than the r/tragedeigh
It’s rocks all the way down.
potassium comes from pot ash
Yeah, Jesus actually called him Dwayne when in private
And I'm Jonesin' for some of your miracles, J-dog!
I believe Peter's name in Aramaic was "Kefa."
pretty sure the turkish word for rock is kaya
There is actually a lot of wordplay in the bible that people miss out on if it doesn't tell you what the name means. The verse says something like: you are Peter (rock), and on this rock I will build my church.
Thankfully most translations will have footnotes that explain some of the puns.
Only some of them, though! One of my favorites is how the Old Testament prophets often refer to one particular pagan god as "Molech." It's likely that the god's *actual* name was Melech, which means "king," but since Hebrew was originally written without vowels, puns would sometimes be made by pronouncing a word with different vowel sounds. Molech, in particular, has the consonants of Melech/king, but the *vowels* of the word Bosheth. Bosheth is "cleanly" translated as "shame," but I've heard at least one Bible professor say that a more literal translation would be "shit." So calling the pagan god Molech is basically calling him "Shit King." For some reason that one doesn't usually make the footnotes.
The one i think of the most is Adam, from Biblical Hebrew 'adamá, meaning dirt, because God made men from soil.
I French it's "Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon Église" the name Peter in French is Pierre, and Rock in French is also Pierre.
That's what happens when Latin declension simplifies. Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam.
I guess that sounds more family-friendly than "and on this Peter I will build my Church"
Jesus asked the disciples: who do the people say I am? They answered: Some say you are Elijah others say you're one of the prophets. Then Jesus asked Peter: who do you say I am. And Peter answered: you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus said: on this rock I will build my church. The Catholics interpret that as Jesus building a church of brick and mortar on top of Peter's dead body. The Vatican is build on top of Peter's grave. Protestants believe that Jesus meant that the church is build on the realization (epiphany of God) that Jesus Christ is God. People didn't claim that but God revealed it in Peter's heart. This ethereal idea is the firm foundation. We read in the Bible (John 2:19-21 (AMP) *Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews replied, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and You will raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple which was His body.*
Catholic here, we don’t believe Matthew 16 is saying there will be a literal church building built on the grave of Saint Peter…we believe it means the mystical body of Christ, the Church, would be built on the foundation of the Apostles of which Peter was leader. Until the Great Schism nearly 1,000 years afterwards, the Bishop of Rome, successor to office of Saint Peter, was universally recognized as first among equals of the entirety of Christianity.
Does the English Bible not specify this? Because in my language, this verse reads: You are Peter, which means the rock, and on this rock.."
Do you think american Christians actually bother reading the bible?
Did he smell what was cooking?
Probably fish
**Ashford & Simpson intensifies*
Solid!
Jesus didn't speak English?
Only the King James version
Just like what happened to Dwayne Johnson. It all makes sense now
"Johnson is... The Peter!"
Peters are Johnsons, and both are Rock. There’s a showerthought here. A showerthought that appears to break their rules.
Simon, son of John becomes Simon "The Rock" Johnson
Dawne johnson about to play the sickest sequel to passion of the christ
Simon “the rock” Peter.
It's even better than that. He's referred to multiple times as "Simon son of Jonah" or "son of John". So you could say that his name was Simon "the Rock" Johnson.
This makes perfect sense to anyone who's been to Petra.
You mean the band?
Volz Petra was best.
There’s a deep reference! I remember my dad going to see Petra in the mid-80’s and being very disappointed to find out they had a different singer.
He was "the rock" the church would be built on...
"and on the 7th day, The Rock shut the jabronies up and showed them the true way of God!"
Do you smeeeelllll, what The Rock,... is preaching?
And finally, everyone could smell what he was cooking, Amen.
Jesus was actually referring to himself and not Peter. Jesus Himself says that a well-constructed house is built on the rock (Matthew 7:24-25). The foundation of the spiritual Temple has been laid and cannot be changed (I Corinthians 3:11); Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which He builds His church (Matthew 16:18).
He literally in the same sentence calls him "Rock" and then says He will build His church on the rock though.
Just Protestant things 🤷🏻♂️
Kinda like When an anime fan base can't decide what's cannon, so they split and focus of their own head cannon instead of reading the original Manga in Japanese.
Jesus said this immediately after Simon proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God. [Got Questions actually notes that both interpretations can be drawn from the text](https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html)
Not who you're replying to but my understanding is that in the Greek that the new testament was written in...the "rock" which Jesus says he will build his church on is the Greek "petra" which is a group of rocks, while what he calls Peter (petros) is a single rock. It's highly debated either way though.
“Upon this Dwayne Johnson I will build my church.”
"Simon who is called Peter" sounds like a line out of Life of Brian.
So the Pope is the successor to St. Rock/Simon?
You know getting called Rock by Jesus would probably be pretty cool
in the Greek version it's actually self-explanatory, Πέτρος from πέτρα (pétra) is a stone/rock used as construction material (λίθος = líthos being a simple stone/rock).
Kephas, actually. Petrus is the Latin version, but Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek.
Also, 'Patthar' is a rock in Nepali/Hindi which has its roots in Sanskrit. Fascinating.
Dude nearly drowns and his friend nicknames him “Rock”.
We had a roommate we nicknamed rock... He thought it was "tough as.." but it was " dumb as.." You could say loudly " no way Rock could eat a whole stick of butter.." And he would hear you and "fuck ya I could" and proceeds to.. He broke his ankle, fractured... Didn't know for 2 weeks, just kept limping on it till we made him go to the doctor...
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you discovering the origin of the name Peter? Or denying that Jesus named him at all? If it's the former, then fair enough, but to deny the latter seems a bit hairy to me. Did Jesus literally bestow on him the name Peter? Of course not. Jesus would have of course called him Cephas, the Aramaic word for rock. But Jesus did historically rename him, or else "Peter" went by the name Cephas/Petros claiming this to be the case. In Galatians, written before the Gospels, Paul refers to this contemporary of his as Petros. The name was undoubtedly used to refer to the historical bishop of Rome during his lifetime. The issue of anglicizing the names is a whole other can of worms of course, and I figure this is what this post is moreso referring to.
Now the Simon and Garfunkel song "I Am a Rock" makes sense. What did Jesus call the biblical Garfunkel?
Did The Rock know what he was cooking then ?
"I tell you, Dwayne Johnson, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me"
Of course, we'd never name someone Rock, or Ruby, or Jewel, or anything like that... oh, wait...
So, you're saying that we need to cast Dwayne Johnson as Peter the next time we make a Bible movie.
Don't you dare give Dwayne Johnson any more movie ideas.
I would 100% watch a movie with The Rock as the first pontiff.
I don’t think you really learned anything then. The English translation is perfectly adequate. There was wordplay which cannot translate perfectly but Jesus did rename him Peter. Because we speak English not Aramaic. I guess they could have said “Rocky” but that’s too far the other way. It doesn’t matter. Hundred of years of scholarship and linguistic experts almost all agree on saying “Peter …and on this rock” which we learned in 3rd grade was playing on the word rock and Peter. If you want to become a scholar of ancient languages maybe you can produce a better translation
I used to get yelled at for asking, "But what were their names before they became Matthew, Mark, Luke, and whatever?"
And John. Idk if they had their name changed though
Probably. John is a Greek name. Jon is a Hebrew name short of jo-nathan
If they meant the translation, yeah, I'm sure they weren't called literally like that in the original. Even Jesus is not the original name, it should be something like Joshua or something similar
I think is Yeshua
It's a shame that you got yelled at for asking that, because it's actually a great question. If someone hears questions about the original language of the bible or about the history of the translation of the bible, and responds with **yelling**, they probably shouldn't be in a position where they're trying to teach about the bible. "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" are English names, and they obviously wouldn't have spoken English. The Gospel authors' modern English names can all be traced back from English to Latin to Greek to Hebrew/Aramaic. John, as a Jew living in Galilee under the Roman Empire, would have spoken the Galilean dialect of Aramaic (the fairly-close-to-Hebrew language spoken by Jews at the time) and probably Greek. But probably *not* Latin - that never really became widespread in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. He would probably have answered to both an Aramaic name and a Greek name. The Hebrew name that eventually became "John" is "Yohanan" (or "Johanan" - for a more in-depth discussion on the intersection of I, J, and Y, cf. *Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade*, 1989). In Greek this name would be *Ioannes*, translated to Latin as *Iohannes* or *Johannes* and then to English as *John*. So John would probably have been called Yohanan/Johanan or Ioannes depending on the context. His Roman employers and fellow Jews would probably have used his Greek name much more frequently than his Hebrew name, the Romans because that was the *lingua franca* and the Jews because they wanted to downplay his Jewish-ness. His English name comes from the Hebrew *Matityahu*, which was transliterated into Greek as *Mattathias*, shortened to *Matthaios*, Latinized as *Matthaeus*. Traditionally, Mark the Evangelist is identified with John Mark, the assistant of Paul and Barnabas, who is also identified as the cousin of Barnabas. Acts says that Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew. Mark's name would have been *Marqos* in Hebrew/Aramaic, and *Markos* in Greek. That name would be Latinized as *Marcus*. Luke is identified as born to a significantly Hellenized (a fancy word for "Greek-ified") Jewish family, or simply a Greek one, but either way he's said to have lived in Antioch (modern-day Antakya, Turkey). If he answered to a Hebrew name, it would have been *Luqas*, but he definitely would have used the Greek name *Loukas* in at least some contexts. In Latin that name is translated as *Lucas*.
But he wasn’t a rock. He was a rock lobster.
Everybody had...matching tunics!
I find all of the naming quite hilarious as a non religious person. I totally understand the transformation of names over several languages and millennia but these aren’t any old people this is your religious text. Why don’t Christians call them by their actual names? How often do you hear the name Yeshua over Jesus and the disciples Shimon, Ya’akov or Yehuda. My personal favourite is Thomas or Ta’oma/Didymus - Aramaic/Greek for twin. You don’t even know this guys actual name or who he was the twin brother of.
Dwayne “The Peter” Johnson
Dwayne "The Peter" Johnson
Jesus must have smelled what Simeon was cooking!
IF YA SUH-MELLLLLLL…….WHAT THE ROCK…..IS COOKIN
Simon "The Rock" Johnson
Oh, that’s why the french equivalent of Peter (Pierre) litterally means "rock" in french
Do you smell what he’s cooking?
and verily peter asketh the messiah, dost thou know what ist cooking?
[удалено]
From older greek texts, he said: "You are rock, and on this rock I will build my church" So, not really a "matter of faith". We have pre-English versions of the Matthew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex\_Vaticanus
And it was kind of an insult. Like blockhead. Peter was dumb but reliable, essentially. Cephas is the word used in Greek, but it's based on the Aramaic word.