this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
779 points (97.7% liked)

Microblog Memes

7681 readers
1714 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 123 points 1 day ago (9 children)

The names don't have obvious meaning in English but they did in their original languages. Simon is a Hebrew name from the torah and means "he who hears". Peter comes from Petros, the Greek translation of Cephas, the original Aramaic name Jesus gave him and means "rock". So Jesus gave a Jewish guy with a Hebrew name an Aramaic (nick)name because Jesus saw him as the rock (foundation) of his church.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

i was once taught by a guy named Pete Rock and he was the first to tell you that his name means Rock Rock lol

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Similarly Platos name means broad, which was because he was a wrestler and kept up his physique. It also spawned a joke I'm fond of.

Diogenes wanders into Platos academy and says "Broadly speaking-" To which Plato responds "Yes I was now shut up"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

also couldn't the term mean "jacked" basically? like Plato= Daddy Swole essentially

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

Fuck you for this acursed comment.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I am amazed that the name "Pierre" (also french for stone) litterally comes from the greek for "rock"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 14 hours ago

Rome and it's consequences

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, his name was Simeon bar Jonah, Simon, son of Jonah, or by modern style, Simon Johnson. Then Jesus pops up and starts calling him the Rock... Simon the Rock Johnson. (also fun gravy, Dwayne means fishhook)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago

I thought Dwayne meant pipe?

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Now everything make sense. In spanish, "Peter" is "Pedro", that sounds like "Piedra", that means "Rock"

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

See also 'petrify' (make into rock) and 'petroleum' (rock fat)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The female for "Pedro" is "Petra", what make it more obvious, and also "Petronila" is a woman name, that comes from "Petroleum"

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I’d be fucking mad if my parents named me after petroleum

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Late XX century in Mexico, were pretty common name your child based in their born date. So, there are so much woman called "Petronila" because were born in March 18th

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

I take it back, that’s a cool tradition

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 hours ago

"The name's Diesel now"

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 day ago

omg, in french Peter is translated to Pierre which also means "rock"! i always assumed that was a coincidence

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:18

BTW I know this one because of Angels & Demons.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

You can see them too?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Hmm, makes it more likely that Jesus never existed and the whole thing is made up by the church, imo. It's always retrospective with names and meanings, especially iif you name them "foundation".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Jesus obviously existed. He wasn't a god (he never claimed he was) but he obviously existed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

No, it's not obvious at all. There's no historic account of him aside of the bible. And yeah, the trinity thing, that was the church ~300 a.c.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

There is historical account of him, just not from contemporary figures.

There are Roman historians who write of him, but they came years after.

It is generally accepted that the Christ figure is based on a historical figure however the story we are told now is much more tenuous as it is largely based on written works from folks who are retelling tales that may (or may not) have been known

Mind you we also have historical writings about Santa Claus

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

they don't really talk of Jesus specifically though that's the kicker.

If Jesus did miracles and had such an impact on the empire his name would be known his story would be better known.

The claim that Roman historians wrote about him is semi true they claim there are Christians and they have a Messiah but they never talk about what he did or anything. They mostly speak of the persecution of these people. So it makes a lot of things we think about Jesus unverified.

The only thing we know is Pontius Pilate under the rule of Tiberius allegedly killed their Messiah. That's it.

The name Jesus, who he was or what he did is unverified and likely largely stolen. I'm pretty sure Gilgamesh was tied to being a carpenter or a son of a carpenter for instance

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago

There are no contemporary records of Jesus.

Even of Pilate killing a guy named Jesus.

It all came later.

I’m simply saying there is a historical figure who fits the bill BUT the story as folks know it now starts as a retelling of a tale by people who came later.

So it starts with an untrustworthy narrator.

I’m not trying to say he existed one way or the other just that it’s more likely a guy did exist who loosely fits the bill and the story as we know it was able to grow and be built from there.

I’d bet the “real figure”, if I had to speculate, was more likely rejecting the theism of Judaism over trying to push another religion.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Don’t know why you got downvoted, because that is some very good information. Thanks.