Posted by susan C on October 15, 2001, at 15:13:46
In reply to Pete, formerly known as Simon ... » jay, posted by Mitchell on October 14, 2001, at 21:28:13
Hi, Mitchell, Your post was truely inspiring. I am saving it to read again, when I have more sense to me wee brain. Also, I cant keep everyone separated, so if you are Mitch or Michael or any other M, I apologize. Any who, welcome and May I introduce you to Paxvox, another PB word-lanuage nut?
He knows latin, which really impresses me...I am just a junk word and phrase collector...and silly i-ster
mouse with no sense
susan C> Peter, formerly known as Simon, the brother of Andrew, was a 1st century Galillean fishermen recruited by an heir to the Hebrew throne to serve as a leader of a spiritual movement in occupied Palestine. Peter is reported to have once denied any affiliation with the Hebrew royalty when Roman soldiers and Hebrew religious leaders were interrogating Jesus, the 1st century heir to the Hebrew throne. Peter, sometimes known as Simon Peter, was later dubbed St. Peter by members a Roman sect that embraced as its core mythology the legacy of the abdicated Isrealite king. Peter reportedly died as the victim of crucifixion, by some accounts on an inverted crucifix, which the legend says he requested as a symbol his lesser status in comparison to the martyred king.
>
> The idiom "for Pete's sake" is widely believed to be a minced oath - a milder version of "for Christ's sake" - first used by members of sects that prohibit references to a supreme being in vain utterances. It is now more often used as a rhetorical device to add emphasis, especially when a speaker wants to claim axiomatic merit of an argument without providing a logical basis.
poster:susan C
thread:12252
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20011015/msgs/12576.html