Using methods<\/a> that have<\/a> been<\/a> proven<\/a> effective<\/a> in<\/a> YouTube<\/a> videos<\/a> and<\/a> other<\/a> internet<\/a> venues<\/a>, but using them better<\/a>, I\u2019ve uncovered the following:<\/p>\n We know from the New Testament that Peter was married (it mentions his mother-in-law<\/a>, and let\u2019s be serious: would anyone take on just<\/em> a mother-in-law, without getting a wife in the process?). Yet because of the rise of celibacy in the church, this truth has been obscured. Indeed, it was for this reason that Peter\u2019s son had to go into hiding, to protect his father\u2019s status as pope.<\/p>\n It was presumably to Ireland that he and his mother fled, and this explains his surname. Once again, it has been shown that the Hebrew \u201cand\u201d would have been pronounced \u201cu\u201d, not \u201co\u201d. But \u201cO'\u201d is a common prefix in Irish surnames meaning \u201cson of\u201d. And who would \u201cO\u2019Bamah\u201d, the \u201cson of the (one seated in the) high place\u201d, be understood to be in Ireland? Who but the son of St. Peter, the son of the one in the exalted position of occupying St. Peter\u2019s throne in the Vatican. Could the evidence be any plainer?<\/p>\n This of course also explains why there has been such confusion<\/a> about Barack Obama\u2019s birth certificate. They are all forgeries, since he is nearly 2,000 years old. Well, all except this one<\/a>.<\/p>\n The identity of the antichrist may still be uncertain, but obviously the anti-pope<\/a> is the one currently occupying the role and preventing<\/a> Barack Obama, the son of St. Peter, from taking his rightful place. They have fought before and it did not go well for the son of Peter<\/a>. Perhaps next time will be different<\/a>. <\/p><\/div>\n Because of all the speculation about Obama being the antichrist, we\u2019ve been distracted from the obvious truth: not only is he not the antichrist, but he is the rightful Pope. Using methods that have been proven effective in YouTube videos and other internet venues, but using them better, I\u2019ve uncovered the following: First, it is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/static.flickr.com\/3627\/3618259111_1caec0c444.jpg\")
<\/a>First, it is clear that \u201cBarack\u201d is not from the same root as the Hebrew word baraq<\/em> which means \u201clightning\u201d. As many have pointed out, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, not Hebrew. In Aramaic, \u201cbar\u201d means \u201cson of\u201d, as in the well-known example Simon bar Yona, \u201cSimon the son of Jonah\u201d. Indeed, it is as though the Gospel authors wanted to ensure that this clue would not be missed, nor would its connection with Peter, when they included his Aramaic name in such detail. For who is the one whose name is changed to \u201crock\u201d? None other than Peter, the first pope. And so who is bar-rock, the son of the one called rock? The son of St. Peter!<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-3020350979693298498?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")