for he is ‘the 144 sons’ while ‘baptism’ is False as the curse upon us by the evil fish-souls [MainPage] [+Amorites theme] [version ; 2024-11nov.26-28] |
| [extensive version of 5Nov’24 page] | 
|
page content :
part I : intro :
identifying the problem
– ‘baptism’ has NO connection whatsoever (!) to the OT
– Esau’s beloved deceit “to have things bestowed upon this flesh”
– the (biblical-) text about ‘baptism’ : their utter vagueness is a Red Flag
#1 so WHY was Christ ‘baptized’ ?
#2 invoking a Curse – through ‘baptism’
#3 NO concept of ‘a forerunner of Christ’ in the OT
#4 Esau deeply hated ‘the sons of Ishral’ — and inverted them as ‘a forerunner’
part II
‘Baptism’ in ancient cultures
– Egypt : Osiris drowned ‘in the flood’ – then resurrected
– the extensive “fish-soul” (!) concept in the Spells
[as demon-souls + ‘dog’ and ‘dolphin’ souls]
– the curious fish-souls ÁABT : “they guided Râ’s boat” (the Daniel goat) to the East ,
namely “straight to the tree of good & evil” with her mixed-waters
that later would be transported by the Nile to Mystery-Babylon ;
per context the ÁABT-fishes are of “the serpent race” [Genesis 3]
– the “ichthus” as alleged ‘christian symbol’
– Sumer : Dagon & Oannes (‘John’) : the fish-god
– depiction of the fish-god Dagon libating (‘baptizing’) a figure (!)
subtheme :
– the evil Amorites and their fish-god
– Amorite in prophets represents “the (matrix-) phallic concept” (a non-eden concept)
– the serpent race link : ‘Jethro’ was Amorite related ? (re-dedication of our Female theme)
– deities of the Amorites :
Dagon but also a type “goddess of (evil-) feminine rule”
– Egypt : mural of the ‘goddess of the copied tree of good & evil libating (‘baptizing’) a figure
part III
there never was a ‘John the Baptist’ – period [Lk.1]
– Esau’s invented “the childless Zacharias & Elisabeth” : a rip-off of the Abraham & Sarah story
– any ‘John’ does unjustice to the 12 disciples [-of the 12 Tribes]
[read : the first Christians] that were appointed to be our caretakers
– the alleged miraculous birth of ‘John’ VEXES the birth of our Christ
– conclusion :
the entire “John the Baptist” theme is another Esau hoax
theme
… anyone – but you – reading the title would immediately dismiss it ,
not because it could not be true but because of the – even understandable – fear of
Jacob that his life-long cherished anchor points could turn out to have been Invalid ;
though you & we know that the real reason for that fear is The Almighty KJV which
has beguiled him by placing True and false concepts brotherly next to oneanother
yet , like we had to dismiss the “eat My flesh and drink My blood” corruption also
this ‘baptism theme’ has to go since it is no longer maintainable — that we are ‘late’
with this corruption is not so relevant : anyway we would have found it , and (only)
now because it directly links with the re-dedicating our Female theme
and yes the list of corrupted themes seems endless —
probably all of us here have been ‘baptized’ that appeared to be a meaningful event ,
until the moment Red flags pop up suggesting it actually could be a curse upon us ;
which is the reason we honestly need to scrutinize this theme .. okay
identifying the problem
the absolute core : ‘baptism’ has no connection (-whatsoever) to OT
| … and this is a serious problem — the phrase “KJV” & “baptism” is a double Trap >> so that we cannot let ourselves be bamboozled by whatever corrupt lines in NT but first need to make sure that OT indeed mentions nothing of the sort : ofcourse water was used for washing and bathing and even the term ‘ritual washing’ could be used in the sense of ‘before appearing in front of God’ like old-Ishral had to wash themselves before He |
|
would descend upon mt.Horeb or how the high priest had to bathe before he dressed
himself with the pretty garment to meet God – and our Originals upon the Ark – in the
holy of holies — but never no ‘spiritual aspect’ was imparted through the bathing ,
but the washing (or ‘immersion’) was only to reduce the uncleanliness of this awful
ape body as much as possible in order for the soul to have access to Him
… the difference seems minimal but again please : an imparted gift or aspect is quite
something else ! in fact the only valid imparted gift was ‘through blood’ — whether
the blood sprinkled upon the Ark , or later the real gift : through His blood !
Esau’s deceit ‘to have sacred things bestowed upon this flesh‘
… as a dangerous concept he interwove throughout all of NT —
he removed every notion of “the soul having to die to Self , to her own flesh” when she
follows Christ , and replaced that with “the un-dead flesh (!) receiving the alleged gifts
of the Spirit” — which is a contradictio in terminis ofcourse — as the reason why you see
evangelical type believers boasting about the so-called ‘fruits of the spirit’ but through
that mask you only feel the incredible boasting of that still very much alive Ego ;
yet with this ‘baptism Ritual’ Esau invented something even móre dangerous :
in all of NT neither the reasons nor the components of ‘baptism’ are explained properly ,
so ‘what’ ‘has died’ during ‘baptism’ ? the flesh ? the soul ? since obviously no ‘sin’
has died — but only in the KJV mindset — since “this ape body IS the sin” ;
and ‘what’ has been ‘resurrected’ – and that ‘in name of the Father’ (sic) ?
worse : what if “an EVIL spiritual component was imparted by this baptism Ritual ?
Red Flags of Vagueness
… this ritual of baptism is variously described as “the person being immersed into the
death of Christ and rising with him as a new creature” or “having turned from the old
life of sin into a new life with Christ” as “publicly identifying with his death , his burial
and his resurrection” where the latter is symbolized by the raising up from the water
as “a demonstration of the transformation of the new birth in the Lord” —
the utter Vagueness should make us shudder , as if a Spelled one is talking here ,
for it looks nothing like the clear explanations of the problem & solution in all of OT !
#1 so then why was Christ himself ‘baptized’ ?
… when Christ – allegedly – is about to be baptized by John the latter objects , saying
‘I need to be baptized by you, yet do you come to me ?’ , to which He replies ‘let it be
so now ; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness’ : this line is so Empty
that it does not explain anything whatsoever , hence the common explanation for His
baptism is “because it was a sign” yet no one knows “of what then” — and sometimes
the meaningless addition is given “to show that he really was the Messiah” —
read : there is no solid foundation for His ‘baptism’ because there is none !
why would He have to go through some illegal short-cut Ritual when He still had to
go through the awful event that would provide any Legal right in the first place .. ? that
is like placing the horse behind the cart !
ofcóurse that is why Esau did not come further as inventing a weak ‘let it be so now’ !
since the entire ‘baptism theme’ is rambling on every side
#2 so : can ‘baptism’ place an evil alien power – as curse – upon us ?
… this nefarious possibility kept bothering us —
in the rest of this page we will explore this real (!) possibility further , but mentioning
it here already for you to keep in the back of your mind : for this ‘baptism’ concept is
a complex false concept operating simultaneously on several fronts —
if the foundation is wrong then so is the immersing action and also the attributes of it
including the figure representing ‘baptism’ as the alleged ‘John’ : only if we proceed
carefully we see that a number of corrupt concepts have been glued together to
suggést ‘a sound whole’ but in fact as bamboozling in order to hide an even more
nefarious theme behind this immersion ritual :
what if the attributes ‘water + baptism + resurrection’ are claimed by a hostile entity
similar to how Adam claimed the fire-offering + the statue idol in the wilderness .. ?
#3 no ‘forerunner of Christ’ in OT
… because of the simple reason that He is ‘the first’ since he himself IS the ‘forerunner’ :
any fantasized concept as “a forerunner from outside” is only based upon the corrupt
Isaiah and Malachi lines allegedly writing ,
“I will send my messenger
ahead of you who will prepare your way –
a voice of one calling in the wilderness ,
“prepare the way for the Lord , make straight paths for him” —
where the original line has read ,
“I will send + my messenger=servant (Christ) (mlk=obd) [< standard phrase]
[who will gather you] (‘144’)
when you will have call=declared (QR=QR) [+my] desert=words (mDBR=DBR)”
while KJV shows another glaring problem :
the “make his path straight” is nonsense for who would do that ? by what authority ?
what human could possibly anoint the very Son of God with God’s own presence ? for
this is not some OT situation where “a prophet called by God anoints a man to be king”
but THE Divine blueprint of the rescue of all of Jacob ! how would he ‘help’ with that ??
#4 ‘John the Baptist’ represented ‘the sons of Ishral’ — you & we
… for the sons ARE an important theme in all prophets ,
and now becomes clear what Esau has done : in order to hide ‘the sons rising up in the
latter days’ he swapped that into ‘a forerunner’ theme , then needed to find another type
action as our “the restoring the Scroll” for his ‘forerunner’ that became “to baptize people”
so that in one and the same move he resolved the other main goal : placing the Curse —
he must have been squeaking of pride because of his diabolical turnaround .. !
ofcourse we still have to start the texts [-and that will be some job !] but glancing over the
lines a number of aspects jump out :
— that “John dwelt in the wilderness” is ofcourse taken from you & we that will be (were)
most unhappy with the KJV as “dwelling in the wilderness” wanting the réal words ,
— the (just done) Mk.23 section greatly helps us here ,
since ‘Simon of Cyrene’ – or whatever his name – represented the 144 sons who says
it wasn’t the same figure as ‘John the Baptist’ here ? wouldn’t that be very logical ?
— the birth (-of ‘John’) :
because it’s unlikely that Esau invented so much text considered the birth of Christ
and the birth of this ‘forerunner’ , where in all prophets “the birth of the 144” is such a
major concept , it is assumable that God chose this way of showing ‘their birth’ ;
— the text sections of ‘John’ speaking ,
they do contain for us interesting phrases “he declares” (sic) , “the sons of + Ishral”
(which does not fit John’s alleged job & context) and saying “you vipers” to the people
(which is Bizarre in the first place — but nót if Esau was addressed here) ;
— his mother was not ‘Elisabeth’ ,
six times so mentioned in one chapter , but “Hannah” (we bet?) since that would link
to our ‘dedication’ (-chanuk) theme ; so that the “John beheaded” story didn’t describe
our ‘Originals’ [-as we mistakenly interpreted : since those themes are for you & we]
but must have been ‘dying + to the flesh’ since also ‘a woman’ & ‘desire’ is involved ,
as a section that may even have been part of the Mk.23 one !
— and whatever his name was it was not ‘John’ -ióannés ,
since that screams the link with the fish-god -oannes as the core of Esau’s ‘baptism’ …
part II
‘baptism’ in ancient cultures
religious baptism
… for most religions, water baptism was a form of ritual washing and purification before
a particular ceremony, sacrifice, or religious service ; where it was viewed as a way to
cleanse oneself both physically and spiritually before meeting with that religion’s deity ;
in some religious circles, baptism was used as a rite of healing and exorcism , since it
was thought that if the water was blessed in a particular way by a priest , it had healing
powers which could wash away the sickness or evil spirit ; while in some regions also
the washing of those that had died was customary so that the spirit of the person could
break free of the dead body and be released into the realm of the gods or into the
renewal of life and reincarnation
therefore ‘ritual washing’ itself is not “wrong” — the people old-Ishral had to bathe and
wash their garments before God would appear at Horeb , just as the high priest had to
bathe before he was dressed with the beautiful garment to appear before the Ark ;
however the spiritual cleansing of sin exclusively happened ‘through blood’ as the
sprinkling of it upon the Ark , and later through the blood of Christ —
rendering any Ritualistic immersion in water suspicious while God would never
prescribe an action that would link to attributes of the water-immersion of the heathens
| Egypt – Osiris … rather sure is the concept of ‘Osiris drowned in the Flood’ which must be understood as ‘in the eden-dimension’ in the time before her fall , after which he was ‘resurrected’ ; you see how dangerously close ‘baptism’ relates to these aspects as attributes that can easily be transferred |
|
a bit less sure – because hieroglyphs are read so poorly –
is the concept of “an Egyptian drowning” in f.e. the Nile :
whether he had fallen into it or had been pulled into the river
by a crocodile , it was believed that Osiris has specifically chosen that person for some
special role in the afterlife, and the person’s body was treated as a most sacred relic :
“No one may touch him , whether relatives or friends , apart from the priests of the
Nile who must tend him with their own hands and treat him as one who is more than
an ordinary being … To be drowned in the river is to enter into connection with the god
and thus to be divinized” [Oepke, TDNT, I:530] ,
which however confirms the “Osiris drowned” story ;
and note how strong the identification with the god Osiris is per this attribute !
the picture shows someone ‘pouring out a libation-offering’ : in how far this can relate
to ‘baptism’ (!) is unsure still since the concept ‘libation’ seems corrupted in the Scroll —
half of the instances are Negative while the other half is doubtable ,
so that it would greatly help us to restore the subsequent lines in order to be sure
[since the Spells and murals very often show water-libations also directly upon spirits ,
we can expect that the doubtable instances will turn out Negative as well ..]
| the fishes (‘demon-souls’) – glyph ÁN … when God addresses Egypt – Mystery Babylon – as “the Pharaoh” in the Ezekiel chapter he calls it the dragon “that made the Nile” where the monster has many “fish that cling to his scales” ; the line cóuld be corrupt yet many Spells confirm this theme — |
|
the glyph ÁN “(the fish of-) / (matrix-) existence / [of] (matrix-) hail” appears very often
connected to different concepts , and though the Ammon sons as ‘corrupt eden-souls’
were vastly superior they talk about the fish-souls as were they ‘their little brothers’
[compare how those sons talk to the serpent-race , see pinned pages] ;
so that we understand that [at least-] a number of the demon-nations are fish-souls
and that THESE type souls longed to be “incarnated upon earth” , as Plato (!) described
seeing “a string of waiting souls before lady Fortune for to be incarnated upon earth” —
so that “re-incarnation” is ofcourse NOT a christian concept : but an evil one !
it is therefore reasonable to expect that “earth’s heathen nations” exist for a large part
out of these type re-incarnated fish-souls , as THE reason why our God forbade to be
intermingling with them ;
while apart from ‘fishes’ a substantial part of demon-souls may have “a dog nature”
not only because of the important ‘Anubis’ concept in Spells but sideways confirmed by
the same entity as in the serpent race MainPage ; as well as “dolphin” type souls that
appeared to be proper candidates when the serpent race pioneered ‘this earth’ ;
| the ÁABT serpent-race souls to right , ÁABT’ is a hieroglyph pun on “the East” as the southland (the shore of Heaven upon which Eden was created) that the matrix already occupied through the serpent-race befóre Eden existed ; that this fish is described as “guiding the boat of Râ” as the boat coming from the evil Western dimension |
|
is telling because a fish-soul (‘demon-soul’) dwelling in the east must have guided it ;
and per context these fish may be the animalistic (demon-) souls of the serpent-race ;
|
this also renders the so-called ICHTHUS symbol suspect : said as the fish-symbol as used by the first christians — yet this fish became popular during the 2nd wave of the persecution of christians after a huge influx into Italy of imported from the wider middle-East typically as the heathen nations familiar with the fish ! |
therefore it is not right to attribute this symbol to the (real-) first christians —
they communicated directly with Christ since He was very close to them so that they
would never have picked a so tainted symbol as ‘the fish’ to identify their nature …
| Dagon & Oannes (‘John’) : the fish-god … we’re getting closer now — to right : a depiction of Oannes , or Ea , while the fish figure on the left seems to libate the figure ! in the ’70 bulls’ MainPage we had the ritual of the middle-eastern city representing the matrix-Moon where her inhabitants ‘entered this earth’ and the same is true for Ea that ‘came out of the deep sea’ to bring civilisation to the people : it but narrates how their own (fish-) soul came to dwell on earth eventually represented by an archetypical deity as their brothers that DID dwell in the other Reality … |
|
Berossos the historian [281 BC] : “At Babylon there was a great resort of people of some
various races who inhabited Chaldea, and lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the
field. In the first year there appeared in that part of the Erythraean sea which borders upon
Babylonia, a creature endowed with reason, by name Oannes, whose whole body
(according to the account of Apollodaros) was that of a fish; under the fish’s head he had
another head, with feet also below similar to those of a man subjoined to the fish’s tail.
His voice, too, and language were articulate and human; and a representation of him is
preserved even to this day. “This being was accustomed to pass the day among men, but
took no food at that season; and he gave them an insight into letters and sciences and arts
of every kind. He taught them to construct houses, to found temples, to compile laws,
and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish
the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short, he instructed
them in everything which could tend to soften manners and humanize their lives. From that
time, nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions.
Now when the sun had set, this being Oannes used to retire again into the sea, and pass
the night in the deep, for he was amphibious. After this there appeared other animals like
Oannes, of which Berossos proposes to give an account when he comes to the history of
the kings.”
this history of the kings depicts “seven sages” of which Oannes (Sumerian U-anna) was
the first , as if having founded a dynasty of fish-god deities represented by a series of
human counterparts serving as literal king Apkallu – Wikipedia
| famous ofcourse is the story of the Ark vs Dagon – when the Ark of the covenant had been captured by (the tall white-skinned !) Philistines that had placed it in their temple in front of their Dagon state , next day they found Dagon fallen on his face before the Ark ; they propped him up but the following day was worse since now the statue lost its head and both hands … |
|
not surprisingly the RCC – though in nature Adam’s Church – preserved the main symbol
of Dagon as the typical mitre so developed since the 5th century , and not so surprising
because the RCC is a joint-venture between Esau- and fish-souls in order to rule Jacob ,
see Obadiah (-page) and CT’s how Esau and the serpent-race work together ;
the question however is : apart from servitude to Adam , has a back-up been created
through the ‘baptism theme’ so that every baptized christian by extension automatically
became a servant of the Upper-Fish as an integral aspect OF the baptism Ritual .. ?
|
this ‘joint-venture’ seems to be a returning theme as well as ‘the fish-souls of the serpent-race’ : to left the Hall of the Pontifical Audience in Rome where it isn’t hard to imagine that the fishes dwell IN the serpent (-temple) ; the latter often is rebuked as ‘conspiracy-stuff’ but also because the real themes are blurred by insiders like Ian Hislop with his “two Babylons” – but considered what we know about these themes the symbology here is more true than most think ! |
the Amorites (‘phallic theme’) & their Dagon fish-god
| … though the Ammonites represented the proto sons of Ammon that would go corrupt the Scroll (see Baalam pages) the second group of mortal enemies of Ishral must have been the people called ‘the Amorites’ that started the Dagon cult [-even the Philistines worshipped him as well] ; since the very negative term ‘Amorite’ keeps appearing in the Scroll as linked to the serpents : in the ‘bulls of Bashan’ chapter – about the sons of Ammon raping our female Originals – we are (as males) asked “to defeat the Amorite” which in context is ‘the phallic theme’ ; |
|
and this same theme appears (though in corrupted context) in the Deut.20 chapter
about “the re-dedication of Eve” and also in Deut.1 where Moses recounts the days
in the desert when ‘the serpent race invaded old-Ishral’ (-see page) , there corrupted
as “the mountain of the Amorite” — and because this awful attribute keeps appearing
even for thése days it warrants a further look into these people
|
the Amorites spread out across the north and west of Mesopotamia even as far as Egypt installing their short-lived pharaonic dynasty , and some time later founded Babylon herself [where Hammurapi as one of her first kings calls the god Dagon ‘baniya’ “my creator” !] ; yet they must have been “a type people” that mixed with others rather than ‘a specific tribe’ : hence their phallic attribute as ‘a general one’ is also used for the Ammon sons |
that said , it remains a mystery how they appeared on the scene — except if we keep
in mind “that they had been sent by the serpent race to attack , through their specific
attribute , old-Ishral that was in the process of becoming a solid separated people” ;
in fact appearing some time before Abraham left the city of Ur !
interesting is how much the own neighbours of the Amorites disliked them ,
so that the Akkadian king of Ur had to build a 270 kilometres wall from the Tigris to
the Euphrates river to stop the immigrating Amorites ; where records describe them
as nomadic tribes that forced themselves into lands they needed to graze their herds
[-and again , compare their aggressive attribute]
also the Sumerians hated them , shown in this writing from the 2nd millenium BC ,
“Now listen, their hands are destructive and their features are those of monkeys [=sic] ;
(An Amorite) is one who eats what (the Moon-god) Nanna forbids and doesn’t show
reverence. They never stop roaming about …, they are an abomination to the gods’
dwellings. Their ideas are confused; they cause only disturbance.
(The Amorite) is clothed in sack-leather … , lives in a tent, exposed to wind and rain,
and cannot properly recite prayers. He lives in the mountains and ignores the places
of gods, digs up truffles in the foothills, does not know how to bend the knee (to pray),
and eats raw flesh. He has no house during his life, and when he dies he will not be
carried to a burial-place. My girlfriend, why would you marry Martu ?”
apart from the ‘monkey’ reference ,
interesting is the “disrespecting Nanna” which is ‘the matrix-moon’ : implying that the
Amorites were not connected with the Mystery-Babylon region (-as the first group of
enemies ‘the Ammonites / sons of Ammon’ were) but serpent race related as a kind of
foot-soldiers sent by them solemnly to infect old-Ishral with their awful attribute ;
[note the “bend the knee” line here , proving that the statue pic made by an Amorite
and sent to some king as token of friendship was nothing but poor schmoozing !]
‘Jethro’ – or the Amorites ?
in the 16th century the Amorite era in Mesopotamia ended , leaving their kingdom in
the north of Caanan stretching out into Syria ; therefore if we want to connect the
serpent-race invading old-Ishral the time line is working against us — except if there
was some “region of Amorite rule left close to the desert” (-around 1300 BC) which
made contact with old-Ishral ;
this is the thing : becáuse of Deut.20 & Deut.1 (-see above) the context suggests
that ‘the Amorites themselves were involved in the serpent attack’ somehow : yet if
they had “so ugly features” old-Ishral would have rejected them (-see Jethro page) ;
then perhaps “a by them infected other (heathen) tribe made contact with them” ?
[in the same way the (handsome) Ammonites posed as ‘friends’ to old-Ishral ?]
OR : ‘Jethro’ himself had been infected by the Amorites ?
whatever really happened the Amorites & their attribute MUST have been involved
deities of the Amorites
— their absolute main god Dagon that came into existence by them ;
but the problem for us is his identification with the Sumerian god ENLIL which may
or may not have represented ‘the serpent race’ since the interpretation of his
many attributes is not easy : for example his Ekur temple in Nippur was regarded
as “the mooring-rope” of heaven and earth — reminding us how God described the
dimensional-river they made unto earth (-and here as ‘the point of entry’ ?) ;
it seems that ENLIL is some 2.0 version of the main god ANU after the importance
of the latter began to wane [ANU into Anunna ‘the serpent-race’] , where the kings
of the Amorites proclaimed ENLIL as the source of their legitimacy ;
our case that the Amorites were incarnated fish-souls óf the serpent-race can
hold water since they revered ENLIL (serpent race) worshipping Dagon (its souls) ;
— Amurru ,
as the divine personification of the Amorites — themselves ;
it was strange even for the heathen nations to have a divine depiction of themselves
but the reason cóuld be ‘the awareness of their own incarnation’ ;
— Ashratum – ‘feminine (-rule)’ (sic !)
as the ‘wife’ of Amarru with epithets as “the voluptuous and joyful mistress” having
an erotic connotation and “the mother” ; that this feminine relates to “stolen rule” (!)
shows in her other epithet Belet-Seri as a form of (Sumerian-) Gesthinanna —
as a goddess serving as scribe in the court of the underworld goddess Ereshkigal
where Ereshkigal represents ‘Eden’s type female rule’ and by extension Eve
[and Ereshkigal as a form of Egyptian NEBTHET , see Isaiah 23 page] ,
where the ‘scribal’ theme simply means “copying” – that is “stealing” ;
for that same reason Ashratum is called “the daughter-in-law of ANU” since ANU
represents the serpent-race and the daughter-in-law the stolen Eden female rule :
all these aspects are way too solid to be coincidental ;
— other deities :
Iarikh “the moon” — like the old-hebrew strange word for it (-irch) ,
but “as the moon of this earth” not the matrix-moon (-see Sumerian text above)
indeed placed there by the serpent-race , yet the epithets are more vague here :
in the poem “the marriage of Nikkal and Iarihk” the goddess should be ‘this earth’
in the form of Gaia (-made by the serpent race , see same Obadiah chapter) ,
where he “promises to make her fields like orchards” (sic) ;
interestingly Iarikh is called “the son-in-law of Baal” perhaps as “this solar plane”
since the so-called “cycle of Baal” – see Wiki – sounds like the solar plane having
won over Eden , and also because Iarikh chooses Nikkal (earth) after having
rejected other goddesses as Attar (the planet Venus) ;
while – for the record – he was also associated with the ‘door-keeper’ theme ,
see Rev.3 page “this moon as double portal ;
yet any other mentioned deities are too obscure to even remotely be identified
conclusion of the ‘Amorite’ theme
… the above was the maximum to find —
but though their ugly attribute is valid for these days because of the Dedication theme
as in Amos and Deut.1 & 20 the term is virtually erased from prophets and does not
even exist as a Strong’s number in Greek — so that we can only hope (Sir ..) that we
have understood enough to render it Legal ;
concerning the nature of the fish-soul :
… it makes Sense that the story about ‘Dagon having come out of the sea’ is but the
story of ‘the incarnation of these type fish-souls upon earth’ , while – frighteningly –
this aggressive type fish-soul has mingled with other peoples , including Jacob ,
while their ugly attribute has spread far and wide and is very much alive these days ;
but in the sense “to cause a certain type sin” of the Jacob-souls yet as foot-hold to
keep the door open to the dimensional serpent-race sucking out the sexual energy
in Ugarit two temples existed “dedicated to the god Baal and the father Dagon” for
the people that were obsessed by their fertility cult ; where bestiality was practiced
among their gods and most likely in the temple by it’s people , and homosexual
priests and priestesses acted as prostitutes
[which in turn forces us to go see what the text really said of Sodom & Gomorrah]
… from personal experience – by visitation – “the fish soul” is a dirty Black Hole
sucking anything pretty up inside it like a giant tornado through its incredible thirst ,
| a raging but so smelly and dirty type ‘thirst’ against which the Jacob soul seems to have no chance whatsoever – if not protected ; it therefore makes so much Sense that this ferocious Black Hole was so interested in our type ever-giving sweet Eden femininity though it disguised it’s outside as ‘serpent’ ; and if you are attentive enough you will see the presence of the fish-souls not just as in the picture earlier but everywhere >> …. |
‘baptism’ : an imparting of ‘the ORIGINAL SIN’ ! [SIC !]
… for this can be the only conclusion —
we saw that ‘water’ and ‘the fish-god’ (read : the ugly fish-souls) are attributes of
this ‘baptism’ theme , and by extension ‘Eve & the dedication’ and ‘that evil tree’ :
so that ‘the water’ here must be ‘the mixed-waters óf that tree’ that the fish-souls
themsélves need , waters transported by the Nile to the Mystery-Babylon region !
this ‘baptism’ continuously repeats the Original Sin !
| the ‘evil tree & libation (baptism)’ … we saw the Sumerian fish-god libating a figure but it also was a beloved theme in Egypt : >> there are many ‘better’ murals in which the figure drinks the offered libation by Nut , but here shows that the intent also was ‘the flowing over the body’ ; the shown “tree of life” is an advanced copy of the tree of good & evil in the South (-land) since this one stands in the matrix region just at its border : ofcourse Esau – as ‘Ammon sons’ – knew all this ! |
|
part III
NO ‘John the Baptist’ ever existed – period [Lk.1]
… the Mt.3 page “no ‘John the Baptist’ & no ‘baptism of Jesus’ : but all about the 144″
as restored chapter remains valid , where the Mt.3 is the corrupted ‘best version’ of its
mirrors [Mk.1:1-11] and [Lk.3:2-22] ,
but now we need to decide whether there existed any figure ‘John’ at all , even if
interpreted as “a person born to represent the 144 – that will be born in the last days” —
where the decision must be “that no such figure has existed” by this reasoning please :
#1 after the 144 [Mt.3] the concept ‘John’ is almost unmaintainable
… the Mt.3 page is a rather Solid restored text ,
and combined with the contextual problems of any ‘John the Baptist’ (see MainPage)
perhaps the only reason for keeping the ‘John theme’ would be because such a figure
could be “representing the 144 that will rise up in the end of days” ,
since “the birth of the 144” is so important in prophets that it cóuld have been shown
through ‘the birth of a type forerunner (-of the 144)’ to include the completion , as well :
but even if we keep this — plausible ! — idea we run into a next problem :
#2 it does injustice to the twelve disciples (’12 tribes’)
… this was in mind the past day ,
almost “that they are feeling sad IF we would maintain the ‘John’ figure” —
the pattern of ’12 representatives from the tribes of Ishral’ is solid , right , and we saw
from what we restored so far that Christ told them everything (-they needed to know) ,
and however dissapointed they might have been when understanding that they only
would receive their Gorgeous when you & we had would have risen up ,
they – and the First Christians in general – have been appointed to be our caretakers
by Christ himself , to be our fathers that pleaded for us and for what we would do —
any “other parallel concept” (as this ‘John representing the 144’) does them Injustice
and even more important breaks the chain of Attributes from them unto us : if you
please remember that they – as ‘bondservants and bondsmaids – are mentioned in
the Joel chapter together with us ;
#3 any ‘birth of John’ [Lk.1] vexes the birth of Christ
… as described only in this chapter —
reading it causes the feeling of a strange type rivalry between both births in spite of
the lines where – allegedly – the baby of Elisabeth is responding to the baby of Mary ;
where the uniqueness of Mary’s conception is blurred by the ‘miracle’ of Zacharias
and Elisabeth not having been able to conceive now foretold to receive a child —
the entire ‘birth of John’ section just doesn’t sit right ,
and even the phrase “overdoing it” comes to mind : two angels , two announcements ,
it’s just too complicated :
#4 the Zacharias & Elisabeth story [Lk.1]
… other gospels mention nothing about “the birth of John” but start with the alleged
theme of ‘John baptizing in the Jordan river’ — rendering this Luke 1 chapter suspect ;
looking at the content while remembering the above ,
the “not being able to have a child for old age” seems a rip-off of Abraham & Sarah
where even Sarah’s role – not believing she was able to conceive – is now the play of
the figure ‘Zacharias’ who as a type punishment for unbelief ‘becomes a mute one’ —
however this ‘sign’ as him unable to speak does not appear to serve any purpose but
for the sake of ‘a miracle itself’ since nowhere that specific punishment is explained ;
all of this supports the realistic possibility that this was another of Esau’s invented
quasi-deep storylines to serve his purpose ;
#5 quite some text in Luke 1
… as the final hurdle for us —
it can be argued “that some concept of ‘John’ as the 144” can be true because of the
amount of lines showing in Luke 1 concerning his birth — yet knowing that Esau has
ghostwritten entire epistles – as ‘the book of Acts’ – the probability that he did the same
here is very high , in order to cement his ‘John theme’ ;
another possibility is that he DID see “the birth of the 144 theme” but corrupted it in the
form of this ‘Zacharias & Elisabeth’ where curiously the former derives from root (-zakar)
as the old-Hebrew word for “male (-child)” also used in prophets ,
so that the original intro OF the (now restored-) Matthew 3 chapter that currently lacks
a proper intro may have been this corrupted ‘birth of John’ story instead of the birth of
the 144 in the latter days … – in fact this possibility feels to be true
interestingly Esau has his “Zacharias asking for a writing-tablet to write upon” [Lk.1:63]
and though that fits his “because the man was mute” narrative it even more so fits the
sons of Ishral theme [-apart from the bizarre ‘writing-tablet’ (pidax + inion) suspiciously
looking like ‘scroll’ (biblion) which however is no proof in itself] ;
conclusion :
so often we have been asked to make a decision concerning various themes , right ..
it’s what we do : rejecting false themes and Legally declare the genuine ones so that
whatever devised enemy Trap will not have right over us (-anymore) ;
we really have lost nothing by dismissing this ‘John’ that in fact was the very root
of the entire false ‘baptism’ theme : undoing ‘baptism’ is one thing but to decide to also
undo its root in the figure ‘John’ is another and even móre difficult —
but we did , and hope that He will be pleased with that
annex
… the above Legal declaration also removed any presumed right of ‘the Baptist church’
as the sect (!) that was founded by John Smythe in Amsterdam in 1609 AD , though ofcourse
he did not introduced a new concept since this corrupt theme always showed in the KJV ;
this sect has relatively much power — it has spread to much of (southern-) USA , acquired a
reasonable following in the East after the Iron Curtain fell , and recently since Esau’s Covid
hoax the Baptist communities appear to thrive where the Protestant churches lost a quite
staggering amount of members – as a trend still ongoing
since the secret of this sect ofcourse is ‘the connection of ‘libation’ with ‘that evil tree‘
a dream 48 hrs ago ,
about “a baptist type preacher” (never dreaming of such topic b/c so irrelevant)
that illegally held rights over believers – which caused a furious rant of me unto him –
shown in “a restaurant wall having groups of tables and 6 pairs of people sat at them” ,
but there were “markings on the floor around each place , each table” that the pairs were
not allowed to cross while the pathway (-alongside the tables) was owned by the preacher
so that in fact he held the people hostage by a legal situation
no longer , your Majesty , please
always please forgive us that so war for you and for our relation with you
