[extensive version of 5Nov’24 page]

 
                                                                                    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’ …

                                                                                                                 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 fish (-souls)      … when God addresses Egypt – the region of Mystery      Babylon with her paradise , above the gate – the evil      region Egypt is “the dragon that made the Nile” where      the dragon “has many fish clinging to his shells”   —      though this line cóuld be corrupt probably it isn’t since      the ‘fish’ are so prominent in Spells ;      to right ÁABT’ is a pun on “the East” as the southland      (the shore of Heaven upon which Eden was created)

     which the matrix already occupied through the serpent-race befóre Eden ,
     that this fish “guided the boat of Râ” that came from the evil dimension of the West is
     very telling because it must have been a fish-soul (‘demon-soul’) that dwelt in the east
     and per context these fish may be the animalistic (demon-) souls of the serpent-race ;
     indeed these fishes ‘cling to the dragon’ since the type souls that inhabit the paradise
     of Mystery-Babylon are the corrupt-eden-souls as the group ‘the sons of Ammon’ 
     [lower position reads “the pure (matrix-) dimension / [by]  the ÁABT fish”]  

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 ,

 
     ‘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 !