this is distinctly incorrect. jesus was called a "king bee". you're unfamiliar with these theories and topics. the merovingians were called the beekeepers. you would recognize their rule to have been beneficial, beneficent. they weren't like these posers today, at least by prior standards. what does a beekeeper do, anon? if he over-harvests, what happens? if he over-harvests, what happens? what's the difference between what a beekeeper does and what a sniveling, shapeshifting, blood libel desert mutt does? can you tell?    > had been incorporating alien beliefs since the days of exodus when it happened all the time. there's no way you're being serious. there's a far, far better explanation than this. > gnosticism itself has no real scripture with weight or authority so now you're just going to amuse yourself, imagining you've gotten me figured out? anon, you, once again, don't seem to understand the basics about what gnosticism is. there's no coherent framework for gnosticism like that. it survived in the modern world due to lodge systems like freemasonry and their bigger brothers like gd or rosis, but there is no religion called "gnosticism". can i help you frame this better? let's use right hand and left hand. you think currently that lhp = bad and rhp = good, right? well that's not quite what it meant historically. instead, it was a framing of heterodoxy versus orthodoxy. see, the original christians, the ones related to the essenes, borrowed from the mystery scenes and in so doing introduced the initial framework, largely based on the precursor to tantra, which took off in the east in a similar way (see shakyamuni budha, who jesus was apparently related to). where tantra contrasts the orthodox schools of buddhism and hinduism, gnosticism contrasts the catholic and eastern orthodoxies. what jesus and his friends were doing was much more akin to the former than the latter.
United States