Seth on "events falling into place"

[Sena]

According to Seth, it is a mistake to think that events occur in a random fashion. Events "fall into place", under the influence of Framework 2:

"It is, therefore, quite to everyone's advantage that Framework 2 is not neutral. Faith in a creative, fulfilling, desired end, sustained faith, literally draws from Framework 2 all of the necessary ingredients, all of the elements however staggering in number, arranges all the details, and then inserts into Framework 1 the impulses, dreams, chance meetings, motivations, or whatever is necessary so that the desired end then falls into place as a completed pattern.

(9:40 in an intent delivery.) You must begin somewhere, so you state your purpose clearly in Framework 1. Then you have the faith that the event will be brought to pass.

[... 4 paragraphs ...]

Later he wonders what happened, that his life was saved, and his plans altered at the last moment. Our friend wanted to live and had faith that he would. In spite of his own conscious lack of knowledge, he was brought to operate according to the information available in Framework 2, though he was not aware of it. He lost his ticket—a stupid error, it seemed. The lives and events of all those involved with his trip—the neighbors, the children, and so forth—all of those issues were arranged in Framework 2, so that while the events seemed most unpleasant, they were highly beneficial.

If our friend learned of the plane crash, he saw this only too well. If he never learned of the plane crash, and did not have faith in the beneficial nature of events, then he might simply remember the entire affair as highly unpleasant, stupid, and even think that it was another example that he could do nothing right.

The entire pattern of your lives is taken into consideration in Framework 2."

—TPS4 Deleted Session October 24, 1977

"You have agreed that Framework 2 exists, that it is helpful. Your faith has been achieved on that point. Ruburt fears at times he cannot impress Framework 2 properly, and becomes impatient with himself. Your faith is not secure there either. You have, however, the clues, and again, begin to organize your reality along those lines—to take each release or new motion, however small, as one part of the puzzle that is falling into place, in line with the greater pattern.

Your conversations, your drives, your mail, the television programs you watch—all of these are involved—involved in that you will be led to watch programs, for example, that in one way or another help the entire picture. The power of the universe is a personal one. When your intent is clear, events fall into place in your lives, from the most minute to the most momentous, that bring that desire to pass."

—TPS4 Deleted Session November 19, 1977

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Another heading that you could have used here for this topic was "faith".

For many people, the word "faith" has a strong connection with Christianity, as in "you need to have faith in Jesus", and that kind of thing. Unfortunately, this connection can make this term a real turnoff for some people. I know it did for me, for a long time.  That's really unfortunate because Seth's teaching are really quite a bit different than Christianity.


Seth does use the term "faith", on occasion and often when he does, he uses it in a way that is very similar to the way that it has been used in Christianity.

I think that what Seth was really trying to tell us here is that there is real power, in this term, this idea of having faith in something or in having faith that something can come true for you. It is the "belief" that something is possible that's important here. This is all a part of reality creation.

My guess is that a long time ago, the Christians recognized the truth behind this idea of faith and they applied it to their religious belief system.  An important difference here is that what Christianity wants you to believe is that if you have faith "in Jesus", then you may get what you want.  On the other hand, what Seth seems to be telling us is that if you have "faith" that you can and do create your reality, then you may get what you want. Faith is part of both systems of belief, however, it is not a requirement that you must have faith "in Jesus" for it to work for you.


Another name that Seth sometimes used instead of "faith" was "expectation". Seth used the word "expectation" on several occasions, often when he was talking about creating your reality.  In DEaVF1, Chapter 3, S891, Seth shared some really incredible ideas in regards to the words, "great expectations" and "power". I think that what he had to say here, really fits into this topic quite well.




DEaVF1, Chapter 3, S891:

(9:25.) Great expectations, basically, have nothing to do with degree, for a grass blade is filled with great expectations. Great expectations are built upon a faith in the nature of reality, a faith in nature itself, a faith in the life you are given, whatever its degree—and all children, for example, are born with those expectations. Fairy tales are indeed often—though not always—carriers of a kind of underground knowledge, as per your discussion about Cinderella (also see the 824th session for Mass Events), and the greatest fairy tales are always those in which the greatest expectations win out: The elements of the physical world that are unfortunate can be changed in the twinkling of an eye through great expectations.

Your education tells you that all of that is nonsense, that the world is defined by its physical aspects alone. When you think of power you think of, say, nuclear energy, or solar energy—but power is the creative energy within men's minds that allows them to use such powers, such energies, such forces.

The true power is in the imagination which dares to speculate upon that which is not yet (intently). The imagination, backed by great expectations, can bring about almost any reality within the range of probabilities. All of the possible versions of 1980 will happen. Except for those you settle upon, all of the others will remain psychologically peripheral, in the background of your conscious experience—but all of those possible versions will be connected in one way or another.

The important lessons have never really appeared in your societies: the most beneficial use of the directed will, with great expectations, and that coupled with the knowledge of Framework 1 and 2 activities. Very simply: You want something, you dwell upon it consciously for a while, you consciously imagine it coming to the forefront of probabilities, closer to your actuality. Then you drop it like a pebble into Framework 2, forget about it as much as possible for a fortnight, and do this in a certain rhythm.




- jbseth

[Sena]

Another heading that you could have used here for this topic was "faith".

For many people, the word "faith" has a strong connection with Christianity, as in "you need to have faith in Jesus", and that kind of thing. Unfortunately, this connection can make this term a real turnoff for some people. I know it did for me, for a long time.  That's really unfortunate because Seth's teaching are really quite a bit different than Christianity.

jbseth, I agree. Neville Goddard's ideas are rather similar to Seth's, although he does not mention Framework 2:

"In all the ages of history, faith has played a major role. It permeates all the great religions of the world, it is woven all through mythology, and yet today it is almost universally misunderstood. Contrary to popular opinion, the efficacy of faith is not due to the work of any outside agency. It is from first to last an activity of your own consciousness." (from "The Power Of Awareness: With linked Table of Contents" by Neville Goddard)

https://amzn.eu/8glmGbH

I was introduced to Neville Goddard by "strangerthings", who is no longer a member of the forum:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=975.0

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

There are several places in the Seth information where Seth talks about Christ.In some of these, Seth seems to be indicating that Christ perhaps taught a philosophy that was somewhat Seth-like in nature. One of these area seems to exist in this connection having to do with the Christian idea of having faith and Seth's ideas of having "expectation" in regards to reality creation.

Another area that has always struck me as interesting has to do with reality creation itself.  In NOPR, Seth says that Christ actually taught a form of Seth's ideas of reality creation. Then in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 7, verses 7 and 8 seems to be indicating that perhaps this was in fact true (see quotes below).

Many biblical historical scholars have torn apart the New Testament, trying to figure out what really happened 2,000 years ago. These people have literally dissected every single word and phrase that is written in all of the various manuscripts that they have found containing the writings of the New Testament to try to figure this out. Many of these people claim that today, we really can't know or say much at all about what Jesus actually said or did during his life. This is largely due to the fact that there seems to be many inconsistences in the New Testament and a lot of it was redacted, in some cases many times over, over the years.

Given all of this then, it does seem to me that there may in fact be hints in the New Testament that exists today, that indicate that perhaps what Seth says here may be correct here. Maybe much of what Christ actually taught during his life, was a message that was similar to Seth's. Perhaps some of it was completely misunderstood by some of the people both, of his time and of later years. In this misunderstanding, much of what he had to say was completely misinterpreted and reinterpreted and as a result, we ended up with the New Testament that we have today.


There have been many people over the years like Neville Goddard, who do not accept the standard Christian ideas in regards to the New Testament. People who have been mystics, searchers of truth, seekers, artists, philosophers, etc. who have come to the fork in the road of life and opted to travel a different path.  I think that most of the people in this forum, are also part of this group as well. We see things differently than many others. 



NoPR, Chapter 12, Session 649:

What sin did the poor person or the sick person commit? That question, often asked unconsciously — if not consciously — brings you back to beliefs in punishment that have nothing to do with the concept of natural guilt, but with those distortions placed upon it. There is also a connection with misinterpretation of the Bible. Christ as you think of him was simply saying that you form your own reality. He tried to rise above the idea-systems of those times, yet even he had to use them, and so the connotations of sin and punishment distorted the message given.



Gospel of Matthew, Ch 7, Verse 7, 8:

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:"

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."




- jbseth

[Sena]

There have been many people over the years like Neville Goddard, who do not accept the standard Christian ideas in regards to the New Testament. People who have been mystics, searchers of truth, seekers, artists, philosophers, etc. who have come to the fork in the road of life and opted to travel a different path.  I think that most of the people in this forum, are also part of this group as well. We see things differently than many others. 

jbseth, the New Testament is forged:

"Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are is a book by the biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged_(book)#New_Testament_books_identified_as_forgeries_by_Ehrman

[jbseth]

jbseth, the New Testament is forged:

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I agree, it definitely appears that a lot of it has been forged.

I've read quite a few books on this topic, several from Bart Ehrman and some from other scholars such as Elaine Pagels.  It definitely does appear that there are many issue, MANY issues, with all of the New Testament documents.

Not only were there what appeared to be forgeries but in some cases, the texts that exists in the gospels we have today, weren't originally in those documents.

An example of what I'm referring to here is the story in the Gospel of John where Jesus is addressing the crowd in regards to the woman who was accused of adultery. This is where Jesus, says something like, "Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone".  According to scholars, this story, which is in our Gospel of John as it is written today, didn't exist in this gospel in the earliest versions of this gospel that have been recovered. In addition to this, this story has been found in some of the earliest Gospels of Luke instead.

It kind of makes you wonder when was it changed and why?

If you or anyone else here is interested in this topic, you may like Bart Ehrman's book, "Jesus, Interrupted" where he does a really great job of pointing out many of these issues. Not only does he point out these issues, but then he explains why they are issues.

When I first read this book, I was really surprised by the sheer number of inconsistencies that appear to exist in the New Testament. Previously I had thought that there might be 5 or 10 of these at the most, only to learn that there may in fact be, more like one hundred or more.

Often it turns out that many of the statements in the New Testament are in fact problematic, because of some other statement that's made in the New Testament.


- jbseth

[Deb]

In my mind faith and expectation are interchangeable, and they are both the key element in reality creation.

As far as the bible, I've been amused by some really devout Christians who have told me that the Bible, as it is, was essentially channeled from God by the people who wrote it. But ironically anyone else who may channel is channeling a demon or Satan. In that case I suppose they would consider Seth a demon. Someone once told me that anything that does not outright praise the glory of the lord JC is evil—books, music, whatever.

Years ago I read that the gospels were actually intended to be sermons by various religious leaders of long ago, they would span a year's time and then start from the beginning the next year. I seem to recall there were two gospels of... was it Mark? Similar but some differences, and they would have been written by two different religious leaders for their particular congregation. It might have been in "Don't Know Much About the Bible," which I read 20+ years ago and unfortunately no longer have. The author, Kenneth C. Davis, is an American historian, not a Christian as far as I know, and has written a series of "Don't Know Much" books.

Years ago I'd read a few different books on religion—enough that I'm convinced the Bible is a Frankenstein's monster of stories, fables, parables, allegories, and cherry-picked sections from prior writings and myths, with parts being rejected from time to time (the apocrypha) because they didn't fit the OLC at the time

The Ehrman book sounds interesting, I'll probably take a look at it. I lost my interest in religion and the bible a while back, but I do enjoy a good fact check. 

[jbseth]

I lost my interest in religion and the bible a while back, but I do enjoy a good fact check.

Hi Deb, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Yeah, me too Deb. I also enjoy a good fact check.

I have no doubt there are many ministers, many preachers and many biblical historical scholars who are all very knowledgeable about the New Testament.  However, of this group, I suspect that the biblical historical scholars are probably some of the least biased in their conclusions about what actually took place 2,000 years ago.

For me personally, my main interest in the biblical historical scholarship has generally been trying to understand what Seth had to say about the various biblical topics that he talked about and how they compare to the conclusions of the biblical scholars.


What I've found is that some of the things that Seth talked about seem to be in pretty good agreement with the findings of the scholars.  However, what Seth says about John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul all being a part of the same Christ entity, seems to have no foundation in scholarship.  This doesn't really surprise me, since most people don't think about humans in terms of what Seth describes as the soul or entity.


Another example is Seth's comments that Jesus was kidnapped and another person was crucified in his place. Then later, when the real Jesus came back and tried to talk to some of his followers, some of them came to believe that he was crucified, he died and he was resurrected.  While I also find no support for this idea in scholarship, it does seem to me that this idea is entirely plausible.

- jbseth