Seth in Chapter 22 of Speaks (and elsewhere) that Christ was not crucified...

[Mark M]

that a willing stand-in was found that "Christ did not take part in it. There was a conspiracy
in which Judas played a role..."

"The tomb was empty because this same group carted the body away."

So a few individuals were in or partly in on it:

Judas. as mentioned

"Peter three times denied the Lord (Matthew 26), saying he did not
know him, because he recognized that the person was not Christ."

''Mary came because she was full of sorrow for the man who believed
he was her son.''

Seth included some remarks that without the wounds, his followers would not have believed he was himself.

He ate to prove he was alive, but they took that to mean the spirit could partake of food.

And that they wanted to believe he had been crucified and arisen.

Was Christ incommunicado for a long enough time that people
perhaps thought he'd been executed or crucified?

Did the fake Christ resemble the real one?

Possibly this kidnapping reference when Seth is describing a life of his in that time period is part of the story:

''He also told me that the man, Christ, was kidnapped by the Essenes. I
did not believe him. Nor at the time he told me did I know who Christ
was.''

SESSION 588, AUGUST 2, 1971, 9:01 P.M. MONDAY

A puzzle as to why the people of the time got the story so wrong when some knew or partly knew what was going down.

[Bora137]

I think it's hard to say that they did get it wrong. Probably when the bible was put together a few hundred years later the story just fitted the authors' purposes, just like reincarnation was taken out so it gave the church more power (or so they gambled) if people believed they only had one shot to get to heaven. Personally I think taking reincarnation out has weakened the Christian religion.

[inavalan]

I understand people's need to know, and their need for hope. I also try to mitigate the general beliefs about us, about our historical and religious stories, with Seth's concepts, as I understand them.

One of those concepts is that "there isn't only one time line, but many".

Another is that "we individually continuously re-create our past".

These concepts, and others, are in conflict with Seth's descriptions of historical and religious events, which could only be seen, in my view, as symbolical messages for us to interpret for our own benefit, in our individual quests for evolvement.

We perceive only the reality created by our own subconscious, in the framework of our own beliefs, based on the non-physical (telepathic) connections with all the units and gestalts of consciousness we can access from our current level of evolvement.

So, I think that it is more constructive to try to intuitionally interpret those historical and religious stories about Christ. In mattes of intuition there can be no arguments, just sharing views.

EDIT: I think that there are realities in which Jesus wasn't crucified, as there are others in which he was. There are also realities in which there was no "mentionable" Jesus at that time. Even more: those realities, those times, and those events keep re-happening "now".

[Deb]

Sadly, I think what was "news" back in the day (whatever "day" that was) was as biased and corrupt as it is now.

Past research tells me that the Bible was rewritten every time someone else was in charge of religion and history. As @Bora137 wrote, it fit the author's purpose. Look at how many words have been redefined in the past few years, such as with covid.

Parts of the bible were removed or rewritten because they did not fit the official narrative of the time, which is why there is apocrypha (works outside an accepted canon of scripture). At least those that have been located. Imagine how much more has been buried, destroyed and lost for good.

There are those who try to rewrite the Seth materials, insist they are communicating with Seth, etc. My thought is we have an inner guidance that, if we choose to follow it, will tell us what rings true.

A friend here, @chasman, shared a term with me recently. Seth-O-Scope (rhymes with stethoscope, lol). Very fitting.

We just have to keep in mind Jane's religious baggage and what distortions may have resulted.

[Mark M]

Deb writes: "We just have to keep in mind Jane's religious baggage and what distortions may have resulted."

As I recall, Seth was asked in the ESP class if Jane distorted things in saying Christ was not crucified.

Ans.: No.

Paul's epistles are the earliest NT writings; the Gospels were written later.

Paul's "gospel":

Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve [the Gospels have Judas committing suicide; 12-1 = 11].

--1 Corinthians 15

There is a consensus among historians and theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (c. AD 53–54) though about half of Paul's epistles are in doubt in this regard.

More Paul, writing of the aftermath of his conversion experience:

17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him for fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother.

--Galatians 1

Biblical scholars agree that Galatians is a true example of Paul's writing.

So Paul hangs out with Peter for 15 days and apparently Peter doesn't let on that the person on the cross was not Christ.

Or if he did, Paul ignored him and got things wrong.

[Mark M]

They were getting it wrong, right off the bat, despite Judas/Peter/Mary knowing otherwise, per Seth:

He ate to prove he was alive, but they took that to mean the spirit could partake of food.

And that they wanted to believe he had been crucified and arisen.

"His physical presence was no longer necessary, and was even an embarrassment under the circumstances. He simply willed himself out of it."

—SS Part Two: Chapter 22: Session 591, August 11, 1971

[Mark M]

I guess if they weren't gonna believe Christ, why would they believe Judas/Peter/Mary?

[Sena]

We just have to keep in mind Jane's religious baggage and what distortions may have resulted.

Yes, I find the Christ material in the Seth books to be in the realm of fantasy and not of practical use. What difference does it make to us whther or not Christ was kidnapped by the Essenes?

[Mark M]

Sena wrote: "What difference does it make to us whther or not Christ was kidnapped by the Essenes?"

Obviously no diff to you, but for those who would have welcomed the offered Seth Christ book...

[Sena]

Obviously no diff to you, but for those who would have welcomed the offered Seth Christ book

Mark, Seth Speaks has a great deal of useful information apart from the Christ material.

[Mark M]

Sena, thanks for the heads up!

[Mark M]

Seth asserted that Christ was not crucified in Speaks, reiterated it in NoPR, refuted in Conv w/Seth (ESP class) that it was distorted, and it came up at least once in personal/deleted sessions.

If a distortion, a repeated one.

[Mark M]

Sena wrote: "I find the Christ material in the Seth books to be in the realm of fantasy and not of practical use...."

"Sentiment is practical."

—Seth, TES5, Session 203, October 28, 1965 as part of his answer to the Q of what religion, in his opinion, comes closest to God as defined by Seth

[inavalan]

"(Seth remarked that our weather neither excited or concerned him, and that personality affects weather. He then threw out the God concept as a question for general discussion. He was greeted with a large silence momentarily. Seth asked for ideas from Bill and Peg; it will be remembered that in past sessions he said he would go into this question when they witnessed sessions.

(After a moment Bill said he thought his beliefs regarding religion were more or less traditional.)

I don't like the sound of this... We shall here let Ruburt open his eyes... ]Let's have better ideas.

(I asked Bill to elaborate on his previous statement. Bill's answer included the idea that he believed a god would have to appear to the human race in humanoid form so that we could understand it.)

...The humanoid God idea? I appear to you as Ruburt, but I am not primarily Ruburt...

(Bill remarked that in terms of our existence our Christ was a supernatural being.)

Your Christ had abilities which I still do not have... and he did appear in your form, but he was not of your form... Your people saw but a small fragment that they could understand... a fragment that was part of a larger reality they could not understand...

We have discussed this to some degree in our sessions... I speak of psychic gestalts. You see but portions of these pyramids of intelligences... what we are able to see at any one time.

(See the following sessions for material on the God concept, psychic and pyramid gestalts, and related questions: 51, 81, 95, 97, 115, 135, 146-9, 151, 177, among others, in Volumes 2, 3, and 4.)

There will be a change in 100 years... when you will be able to see more... You will see through a growth of ability and consciousness... an enlargement... that has been growing for 500 years... the change began in the Middle Ages, existed briefly, died, then began again...

It will involve an expansion of consciousness, not physical knowledge... You will directly and simply perceive more... I cannot make Ruburt find all the words. Your God is part of a larger reality. We see what we can see... This larger reality is also a part of our dreams: it is more important and vital than breath, for you are all part of this individually. There is a give and take between you and the stars on a physical basis, just as there is also ]a connection between selves and what you call a god.

There is no real division between you and God and I... only a unity that you cannot as yet understand.

(Bill asked Seth what he thought of the direction in which the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin led, and Seth enthusiastically agreed these writings are valid. Jane, her eyes open, looked at Peggy sitting quietly on the couch.)

Our cat lover is so silent.

([Peg:] "I don't understand enough about it.")

Your finger is a part of your physical organism... It does not know what your brain is doing. Prayer is very important... Your toenail is also a part of you... In the same way we are related to God.

You are part of God in that you are part of the consciousness that is, but you are not apart from a god who looks down on you and speaks... There is indeed as you conceive of it no hell or heaven. These ideas have been distorted through the ages... You could call hell a separation from the main stream of consciousness called God, but this is impossible actually...

(Peggy asked Seth what religion, in his opinion, came closest to God as defined by Seth.)

I do not want to puncture idealistic balloons. Buddhists are perhaps closer, but no religion comes close really... The man or woman feeling identity with each day that passes comes close.

(In the following passages Seth hit his high point as far as feeling and emphasis are concerned. At times his delivery became passionate. I did not get it all down. Jane spoke from her position on the floor, with her eyes closed, her voice strong but not shouting.)

Sentiment is practical. The idea of birth and death each day is close. Those who cry when they hurt a flea come close... Those who appreciate the consciousness in every rock, tree, bird... come close. Fools and idiots are often wiser than the wise man. Hatred is death. All things are sacred, and every thought is a reality and has its own potential for creation and destruction.

Experiencing every moment comes close. I myself am not known for humility. Nevertheless my existence is dependent upon many things of which I know not. I learn through many existences, but I do not set myself up as many of you set yourself up, and I do not determine what shall be destroyed or who or what shall remain... Such actions... are based on cowardice... Any idea of a God, no matter how distorted, will triumph, for He exists in everything that you know. And when you kill so much as an ant, so do you kill part of Him in most practical terms.

When you kill in thought, you kill indeed.

(End at 11:06. Jane had been well dissociated. Her eyes had remained closed during the last part of this delivery; her voice had strengthened considerably and she had become quite impassioned. She said she "gets embarrassed when Seth talks like that.")"

—TES5 Session 203 October 28, 1965

[inavalan]

"It may seem that your religious beliefs have little to do with your health or with your day-to-day experience. Those of you who have left organized religions may feel relatively free from what you consider to be the adverse connotations of original sin and the like. Yet no one is free of belief of any kind in that area. Indeed, a belief in atheism is a belief."
—NoPR Part Two: Chapter 11: Session 646, March 7, 1973

[Mark M]

inavalan wrote: "I think that there are realities in which Jesus wasn't crucified, as there are others in which he was...."

Not if the probability where he wasn't crucified was "locked."

Maybe Seth kept "harping" that he wasn't crucified because of such.

"Now. There are times when all probabilities point in one direction, and I believe there is a mathematical theorem, a theoretical one, that defines such occurrences. In which case, the future is indeed locked."

—Seth, The Early Sessions, Vol 8, Session 358, August 2, 1967

Regarding the Paul aspect's return, from Speaks:

"Because of the plastic nature of the future, in your terms, the date cannot be considered final. All probabilities point in its direction, however, for the inner impetus is already forming the events."

[inavalan]

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,669.msg23933.html#msg23933

I think that looking at Christ as an entity (e.g. a Seth), and at Jesus as a channel (e.g. Jane), all makes sense.

The Christian Bible is like the Seth Material.

The historical differences, the personality differences (Jesus vs. Jane), the entities evolvement and scope differences (Christ vs. Seth) explain all, I believe. Christ chose a more symbolical way, while Seth chose a more explicit but still multi-level way of disseminating knowledge and guidance.

I think that Jesus' miracles can be explained by the higher level of evolvement of Christ vs. Seth. Such a level allowed more effective manipulation of the perceived reality on larger mass formations.

====
EDIT: No blasphemy intended ... Jesus Christ is like Jane Seth ! (Christ channeled by Jesus)