The return of Christ personality

[voidypaul]

Hi Sena , you said  ,

     '' Paul, I am sure Christ will appear godlike to Christians. When you refer to "us", I take it that you mean Christians''

   No  , I am saying that because Paul will have intimate conscious contact with his entity , that any human being of whatever ilk will be able to , if they can , percieve these godlike portions (as the entity is most definately godlike in comparison to any of its manifestations) .   
   It will not matter what the belief structures are of any indiv' , christian , hindu or jew , those with the eyes to see will witness something way beyond what they have known or been taught , even sethians .     
   The Christ is not just some bloke from next door  , he has qualities + abilities that far surpass even Seths who is not even a phys' being + has access to a far greater spectrum of cons' so to spk than any physically manifest being has .            In fact most people will not be able to contain the experience of the Christ + will only go as far into the exp' as their limiting beliefs + courage will allow them ,  as Seth said , full awareness of the entity for ego cons' would be like a straw in a hurricane , but this is what Christ will have to offer , the possibility of full awareness of the entity .      Mindboggling psychic stuff  ,  streatch ur imagination to its upmost extreme + then some .     The wildest trip in cons' ever for those lucky enuf to have the opportunity .

[voidypaul]

Hi sethspks ,

             along with
                        ''the crucifiction idea itself embodied deep dilemmas and meanings of the human psyche''

quote you gave , i will add the one i mentioned earlier which is in ES2 sess 44

            ''And within the framework of the crucifixion there are inexhaustable truths still to be explored''

          + i believe that somewhere Seth has also said that the psychic reality of the crucifixion was a gift from the dream-world to ours + also that its impact was as if a new planet had appeared in our system .

            The crucif' was a much deeper event than most people understand but because Seth also said what he did about the deluded , the conversation seems to drop off + stop there , in rather shallow waters in comparisson to what else Seth had to say , unfortunatly .

[Sena]

In fact most people will not be able to contain the experience of the Christ + will only go as far into the exp' as their limiting beliefs + courage will allow them ,  as Seth said , full awareness of the entity for ego cons' would be like a straw in a hurricane , but this is what Christ will have to offer , the possibility of full awareness of the entity .      Mindboggling psychic stuff  ,  streatch ur imagination to its upmost extreme + then some .     The wildest trip in cons' ever for those lucky enuf to have the opportunity .

Paul, what you are writing here has little relationship to what Seth actually said. It appears to be your idiosyncratic interpretation of Christian doctrine. Seth never promised "wild trips in consciousness". That kind of trip is described by those who have taken psychedelic drugs:

"... Such massive doses of LSD chemically activate all levels of cellular memory to such an extent that in certain terms they are no longer in charge of themselves, and the memories can then emerge unpredictably when the system is under stress. The fine biological and psychological alliance is now weakened." (quote from The Nature of Personal Reality)

http://sethquotes.paradisenow.net/seth_excerpts_part_i.html

[sethspeaks]

Hi voidypaul,
I found this /in session 46/:
"In art, you manage sometimes to put into a framework of space something which usually has no existence in space. The crucifixion has no existence in space. It has no existence basically in time, in that it did not occur to any particular person, per se, at any particular time per se. Nevertheless it is a reality on your plane, and it exists within it.
And within the framework of the crucifixion there are inexhaustible truths still to be explored. Mark's paintings of the crucifixion, like other such paintings, created a concept form, within which an unexpressable concept is transformed into expressible terms and placed within a spatial framework."
I think Seth talks to Mark / Bill / a for Robert because both were painters and understand what the image scene and how it affects generations. Seth probably advised them how to get through these scenes to their past lives.
I would say something similar here/s.588/:
"In several lives I was consciously aware of my "past existences." Once as a monk I found myself copying a manuscript that I myself had written in another life."

i believe that somewhere Seth has also said that the psychic reality of the crucifixion was a gift from the dream-world to ours + also that its impact was as if a new planet had appeared in our system .

It is necessary to substantiate the quote.

[Deb]

It is necessary to substantiate the quote.

Yes, every effort should be made to cite a Seth quote that is being presented. Otherwise it can't be discussed. Others will also want to read the text themselves, in context, in order to form their own interpretation if there was any ambiguity on Seth's part. I know that's rare, but it happened.

An easy source for locating quotes is here: http://search.sethtalks.com/   I use it all the time. While it has its limitations right now (not every book has been cataloged yet), I've been very pleased with it.

[Batfan007]

Hi voidypaul,
I found this /in session 46/:
"In art, you manage sometimes to put into a framework of space something which usually has no existence in space. The crucifixion has no existence in space. It has no existence basically in time, in that it did not occur to any particular person, per se, at any particular time per se. Nevertheless it is a reality on your plane, and it exists within it.
And within the framework of the crucifixion there are inexhaustible truths still to be explored. Mark's paintings of the crucifixion, like other such paintings, created a concept form, within which an unexpressable concept is transformed into expressible terms and placed within a spatial framework."
I think Seth talks to Mark / Bill / a for Robert because both were painters and understand what the image scene and how it affects generations. Seth probably advised them how to get through these scenes to their past lives.
I would say something similar here/s.588/:
"In several lives I was consciously aware of my "past existences." Once as a monk I found myself copying a manuscript that I myself had written in another life."

i believe that somewhere Seth has also said that the psychic reality of the crucifixion was a gift from the dream-world to ours + also that its impact was as if a new planet had appeared in our system .

It is necessary to substantiate the quote.

Short version: All events are "psychic" events, requiring neither time nor space.

The super-sytem or super-set (rule-set) is ALWAYS Consciousness that preceeds any material reality, to borrow some words from Tom Big Toe.

[Deb]

into trouble, maybe did some drugs, saw things and experienced things unpleasant (and pleasant!), possibly grow up to get married and have children, a job and bills, have learned invaluable social lessons, and all that jazz because this is beneficial to the experience so that he/she will be able to relate to the world. Won't this being HAVE to relate to the world even when....metamorphosis begins and grows?

If he's going to be such a super hero, he probably wouldn't need all of that to relate to the world because he will be in-tune with ATI, his higher self, his incarnations/probable selves and all that entails. But... that background would be good to help people relate to HIM (my mind goes back to the old days, friends being resentful of getting marriage coaching from a priest who... has never been married).

I'm trying to think of what type of personality traits he will need to appeal to the largest variety of people. Confidence, but not too much? Modesty, but not too much? Honest. Trustworthy. Respectable.

Considering the divisiveness of our world religions makes me wonder if he will come to lead in a different way than religion. The world has agnosticism, atheism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, religions and non-religions ad infinitum. Other than a world-wide epiphany (read: miracle), I have a hard time imagining all of the planet's individuals and their beliefs suddenly being united. Oh jeez, my mind just touched on The Matrix again, where we find the OS (reality, OLC) has already been scrapped and rewritten over a few times and it's about to happen again. Time to reboot? Spontaneous evolution.

I don't know what one person could do to convince these differing views to become united. Any ideas? I'm willing to speculate there is a way to unite world consciousness that we can not even imagine at this point. It will take some new thinking. Time to move forward and try something new.

[Sena]

Considering the divisiveness of our world religions makes me wonder if he will come to lead in a different way than religion.

If he is to make any sense he will need to be independent of religion. Christianity is now a dog's breakfast with its glorification of torture.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog%27s%20breakfast

It will be interesting if Christ overhauls science. Rudolf Steiner spoke of Spiritual Science.

[Deb]

It will be interesting if Christ overhauls science.

Yes, that makes sense. Science is more universally-accepted, not so inflammatory or emotionally charged. Quantum physics would fit, considering its current direction and how in alignment it is with Seth's teachings.

Why such referencing to a "he" ?

For me, this:

(all from SS, session 586)

The third personality, mentioned many times by me, has not in your terms yet appeared, although his existence...

He will not come to reward the righteous...

He will, however, begin a new religious drama.

...he will not be generally known for who he is.

He will return to straighten out Christianity, which will be in shambles at the time of his arrival,

He will undermine religious organizations—not unite them. His message will be that of the individual in relation to All That Is. He will clearly state methods by which each individual can attain a state of intimate contact with his own entity; the entity to some extent being man's mediator with All That Is.

The third personality of Christ will indeed be known as a great psychic, for it is he who will teach humanity to use those inner senses...

He will lead man behind the symbolism upon which religion has relied for so many centuries. He will emphasize individual spiritual experience, the expansiveness of soul, and teach man to recognize the multitudinous aspects of his own reality.

[Sena]

He (Christ) will clearly state methods by which each individual can attain a state of intimate contact with his own entity;

Being more in contact with one's own entity is a very desirable goal. Perhaps it is a more useful and realistic goal than "enlightenment". The implication of what Seth is saying is that we don't yet have the "methods" which will enable us to reach that goal.

[Batfan007]

He will undermine religious organizations—not unite them. His message will be that of the individual in relation to All That Is. He will clearly state methods by which each individual can attain a state of intimate contact with his own entity; the entity to some extent being man's mediator with All That Is.

I quoted this part, as I guess Seth is emphasizing this [in context] , but he (Seth) also gives his own methods for contacting our entity throughout the various Seth books.
I assume he would mean a greater mass focus on that, like you know how everybody in western schooling gets taught to read and write and such, that rather than a few oddballs delving into what is usually called mystical mumbo jumbo, that the practices would become more mainstream, rather than on the fringe of society.

[Deb]

I ask because Seth also states and reiterates that he speaks in our terms. Terms that we understand. Seth also states that at 'that' time (referencing a state of mind that did not allow a woman to share divinity), a "he" was more acceptable.

Are you saying that is still the case?

All I was saying was that since Seth was using he, so was I. Seth did say he speaks in our terms, but session 586 was written in 1971, not that long ago. And yes, 'he' could have been used as a convenience or generic term such as in the example you used. Personally I don't care if the entity is male, female or anything in between, any color, size, age, from any nation, planet or dimension.

My feeling is that the new (returned) Christ entity would have to TRANSCEND gender/race/creed in order to advance humanity. This will have to be a being that we have never seen the likes of before: mind-bending and extraordinary. Not in a form with which anyone has preconceived judgments. Something completely new.

Interesting (to me), from Seth Speaks, Session 586 quoting The Seth Material, session 491:

("There were three men whose lives became confused in history and merged, and whose composite history became known as the life of Christ.... Each was highly gifted psychically, knew of his role, and accepted it willingly. The three men were a part of one entity, gaining physical existence in one time. They were not born on the same date, however. There are reasons why the entity did not return as one person. For one thing, the full consciousness of an entity would be too strong for one physical vehicle. For another, the entity wanted a more diversified environment than could otherwise be provided.

("The entity was born once as John the Baptist, and then he was born in two other forms. One of these contained the personality that most stories of Christ refer to.... I will tell you about the other personality at a later time. There was constant communication between these three portions of one entity, though they were born and buried at different dates. The race called up these personalities from its own psychic bank, from the pool of individualized consciousness that was available to it."

Seth Speaks, Session 586, July 24, 1971:

The third historical personage, already born in your terms, and a portion of the entire Christ personality, took upon himself the role of a zealot.

This person had superior energy and power and great organizing abilities, but it was the errors that he made unwittingly that perpetuated some dangerous distortions. The records of that historical period are scattered and contradictory.

The man, historically now, was Paul or Saul. It was given to him to set up a framework. But it was to be a framework of ideas, not of regulations; of men, not of groups. Here he fell down, and he will return as the third personality, just mentioned, in your future.

Now Saul went to great lengths to set himself as a separate identity. His characteristics, for example, were seemingly quite different from those of the historical Christ. He was "converted" in an intense personal experience–a fact that was meant to impress upon him the personal and not organizational aspects. Yet some exploits of his in his earlier life have been attributed to Christ—not as a young man, but earlier.

(10:05.) All personalities have free will and work out their own challenges. The same applied to Saul. The organizational "distortions," however, were also necessary within the framework of history as events are understood. Saul's tendencies were known, therefore, at another level. They served a purpose. It is for this reason, however, that he will emerge once again, this time to destroy those distortions.

Now he did not create them on his own, and thrust them upon historical reality. (Jane paused, a hand to her eyes.) He created them in so far as he found himself forced to admit certain facts: In that world at that time, earthly power was needed to hold Christian ideas apart from numberless other theories and religions, to maintain them in the middle of warring factions. It was his job to form a physical framework; and even then he was afraid that the framework would strangle the ideas, but he saw no other way.

("Why the two names, Paul and Saul?")

He was called both. (Pause.) When the third personality reemerges historically, however, he will not be called the old Paul, but will carry within him the characteristics of all the three personalities. [My note: WOW!]

...When the historical Christ "died," Paul was to implement the spiritual ideas in physical terms, to carry on. In so doing, however, he grew the seeds of an organization that would smother the ideas. He lingered after Christ, just as John the Baptist came before. Together the three spanned some time period, you see.

John and the historical Christ each performed their roles and were satisfied that they had done so. Paul alone was left at the end unsatisfied, and so it is about his personality that the future [reincarnated] Christ will form.

SS Chapter 21: Session 588, August 2, 1971

Rob: (In the 586th session... Seth stated that by the year 2075 the third Christ—Paul or Saul—would have enacted the Second Coming, exerting of course a profound effect upon religion and world history. Jane thought a period of less than a century was much too short a time to encompass so many dramatic changes.

Seth: Now in answer to Rubert's question: The birth will occur at the time given; by the time given (the year 2075). The other changes will occur generally over the period of a century, but the results will show far before that time.

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.

PS
I copied & pasted a few of these quotes from a blog rather than typing all of it myself. The other person had used a capital H for He, His or Him referred to Saul/Paul. I've tried to catch all of them to restore to Seth's actual writing.

[sethspeaks]

Especially you should know that this game played out John, Jesus and Paul together. These three created the symbol "Christ".
It is a symbol, not a man, who walked the earth.
Here goes about unraveling of religious symbols. Which were original and which were not.
Seth speaks of many paths that lead to the inner self. This way passed through these symbols.

[Deb]

Especially you should know that this game played out John, Jesus and Paul together. These three created the symbol "Christ".

Or...
The Christ Entity/Personality (just one aspect of All That Is, albeit a huge one) created John, Jesus and Paul as aspects or fragments of itself. The disciples were aspects of Jesus, maybe all three of them. In this regard, everything/everyone could be considered symbols. John and Jesus felt successful in their intentions; Paul felt he missed his mark. The return, according to Seth, will be Paul intending to right what he felt he failed, but also will contain a compilation of all three aspects of the Christ Entity. So... maybe something new? The Earthly manifestation of the Entity, rather than a singular aspect/incarnation/probability of the Entity?

[sethspeaks]

Yes. 
Session 588:
"Paul needed the strongest egoistical strenght because of his particular duties. He was far less aware consciously of his role for this reason. The inner knowledge, of course, exploded in the physical conversion experience."
Session 586:
"The man, historicaly now, was Paul or Saul. It was given to him to set up a framework. But it was to be a framework of ideas, not of regulations; of men, not of groups. Here he fell down, and he will return as the third personality, just mentioned, in your future."

---

I think he will need a big ego because he will have to unite ego and ati.
When he makes this connection, it will be easier for others to do this thing too.
I do not think it will be great theater. He "only" wakes up Truth.

[Sena]

I find it interesting that when I researched within and online and in books the etymolgies of the word "Bartholomew", I get

Bar = son of

tholomew = thalamas or thalamai which means chamber, and is an area associated with the pineal gland.

On the theme of the pineal gland, the chemical DMT is found in the pineal of humans and other primates. The Amazonian plant ayahuasca also contains DMT. Those who have experimented with DMT have had very illuminating experiences:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine

https://erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=101884

[Deb]

"Each of the twelve represented qualities of personality that belong to one individual, and Christ as you know him represented the inner self. The twelve, therefore, plus Christ as you know him (the one figure composed of the three) represented an individual earthly personality — the inner self — and twelve main characteristics connected with the egotistical self. As Christ was surrounded by the disciples, so the inner self is surrounded by these physically oriented characteristics, each drawn outward toward daily reality on the one hand, and yet orbiting the inner self."
—SS Chapter 14: Session 560, November 23, 1970

THE TWELVE DISCIPLES - Neville Goddard

Thank you SO much for the information on the disciples. Seth mentioned them briefly, but did not (have the opportunity to) expound on what they represented. Neville does not speak to me much at this point, so I appreciate having people that know his work well.

DMT has come up here before. While I have not been much of a drug experimenter in my life, DMT does interest me. I wish I had a way to test it. The side-effects, however, are a big deterrent.

[Sena]

I only know that because moons ago at one time, I wanted to try this. lol

You might even see Christ if you take it in a sufficient dose.

http://www.evolveandascend.com/2017/03/13/the-secret-history-of-hallucinogens-in-christianity/

http://www.egodeath.com/amanita.htm

[Deb]

You might even see Christ if you take it in a sufficient dose.

http://www.evolveandascend.com/2017/03/13/the-secret-history-of-hallucinogens-in-christianity/

Great find! It makes sense to me, I think all cultures throughout history have had some sort of aid to elevate their consciousness (the word 'high' makes more sense to me now). Explains some things in the bible as well. I've added the book to my Wish List.

[Sena]

Seth *hints* and you have to read between the lines. Seth is tricky in this way. Very tricky.

strangerthings, I agree with you on this. Welcome back to the forum.

[sethspeaks]

Strangerthings,
I also agree, but it is a little stereotypical in everyday reality.
It seems to me...

[Deb]

I found a book I'd never heard of before, Christ Returns Speaks His Truth. This book was supposedly channeled through an anonymous 80 year old woman. "In this astonishing book of letters dictated by the Christ Consciousness in the year 2000, Christ refutes religious dogma and explains in lucid and concrete terms the spiritual and scientific Truth of Existence, and how to connect through daily meditation with Divine Consciousness and overcome the dominance of the ego."

I read parts of it and found some of it interesting, but he mentions his death by crucifixion often, which sets up a red flag for me because of Seth's explanation of the event. Here are a couple of interesting quotes though.

"I realized there was nothing solid in the universe, everything visible was manifesting a differing 'state of consciousness' which determined the composition and form of the 'shimmer of motes'. Therefore, all outer form was an expression of the inner consciousness."

. . .

"Your human mindset (including any religious ideas or beliefs) determines your world, your relationships, experiences, successes, failures, happiness and misery. It is even responsible for your sickness, disease and accidents. Nothing happens by chance. Everything is woven out of the inner threads of your personal consciousness – thoughts, expectations, beliefs in life, fate, "God". You live in a world of your own making."

from Letter One

[chasman]

looks interesting.
please tell us if you have any more thoughts about this, would you Deb?

[Deb]

please tell us if you have any more thoughts about this

Unfortunately, while some of the information in the book (I've not read it all, have merely skipped around) does fit within the teachings of Seth, a lot of it feels preachy and religion based. Quotes from the bible are used, which makes me uncomfortable because I've never felt the bible was all that reliable—I've read enough differing opinions on the origins/purpose, specifically of the new testament.

From the Latter Days:

"You have become so accustomed to DARKNESS, you no longer recognize it.
Your world is rife with war-wracked nations. It is heavy, heavy, heavy with gross mental and emotional vibrational frequencies of selfishness and a total disregard for life. Your streets are now thoroughfares of danger, of road rage, of jealous muggers envious of the possessions of others, of stalking predators eager to conquer and control others through use of sexual force."

Not exactly life in a safe universe. Then, there is this commercial break, a tirade about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the USA and later 911/Twin Towers.

"Here you had a man, Saddam Hussein who was determined to take power in Iraq and bring about peace and plenty for his people. Unevolved in true spirituality, he used most harsh and violent ways to control a nation, to silence those people who gave him problems. These people used violence in an uprising against him and he poured violence back on them. Here were a tyrannical Dictator and a sect of people of the same mental and moral level – their spiritual vibrations, despite all the prayer and outward religious show, were as dark and dense and low as it is possible to attain in your world today. Hussein and these unruly people deserved each other."

(Goes on to implicate the USA...)

"It is certain that NO ONE truly on the path of CHRIST'S WAY – MY WAY – would ever have followed such a sadistic course. Faced with the problem of having to deal with a Saddam Hussein, such a leader, enlightened in the spiritual and scientific Laws of Existence, would have called a session of enlightened people to meet to meditate and to ask for guidance."

For me, case closed. Another wolf in sheep's clothing. By the way, that's from the bible. And that's the truth. Pffft.



PS
Seth remains my home base.

[chasman]

wow Deb.
super grateful for your reply.
I am part way through letter 1.
the stuff that I like, has me ready to embrace it wholeheartedly,and really stoked to read the whole book.
there is a lot that really resonates with me. and then there's stuff I don't like.
some kind of fakeness, not really sure how to say it here, grasping for words to describe. and not finding them at the moment.
maybe far fetched. hokey.
really hard to believe that the main man (JC), is back dictating this book to the recorder. hmmmm. tough one to grok here.
so I super extra super appreciate your thoughts. I think you helped me get my feet back on the ground. you are awesome.
sincerely,
Charlie

[Deb]

some kind of fakeness

Yes, I have to agree.

And your use of grok...
totally blew me away. Thank you for that.

I read that book when I was a teen, maybe 15.
I STILL have the book.
The only other books I've held onto that long were by Lovecraft.
No need to explain how much Stranger impressed me.
I have no idea how I came across it. Maybe it opened my mind?
First copyright 1961. I paid $1.50 US for it. As a used book in the 70s.
It's still in fairly good condition.

Time to read it again?
I think so.

I'm excited at the prospect.
It may have been the one book that set me on the path to Seth.

[chasman]

wow. extra mucho awesome wowness!!!
you are amazing to the moon and the stars!!!
Stranger in a Strange Land had the most huge effect on me as a teenager.
cannot overestimate its influence on a young version of moi.

I am happy for you to be excited to read it again.

Jubal Harshaw and Valentine Michael Smith. wow.

the other book, that had an incalculably large influence on me (aside from all the Seth books), was Richard Bach's Illusions: Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah.
hmmmm.check the pattern of themes here. Messiah in that book, I seem to recall something about Messiah stuff in the Stranger in a Strange Land book (its been a few decades now since I read it, and I forget), and then the Christ Consciousness book.

and isn't grok a cool word/concept?

[Sena]

Faced with the problem of having to deal with a Saddam Hussein, such a leader, enlightened in the spiritual and scientific Laws of Existence, would have called a session of enlightened people to meet to meditate and to ask for guidance."

For me, case closed. Another wolf in sheep's clothing.

Interesting quote. Neville Goddard wrote repeatedly that the best way is to imagine the desired outcome vividly, but NOT to bother with the method by which that outcome is achieved. So we imagine a state of peace and prosperity but should not bother with calling "a session of enlightened people".

[Deb]

the other book, that had an incalculably large influence on me (aside from all the Seth books), was Richard Bach's Illusions: Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah.

Another great book. I ended buying that one probably 3 times because people would borrow it and not return it. I'd want to read it again and so would buy another copy. You know Bach met with Jane, with questions about his Seagull book? That book was channeled. More here: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=407 There was even an article written about him in Time magazine, mentioning Jane, Rob and Seth.

And yes grok is a cool word, and probably the word I've been searching for that better explains the sudden Knowing or Understanding that happens often. Mike Dooley uses "spontaneous enlightenment," I like that too.

Interesting quote. Neville Goddard wrote repeatedly that the best way is to imagine the desired outcome vividly, but NOT to bother with the method by which that outcome is achieved. So we imagine a state of peace and prosperity but should not bother with calling "a session of enlightened people".

There were a lot of things on that Urgent Message page that were fishy to me. Personal grievance stuff, not something such an enlightened being would be saying.

PS I just visited Bach's web site. Looks like they're working on an interactive app for the Seagull book. What fun! Actually, http://richardbach.com/a-new-and-modern-vision-of-jonathans-forever-principles/  I actually never did see the actual movie.

[chasman]

Another great book. I ended buying that one probably 3 times because people would borrow it and not return it. I'd want to read it again and so would buy another copy. You know Bach met with Jane, with questions about his Seagull book? That book was channeled. More here: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=407 There was even an article written about him in Time magazine, mentioning Jane, Rob and Seth.

And yes grok is a cool word, and probably the word I've been searching for that better explains the sudden Knowing or Understanding that happens often. Mike Dooley uses "spontaneous enlightenment," I like that too.

awesome. thank you very much for all of that Deb.
I remember reading with great fondness, other books by Richard Bach.
fascinating about him and Jane and Seth and Rob.
grok seems like a real Sethian kind of thing.
I'm not familiar with Mike Dooley. Can you recommend anything by him?
and I read more of the Christ Returns letter 1 today.
have become disenchanted.
I like the way you phrased it, when you said Seth is your home base.

[chasman]

If the teachings you are looking upon do not lead you back to yourself as Creator then run from them and run fast

really really good. thank you st.

[Deb]

I am happy for you to be excited to read it again.

I started reading it again tonight, but I realized it was probably available as audio on YouTube that I can listen to when I'm doing... whatever. Found it. So I have been listening while making myself dinner, surprised at the technology or at least anticipated technology at the time of writing (1961). Then I started to wonder why it was not made into a movie, and voilà, SyFy already has it in the works! http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/stranger-a-strange-land-tv-series-works-at-syfy-947671 Woo hoo! Since I've given up regular TV, I imagine I will have to find another way to watch. I don't know if you live in the US or elsewhere, so can't comment beyond that.

As far as Mike Dooley... his story is very interesting and he is totally on board with Seth, mentions Seth and Jane Roberts in his own books, has his own presentation or angle of "you create your own reality." Just another angle on the Seth materials, but he is enthusiastic and creative and definitely a worthy read from my own perspective. I signed up for his Notes from the Universe http://www.tut.com/Inspiration/nftu, and a lot of those are timely and stellar. Check out: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1078.msg9326#msg9326 and https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1053.msg9180#msg9180.

I've read his book Infinite Possibilities and could easily recommend that.

[chasman]

I am happy for you to be excited to read it again.

I started reading it again tonight, but I realized it was probably available as audio on YouTube that I can listen to when I'm doing... whatever. Found it. So I have been listening while making myself dinner, surprised at the technology or at least anticipated technology at the time of writing (1961). Then I started to wonder why it was not made into a movie, and voilà, SyFy already has it in the works! http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/stranger-a-strange-land-tv-series-works-at-syfy-947671 Woo hoo! Since I've given up regular TV, I imagine I will have to find another way to watch. I don't know if you live in the US or elsewhere, so can't comment beyond that.

As far as Mike Dooley... his story is very interesting and he is totally on board with Seth, mentions Seth and Jane Roberts in his own books, has his own presentation or angle of "you create your own reality." Just another angle on the Seth materials, but he is enthusiastic and creative and definitely a worthy read from my own perspective. I signed up for his Notes from the Universe http://www.tut.com/Inspiration/nftu, and a lot of those are timely and stellar. Check out: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1078.msg9326#msg9326 and https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1053.msg9180#msg9180.

I've read his book Infinite Possibilities and could easily recommend that.

you are soooooo awesome!!!!
thank you so much for all of that Deb!!!!!!
I also do not watch TV.
will check out Mike Dooley. looking very forward to it.
you are very kind and good.
Charlie
and I live in the US, in NY State.

[chasman]

I signed up for his Notes from the Universe

I just signed up for Notes from the Universe. thank you again Deb. 
and just read your 2 links.
I'm in.   

[Deb]

This is sort of related to this topic. I could have put it under "other authors" but since I haven't actually read the book, I'll put this here for the time being.

I did a little wiki research on Byron Katie this morning. Her husband, Stephen Mitchell, is an author and translator, has written a variety of books, many of them being new translations of various classics and spiritual writings such as the Iliad, Tao Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Genesis, more. Under his Non-Fiction category is The Gospel According to Jesus. "Mr. Mitchell has retained only the authentic sayings and doings of Jesus, and has omitted the passages added by the early church. What is left is an immensely provocative and moving image of Jesus as a real person and as a great spiritual teacher, an image that will challenge and delight readers of any religion or of no religion." There is an explanation in the Intro that explains how he 'knew' what is authentic and what is not.

As the original gospels (I think) were written in Aramaic or Hebrew, the Greek may be the first translation that muddied the waters, but as far as I know it's the closest thing we have to the originals writings. Sorry I'm so vague about this, but religion and the Bible were never my thing.

Well, the book does sound interesting.

I read a good portion of the introduction under Excerpts on the page link above. It makes Jesus sound like a Speaker. I enjoyed this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." (To John Adams, January 24, 1814)

[chasman]

very interesting Jefferson quote.
Deb, I remember reading years ago, that Jefferson went through a Bible with a scissors and cut out all the stuff that he thought was bogus, and thus made whats called the Jefferson Bible.

[Joelr]

Hi,

Wondering if anyone cares to comment on this.

I've always been a huge Seth fan but have gotten away from him for some time while I've investigated a bit of science and skeptical ideas.
As I come back to reading Seth I've got some issues that I just can't shake, especially what he's said about Christ.

"Christ, the historical Christ, was not crucified.He had no intention of dying in that manner; "

First, Seth speaks of Christ several times as if he was definitely an actual person. Right now the mythicist theory is looking like the most probable - meaning Christ was not even a real man. (for more on that watch some of PHD Richard Carrier's debates)

" Paul was to implement the spiritual ideas  of Christ in physical terms, however he grew the seeds of an organization that would smother the ideas. "

Scholarship considers Acts to be unreliable historically so all we have from Paul is from the letters to Corinthians. Paul actually never speaks of a physical Christ or shows any knowledge of his earthly teachings. All of the knowledge from Paul comes from "revelations" (or scripture) and it's likely that Paul believed Jesus was crucified in what was then known as the lower heavens or the firmament.
This doesn't directly go against what Seth is saying but nothing from Paul "smothered" the ideas of Jesus. That came much later, all Paul spoke of was a death and resurrection of Jesus which he became aware of through revelation (hallucination) and scripture.



"He would be sacrificed to make the old Jewish prophecies come true, and he could not be dissuaded."

What troubles me here is complete lack of knowledge of the fact that the entire sin redeemer demi-god mythology came directly from cultural diffusion and not from Jewish prophecies.
That died/resurrected in 3 days, redeem sins, defeat death, virgin born, sky-father demigod mythology started with Zoroastrianism and then moved to multiple cultures each with their own version - Romulus, Osirus, Zalmoxus, and eventually a Jewish version emerged which was Christianity. Judaism had no afterlife or warring factions (heaven vs hell) until it was adopted from these other mythologies.


"Each of the twelve represented qualities of personality  that belong to one individual, and Christ as you know him represented the inner self. The twelve, therefore, plus Christ as you know him (the one figure composed of the three) represented an individual earthly personality - the inner self - and twelve main characteristics connected with the egotistical self. "

Well actually the 12 disciples are found in all of the Christ-like religions and go back even much further. We now know that the 12 originally was the 12 zodiac.
It's 12 because of 12 bright stars.



"......gospel was a forgery"

I forgot which gospel Seth called a forgery but it doesn't matter at all because that statement makes zero sense in any context. All of the gospels start with the Greek phrase for "as told to me by" (kata memori...?) so right there we know none of them were actually written by their namesake.
Scholars have also established from writing styles and repeats of historical mistakes that all of the gospels are basically re-writes of Mark. But Mark wasn't written for at least 30 years after the death of Jesus and we know that around 50% of early Christianity was Gnostic so at the very least all of that stuff was left out of Mark.

Again it's just a Jewish re-write of redeemer god mythology anyways so the idea that one gospel is a "forgery" is silly. If Seth means "forgery" in the sense that the author didn't write it then that's actually the case for ALL the gospels.


"n the Last Supper when Christ said, "This is my body, and this is my blood," He meant to show that the spirit was within all matter, interconnected, and yet apart--that His own spirit was independent of His body, and also in His own way to hint that He should no longer be identified with His body. "

Last suppers are standard mythological themes and are in Christianity because it's part of an important parable, not because it happened?!
Body and blood references are even more common themes in mythology. Everyone knows that many ancient cultures performed ritual sacrifice and sometimes would actually consume the persons who were sacrificed. Sometimes it would be to gain their powers of youthfulness or maybe the gods just willed it.
Either way it's obviously revolting and primitive. Especially to modern forward-thinking Christians. What Christians often fail to realize is that at communion you eat the body and blood of Jesus. Early Christians believed that the communion wafer and wine actually transformed into the body and blood of Jesus.
Even if you don't think that to be true the ritual of communion is a direct leftover of consuming the sacrificed person.

Christ never said "This is my body, and this is my blood,", this is the most obvious cultural diffusion of mythological themes here you can possibly get. You sacrifice the demigod so the sky god will grant you a favor. This one gets your sins forgiven. Then you eat the sacrificed. This is where this theme was put into Christianity.
This theme was not created to show that the spirit was within all matter but even if it was Seth seems to have no idea that these are parables and mythological characters.

"Your Christ figure represents, symbolically, your idea of God and his relationships. There were three separate individuals whose history blended, and they became known collectively as Christ - hence many discrepancies in your records. These were all males because at that time of your development, you would not have accepted a female counterpart."

No actually there were some female redeemer demigods who died for sins.

There really aren't any discrepancies in our records (gospels) that would suggest 3 Christ. There is just Mark and then each re-write just adds more and more supernatural wu-wu. Each one tries to outdo the last.




The overall point here is that this "Seth on Jesus" section is very troubling to me. I really feel that had Seth actually been able to see into that past and divine these very specific things he puts forth he should have also been able to talk about some of the things we now know to be historically accurate.
Back in the 70's some of this bible historicity was not at all well known for obvious reasons. So Jane didn't have access to it. The overall tone of Seth's biblical knowledge is just so inaccurate that I have to believe Jane just made it up.
My problem is it's calling into question other Seth material.

[Sena]

I've always been a huge Seth fan but have gotten away from him for some time while I've investigated a bit of science and skeptical ideas.
As I come back to reading Seth I've got some issues that I just can't shake, especially what he's said about Christ.

Hi Joel, welcome to the forum. Yes, I agree that Seth's statements on Christ are problematic. Seth did not claim to be omniscient, so it could be that some of his statements about Christ are simply wrong. It appears that he was not familiar with the New Testament scholarship of the past 100 years.

I find some of the statements made by Nietzsche in "The Antichrist" quite interesting. Nietzsche had a lot of respect for Jesus, but not for the "Christ" invented by St. Paul. I don't think Nietzsche thought of himself as the Antichrist. That was probably his name for the R.C and Lutheran Churches. Some quotes from Nietzsche:

"Every one is the child of God--Jesus claims nothing for himself alone--as the child of God each man is the
equal of every other man."
"Jesus himself had done away with the very concept of "guilt," he denied that there was any gulf fixed between
God and man; he lived this unity between God and man, and that was precisely his "glad tidings".

https://archive.org/stream/theantichrist19322gut/19322.txt

Nietzsche wrote The Antichrist in 1888, so he obviously had only a limited amount of objective New Testament scholarship to rely on.

[Deb]

First, Seth speaks of Christ several times as if he was definitely an actual person. Right now the mythicist theory is looking like the most probable - meaning Christ was not even a real man. (for more on that watch some of PHD Richard Carrier's debates)

Hi Joelr, welcome to the forum. Thanks for your post, lots to respond to in there! For now, let me just offer this and I'll address more later. I had a problem with Seth using the name Christ because the figure we call Christ is actually named Jesus (in English), his title was "the Christ" -- meaning the anointed one. So Jesus Christ. But in modern days we refer to the person as either Christ OR Jesus interchangeably and it seems Seth sometimes does the same. Seth has often said he must speak to us in our terms and language, so maybe that's why.

But what Seth says about the Christ became clearer for me due to the quote I'll add below. He is referring to Christ as 'your Christ figure' or 'the Christ personality'-- Seth has often said he speaks to us in words and terminology that we will understand. He is saying that what we think of as Christ a person is really a symbol combined of three individuals (personalities) that did exist, Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul. So in this Seth is saying the Christ was not a real, living person, but instead a symbol. I'm not clear whether he's saying below that the disciples were actually living. He said they were fully endowed with individuality--do I assume that also means taking physical form? Or are they a part of the Christ entity, as the three are? The return of the Christ personality would mean a human possessing all of the characteristics of the three (and 12?), and then some. Pretty intense.

• "The three Christ personalities were born upon your planet, and indeed became flesh among you. None of these was crucified. The twelve disciples were materializations from the energies of these three personalities — their combined energies. They were then fully endowed with individuality, however, but their main task was to clearly manifest within themselves certain abilities inherent within all men."

• "Each of the twelve represented qualities of personality that belong to one individual, and Christ as you know him represented the inner self. The twelve, therefore, plus Christ as you know him (the one figure composed of the three) represented an individual earthly personality — the inner self — and twelve main characteristics connected with the egotistical self. As Christ was surrounded by the disciples, so the inner self is surrounded by these physically oriented characteristics, each drawn outward toward daily reality on the one hand, and yet orbiting the inner self."

• "(9:46.) Your Christ figure represents, symbolically, your idea of God and his relationships. There were three separate individuals whose history blended, and they became known collectively as Christ — hence many discrepancies in your records. These were all males because at that time of your development, you would not have accepted a female counterpart."

—SS Chapter 14: Session 560, November 23, 1970

And this too:

"(10:37.) In a manner of speaking, again, there was no one Christ, historically speaking, but the personage of Christ, or the entity, was the reality from which the entire dramatic story emerged."
—TPS4 Deleted Session January 23, 1978

I have access to some unpublished Seth material talking about the Christ, I'll take a look in there and see if there's anything helpful.

I have a non-Seth book buried somewhere that says the gospels were created to be used as teaching references in church, broken down into sections so they could be taught over the span of a calendar year. I'm not explaining that clearly, but basically they were not mystical and more practical in nature. I'm going to track down the book so I can share what it said, it made sense to me. The first may have been Mark, the rest would have been hand copied, the information tailored by the church that used them, and attributed to the other disciples after the fact. This is pretty interesting.

I have to admit that there have been times when I've questioned whether Jane's religious background has affected some of the messages she streamed from Seth.

Well actually the 12 disciples are found in all of the Christ-like religions and go back even much further. We now know that the 12 originally was the 12 zodiac.
It's 12 because of 12 bright stars.

There were Speakers that go back long before the time of Jesus, et al. Not directly related to the Christ story, but Seth does talk about how information gets distorted over the ages (not to mention how Speakers had to communicate with the people over the ages in terms they could understand). Hah, I just had a vision of a caveman Seth streaming through a cavewoman Jane, caveman Rob finger painting his notes on a wall. Maybe I'll try to sketch that later. 

"What I will tell you has been told before throughout the centuries, and given again when it was forgotten. I hope to clarify many points that have been distorted throughout the years." SS, Session 511

"The concept itself existed long before Christianity's initiation, and was told in various forms throughout the centuries and in all civilizations." NoPR, Session 646

[transient amnesia]

...

[Sena]

My feeling was that Seth used those examples as it was how Jane was brought up and 'speaking to her understanding'.

TA, I think I can agree with that. The picture is useful. The "true energetic self" would be equivalent to what Seth refers to as "The Entity". How I visualize it is that that the diagram can be extended all the way up to "All That Is". Christ, if he exists, would be one Entity among many others. There was a member here named Voidypaul who suggested that Seth Two might be Christ (if I understood him correctly). I imagine that the real Christ, if he exists, would be very different to the caricature invented by Saint Paul.

This is one quote from Voidypaul:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=669.msg6111;topicseen#msg6111

"You know , things like that , things that will quite frankly blow our tiny minds , of course , + of course it seems to be something of a mystery to most what on earth this all might consist of or how it will come about but i think there are many clues in the Seth works themselves about the potentials of the true inner self + the entity , for us to be able  to imagine a 'future' personality with abilities we can only dream of right now ,a personality we might percieve in the teachings of Seth + Seth 2 ."

(I see that Voidypaul is still a member, although he stopped posting last January)

P.S. When I read this quote I realize that Voidypaul was NOT identifying Seth Two with Christ. He seemed to be saying that Christ is much "greater" than Seth Two.

[Joelr]

Hi Joel, welcome to the forum. Yes, I agree that Seth's statements on Christ are problematic. Seth did not claim to be omniscient, so it could be that some of his statements about Christ are simply wrong. It appears that he was not familiar with the New Testament scholarship of the past 100 years.

I find some of the statements made by Nietzsche in "The Antichrist" quite interesting. Nietzsche had a lot of respect for Jesus, but not for the "Christ" invented by St. Paul. I don't think Nietzsche thought of himself as the Antichrist. That was probably his name for the R.C and Lutheran Churches. Some quotes from Nietzsche:

"Every one is the child of God--Jesus claims nothing for himself alone--as the child of God each man is the
equal of every other man."
"Jesus himself had done away with the very concept of "guilt," he denied that there was any gulf fixed between
God and man; he lived this unity between God and man, and that was precisely his "glad tidings".

https://archive.org/stream/theantichrist19322gut/19322.txt

Nietzsche wrote The Antichrist in 1888, so he obviously had only a limited amount of objective New Testament scholarship to rely on.

That's more like Eastern philosophy Nietzsche is leaning towards. He does mention Hindu castes in The AntiChrist. Jesus does teach that "god is already in everyone" type ideology in the Thomas Gospel. It's easy to see why the Roman Bishops wanted those ideas out of Christianity. They are also found in Gnostic writings which were part of early Christianity. Elaine Pagels writes some great books about the lost gospels and Gnostic Christian beliefs.

According to the Dead Sea Scrools Nietzsche was correct. I think he was just smart enough to know Jesus was teaching Gnostic/Eastern ideas and what emerged out of later years was a Christianity used to control the masses.

If you check out Lost Gospels by Pagels you'll see a very different picture of early Christianity, it's Eastern thinking Gnostics vs traditional Christian bishops who want control over the masses. It's made very obvious why these bishops wanted a particular Christian canon to be law because it set up an internal power structure within Christianity. Only certain people could teach and interpret the gospels. So that confirms Nietzsche.

That's more stuff I feel like Seth would know. I do recognize that Seth did not claim to be omniscient, but my issue isn't omniscience but that he does seem to know very specific details. Which are also wrong. It would be one thing if Seth simply said the whole Christ saga was fuzzy to him but he is often so specific it's like he has a window to see exactly what was going on. Which really suggests he would be more on track with historical data y'know?

[Joelr]

Hi Joelr, welcome to the forum. Thanks for your post, lots to respond to in there! For now, let me just offer this and I'll address more later. I had a problem with Seth using the name Christ because the figure we call Christ is actually named Jesus (in English), his title was "the Christ" -- meaning the anointed one. So Jesus Christ. But in modern days we refer to the person as either Christ OR Jesus interchangeably and it seems Seth sometimes does the same. Seth has often said he must speak to us in our terms and language, so maybe that's why.



But what Seth says about the Christ became clearer for me due to the quote I'll add below. He is referring to Christ as 'your Christ figure' or 'the Christ personality'-- Seth has often said he speaks to us in words and terminology that we will understand. He is saying that what we think of as Christ a person is really a symbol combined of three individuals (personalities) that did exist, Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul. So in this Seth is saying the Christ was not a real, living person, but instead a symbol. I'm not clear whether he's saying below that the disciples were actually living. He said they were fully endowed with individuality--do I assume that also means taking physical form? Or are they a part of the Christ entity, as the three are? The return of the Christ personality would mean a human possessing all of the characteristics of the three (and 12?), and then some. Pretty intense.

That's true about the "Jesus Christ" name.
It would have been way cooler had Seth mentioned that "Jesus" was really just a Jewish re-hash of messiah mythology and the actual name comes from Jewish angelology itself. Jesus was already an angel in Judaism who was killed and re-born in the firmament or lower heavens battling ....possibly Lucifer? Which is probably what Paul was talking about. Christian scholars often balk at this idea as if it's completely unfounded. Until one points out that events often took place in these lower heavens including some original stories about Adam and Eve.

• "The three Christ personalities were born upon your planet, and indeed became flesh among you. None of these was crucified. The twelve disciples were materializations from the energies of these three personalities — their combined energies. They were then fully endowed with individuality, however, but their main task was to clearly manifest within themselves certain abilities inherent within all men."

• "Each of the twelve represented qualities of personality that belong to one individual, and Christ as you know him represented the inner self. The twelve, therefore, plus Christ as you know him (the one figure composed of the three) represented an individual earthly personality — the inner self — and twelve main characteristics connected with the egotistical self. As Christ was surrounded by the disciples, so the inner self is surrounded by these physically oriented characteristics, each drawn outward toward daily reality on the one hand, and yet orbiting the inner self."

• "(9:46.) Your Christ figure represents, symbolically, your idea of God and his relationships. There were three separate individuals whose history blended, and they became known collectively as Christ — hence many discrepancies in your records. These were all males because at that time of your development, you would not have accepted a female counterpart."

—SS Chapter 14: Session 560, November 23, 1970

And this too:

"(10:37.) In a manner of speaking, again, there was no one Christ, historically speaking, but the personage of Christ, or the entity, was the reality from which the entire dramatic story emerged."
—TPS4 Deleted Session January 23, 1978

I'm not sure what's up with "3" Christ personalities? There are many other pre-Christian demigods who died and resurrected for personal sins who were not part of a trinity and I don't think Jesus was either. That honestly seems like Jane being influenced by the more modern Trinity in Christianity.
That was just a way to keep Christianity from having multiple gods which was a concept that was going out of favor.

As far as the "12 personalities" I have to say that's just super wrong. 12 apostles is in so many mystery religions and goes right back to Sun worship. The field is astrotheology I think? Anyways, this is for sure not 12 anything except 12 zodiac stars. It's astrology!

There was a female demigod who did the same things Christ did, Osirus. Yaweh also DID have a female counterpart Ashera.

I have a non-Seth book buried somewhere that says the gospels were created to be used as teaching references in church, broken down into sections so they could be taught over the span of a calendar year. I'm not explaining that clearly, but basically they were not mystical and more practical in nature. I'm going to track down the book so I can share what it said, it made sense to me. The first may have been Mark, the rest would have been hand copied, the information tailored by the church that used them, and attributed to the other disciples after the fact. This is pretty interesting.

I have to admit that there have been times when I've questioned whether Jane's religious background has affected some of the messages she streamed from Seth.

I have been enjoying listening to debates by PHD Richard Carrier who is laying out the mythicist theory in a way that has withstood all opposing Christian scholars as well as opposing PHD historians who argue that Jesus was not divine but at least was a real man.

But Richard is also debunking a lot of amateur literature about bible historicity that I was fond of. Like D.M. Murdocks work and every previous mythicist theory.
But Rich is using facts to show why these previous theories are not accurate. So I have to let them go. At this point I would approach material on the Gospels carefully. There are some additional reasons why I'm trusting Carrier's work which he explains very clearly. They have to do with reasons why scholars in that field approach change with caution because there are still many diehard Christians with administrative positions that can influence peoples careers in a bad way.
Also he is actually the fist PHD to do a historicity study (8 year project) in a long time. So many of the ideas in the field are remnants of a different time (1920's was the last PHD work on the gospels).

There were Speakers that go back long before the time of Jesus, et al. Not directly related to the Christ story, but Seth does talk about how information gets distorted over the ages (not to mention how Speakers had to communicate with the people over the ages in terms they could understand). Hah, I just had a vision of a caveman Seth streaming through a cavewoman Jane, caveman Rob finger painting his notes on a wall. Maybe I'll try to sketch that later. 

"What I will tell you has been told before throughout the centuries, and given again when it was forgotten. I hope to clarify many points that have been distorted throughout the years." SS, Session 511

"The concept itself existed long before Christianity's initiation, and was told in various forms throughout the centuries and in all civilizations." NoPR, Session 646

Seth is right about the concept existing long before Christianity. But he doesn't seem to be aware that that personal sin demigod gaining power over death and redeeming his followers from sin was all the rage moving from Persia to the Thrasians, into Egypt, Greece, Rome and eventually a Jewish version emerged which was lucky to become the Roman official religion.
People in America in the 60's did not have access to this knowledge. Now Seth seemed to have direct knowledge about early Christianity so I can't get past the fact that his history is so off.

A lot of his physics concepts HAVE emerged into physics since the 70's. Especially in the 90's and beyond. A book was written comparing Seths physics to Mystical thinking and to David Bohm's quantum physics. I could also write a book on the parallels. Except his "EE particles" are a little derivative of electromagnetism and also don't explain anything except add another layer of complexity.
I do feel if Seth were legit he would fix our biggest problem in Physics and unify gravity and quantum mechanics.
But I know Jane wasn't a scientist so her vocabulary is limited. It bugs me that he never offered any real solutions to the quantum mysteries but he did put forth some stuff that later became part of conceptual physics. So this one has promise. The religious stuff is what bothers me.

[Joelr]

Hi Joel 
Good'morn'n everyone.

I'd like to add a picture here as to how I understood what Seth was saying about the christ 'energy' so to speak.



It's explained in Oversoul 7.... I have not read the Bible. TLTR... My feeling was that Seth used those examples as it was how Jane was brought up and 'speaking to her understanding'.

So my thing with this is we know for sure "12" is in all religions and dates back to Sumerian? astrology. It's 12 zodiac.
The idea that there just happen to be 12 personalities or anything else like that is far too much of a coincidence.

Yes the ancients though there were possibly 12 aspects to a personality (maybe) but it's not based on metaphysics, it's because they were stunned by the 12 stars and the big sun sitting there in the middle of the sky that gave us heat and life. These 12 stars moving around every year were the biggest mysteries to early humans and probably proto-humans.

It's likely that in the 60's Jane thought - like most Christians - that all these concepts like "12" apostles were original to Christianity and might have metaphysical meaning. Even the "carpenter demigod" is not original to Christianity.
It's just astrology and I'm disappointed that Seth tried to make significance of it.

Maybe it was Jane trying to add stuff to what Seth was giving, I dont' know?? I was always a big Seth fan and have re-read Seth Speaks and NOPR probably 20 times back in the 90's.

I'm a little jaded because as of late I've debunked SO much stuff in the UFO field and have studied stuff about people who were prominent ESP people. There are writings that pump this stuff up but allowing myself to also read what intelligent skeptics have to say it doesn't pan out as real. Statistics are abused and studies that show bad results are ignored when people write pro-ESP books. Like that book "The Field" by Lynn Taggart?. She abused and ignored so many studies. As does some of the UFO writers.
And you can go on youtube and watch Derren Brown destroy psychics. And cold-reading mediums, I'm not even going there.

All of the Seth criticism I've read so far however hasn't really debunked Seth at all. Seths work alone does give it credibility. I'm gonna just ignore the thing about Jane channeling that other dude. I can't deal with that right now.

[LenKop]

Welcome Joelr,

It's difficult to argue with linear time. Particularly when we are absorbed by it. Some of the statements seem to be cemented in history so therefore must be correct, and if Seth mentions anything that doesn't follow what has been discovered then he is wrong.

but my issue isn't omniscience but that he does seem to know very specific details. Which are also wrong. It would be one thing if Seth simply said the whole Christ saga was fuzzy to him but he is often so specific it's like he has a window to see exactly what was going on. Which really suggests he would be more on track with historical data y'know?

Perhaps historical data has not caught up with him yet? Ever wondered why so many 'Lost Gospels' and 'Lost Scriptures' and 'Lost this and that' have been discovered? Maybe they haven't been 'discovered' but created by us in the present moment to fit the needs and beliefs we share en masse at the moment. Seth always mentions that there are no closed systems of consciousness, that includes our future and our past. Besides, historians are constantly changing their views on the past, ironically, without even noticing that they just might be actually changing the past.

First, Seth speaks of Christ several times as if he was definitely an actual person. Right now the mythicist theory is looking like the most probable - meaning Christ was not even a real man.

'The story of the Creation, as Biblically stated, is the symbolic representation of a master event - a legend that became its own event, of course, forming about it whole arts and cultures, religions and disciplines. The same applies to Christianity itself, for all of the seemingly historical events connected with the official Christ did not happen in physical reality. They happened at another level of actuality, and were inserted into your time framework - touching a character here, a definitely known historical event there, until the two lines of activity were so entwined that you could not unravel one without unraveling the other.' D,E & VF sess 928

There's an entire chapter on Myths in Mass Events, here's a bit...

'Myth is not a distortion of fact, but the womb through which fact must come. Myth involves an intrinsic understanding of the nature of reality, couched in imaginative terms, carrying a power as strong as nature itself. Myth-making is a natural psychic characteristic, a psychic element that combines with other such elements to form a mythical representation of inner reality. That representation is then used as model upon which your civilizations are organized, and also as a perceptive tool through whose lens you interpret the private events of your own life in their historical context.' Mass Events sess 817

What troubles me here is complete lack of knowledge of the fact that the entire sin redeemer demi-god mythology came directly from cultural diffusion and not from Jewish prophecies.
That died/resurrected in 3 days, redeem sins, defeat death, virgin born, sky-father demigod mythology started with Zoroastrianism and then moved to multiple cultures each with their own version - Romulus, Osirus, Zalmoxus, and eventually a Jewish version emerged which was Christianity. Judaism had no afterlife or warring factions (heaven vs hell) until it was adopted from these other mythologies.

Why do say complete lack of knowledge? I haven't mentioned one thing in regard to music, does that mean I have a complete lack of knowledge about music? Perhaps Seth knew his market better than we give him credit for. What's the point about harping on about Zoroastrianism when the majority of readers will have no interest in it? Telling the world that Christ was this and Christ was that will surely prick up more ears in the western world during the 20th century. Having said that, he does mention the Speakers..

'The Druids obtained some of their concepts from Speakers. So did the Egyptians. The Speakers predated the emergence of any religions that you know, and the religions of the Speakers arose spontaneously in many scattered areas, then grew like wildfire from the hearts of Africa and Australia. There was one separate group in an area where the Aztecs dwelled at a later date, though the land mass was somewhat different then, and some of the lower cave dwellings at times were under water.
Various bands of the Speakers continued through the centuries. Because they were trained so well, the messages retained their authenticity. They believed, however, that it was wrong to set words into written form, and so did not record them. They also used natural earth symbols, but clearly understood the reasons for this. The Speakers, singly, existed in your Stone Age period. Their abilities helped the cavemen survive. There was little physical communication, however, in those days between the various Speakers, and some were unaware of the existence of others.' Seth Speaks sess 568

Being Australian we all touched on Aboriginal Dreamtime stories throughout our early schooling days, and it is heavily symbolic and passed down by word of mouth.

Furthermore...
'The same kinds of dramas in different ways have been given, and while the drama is always different, it is always the same. This does not mean that a Christ has appeared within each system of reality. it means that the idea of God has manifested within each system in a way that is comprehensible to the inhabitants.
The drama continues to exist. It does not belong, for example, to your past. Only you have placed it there. This does not mean that it always reoccurs. The drama, then, was far from meaningless, and the spirit of Christ, in your terms, is legitimate. It is the probable God-drama that you choose to perceive. There were others that were perceived, but not by you, and there are other such dramas existing now.' Seth Speaks sess 560

So maybe historians are not discovering things that happened pre-Roman empire, but are discovering simultaneous dramas that share the same stories and symbology, and dating them to wherever fits our current cultural belief.

I do feel if Seth were legit he would fix our biggest problem in Physics and unify gravity and quantum mechanics.

Why is this a problem? Maybe the only problem is thinking that its a problem? Also I don't think Seth's job was to take those creative expressions away from us.

Anyway, i think Jane's personal demons regarding her Christian upbringing did influence the work, as it influenced her life and death. I think even Seth acknowledges that in The Way Toward Health and elsewhere, particularly when she became ill.

I'm not hung up on historical anomalies. If the past can be changed then there is nowhere to really get hung on anyway.

Len

[transient amnesia]

...

[transient amnesia]

...

[Sena]

Anyway, i think Jane's personal demons regarding her Christian upbringing did influence the work, as it influenced her life and death.

Christian dogma as taught by the churches makes you sick. That's what Nietzsche said. In Jane's case there is also the likelihood that she was sexually abused by a Catholic priest, and such abuse often shows up later as physical illness.

[Sena]

could it be possible that Seth as "Pope" didn't have the Understanding in his 3D psychical mind, before his was murdered? and what memory would he be pulling that information from? His own social memory complex?  just asking. 

As Seth had been a "minor" Pope, he would have had to subsequently unlearn a lot of rubbish that had been drilled into him, and perhaps that process is not yet complete.

[transient amnesia]

...