Since we don't have enough Christ topics ( ;) ) I thought I'd start yet another one. If any of you have seen other "signs" of Seth's prediction, please share. This has been in my mind since this:
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11665#msg11665)
The failure of the Roman Catholic Church to deal with the abuse problem is the final proof of their spiritual bankruptcy. One of the root causes of the problem is the compulsory celibacy for priests and nuns, but they won't dream of giving that up.
BTW the part "he will not be generally known for who he is" (below) makes me feel that he will not be associated with religion in any way, i.e. not a minister or glorified guru, in order to be credible to a wider audience. So he'd have to be of the sciences, I think. Physics or something equally universally respected. Certainly not a politician. And reasoning with the people of the world to see things differently without directly confronting their current religious beliefs, which will naturally fall away on their own.
"(9:20.) He will not come to reward the righteous and send evildoers to eternal doom. He will, however, begin a new religious drama. A certain historical continuity will be maintained. As happened once before, however, he will not be generally known for who he is. There will be no glorious proclamation to which the whole world will bow. He will return to straighten out Christianity, which will be in a shambles at the time of his arrival, and to set up a
new system of thought when the world is sorely in need of one."
—SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971
"(9:25.) By that time, all religions will be in severe crisis. 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."
—SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971
Evidence:
The Horrific Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal Is About to Get a Lot Worse (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjag75/the-horrific-catholic-church-sex-abuse-scandal-is-about-to-get-a-lot-worse)
"If you think Pennsylvania was bad, wait until you get to New York and New Jersey."
Hey, the Pope wears a watch. Or is that a FitBit? Sorry, lol.
So abuse is just confined to the US? Nope. (https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/world/timeline-catholic-church-sexual-abuse-scandals/index.html)
The ball is rolling.
Hi Deb, Hi All,
What a fun topic Deb, thanks for starting it. :)
I've always been intrigued by this portion of the Seth information. I like trying to figure out the details about this person, from the information Seth gave us.
Not to disagree with you Deb, but I think that this personality "will" be religious or spiritual in nature. I think that while he probably will be a person with a spiritual message, he may not necessarily be affiliated with any specific religion. In talking about this personality in Seth Speaks, Session 586, Seth says the following:
"He will, however, begin a new religious drama."
"This personality will refer to the historical Christ, will recognize his relationship with that personality; [...]"
In Session 586, Seth says:
"As happened once before, however, he will not generally be known for who he is."
I take this to mean that generally speaking, he will not be recognized as the second coming of Christ. Originally, I also took this statement to mean that he would not be "well known", but this isn't necessarily the case. This person may be someone who is very well known, but just not recognized as the second coming of Christ.
Seth says that by the time that this person arrives, Christianity will be in shambles and all religions will be in severe crisis. I figure that this is probably at least one generation away and maybe two.
I can see how the Catholic Church could definitely be in shambles by then, but it's harder to see how the other religions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) will be in a severe crisis. Maybe it's just that by the time this personality lives, many of the people of the world will recognize the same issues with all of these religions that we, this Seth group, see today, as a result of our individual backgrounds and Seth's teachings.
jbseth
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11823#msg11823)
He will return to straighten out Christianity, which will be in a shambles at the time of his arrival,
Christianity in the West is doomed, but it could persist in Africa and Asia. Nice to have something like Candomblé:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candombl%C3%A9
"Music and dance are important parts of Candomblé ceremonies, since the dances enable worshippers to become possessed by the orishas. In the rituals, participants make offerings from the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms. Candomblé does not include the duality of good and evil; each person is required to fulfill his or her destiny to the fullest, regardless of what that is."
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11824#msg11824)
Not to disagree with you Deb, but I think that this personality "will" be religious or spiritual in nature. I think that while he probably will be a person with a spiritual message, he may not necessarily be affiliated with any specific religion. In talking about this personality in Seth Speaks, Session 586, Seth says the following:
"He will, however, begin a new religious drama."
"This personality will refer to the historical Christ, will recognize his relationship with that personality; [...]"
Go on and disagree, I'm here to learn.
Dang, I do remember reading that, but I just can't imagine how anyone but Christians will be open to someone saying he is related to JC. And yes, we're a ways off because not all religions at this point (even Catholicism) are in complete shambles. I can hardly wait. ::)
I guess I still have a problem with the word "religion" because in my eyes religion has been so misused and distorted—used to punish, destroy, control, judge. Spiritual, I can accept. All I can think is that we need another religion like we need another diet. Am I too pollyannish to think people can change their attitudes and behaviors based on understanding and reason, and learning how to love, respect and tolerate others and all that is in our world without religion? But Seth did say... and maybe my definition of religion is different than what Seth meant. I should research that.
I'll not be around "here" in 2075, at least as this person, and even then Seth said things would merely be
in place at that point.
"By 2075, all of this will be already accomplished. The birth will occur by the time given. 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."
SS, Session 586
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11827#msg11827)
Nice to have something like Candomblé:
This looks really nice, Catholicism must play a very small part in it. There are some people who follow religions that can be tolerant and accepting of others who don't share their beliefs, and don't use religion as dogma, but as a way to celebrate and uplift. I really appreciate people who can be this way, I think that's what "it's" all about. Maybe prejudice is a human weakness. It's not limited to religious beliefs.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11824#msg11824)
Not to disagree with you Deb, but I think that this personality "will" be religious or spiritual in nature. I think that while he probably will be a person with a spiritual message, he may not necessarily be affiliated with any specific religion. In talking about this personality in Seth Speaks, Session 586, Seth says the following:
"He will, however, begin a new religious drama."
jbseth,
A religion can mean many different things. It seems to me that the Sethian concept of All That Is fits with Taoism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/
Hi Sena,
Usually, when I use the word "religion", I'm typically referring to entire set of beliefs and practices of those people who practice that religion. Of course, for most religions, there are several variations, as with Buddhism for example, where there is Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism and so the beliefs and practices within any given religion do vary somewhat.
I have noticed that in many of the world's religions, there are some "aspects" of some religions that are similar to some of Seth's concepts. For example, I think the Hindu concept of "Prana" and the Taoist concept of "Chi" are similar to Seth's concept of the energy or "vitality" of "All That Is". I also personally believe that the Taoist concept of "Tao" is very similar to Seth's concept of "All That Is".
However, that being said, I'm not sure that any of the world's religions are actually similar to all of Seth's concepts and visa versa. Along these same lines, Seth did say the following in Seth Speaks, Chapter 17, Session 568:
"[...] Now the same thing applies to each of your great religions, though as I have said in the past, the Buddhists come closer, generally speaking, to a description of the nature of reality. They have not understood the eternal validity of the soul, however, in terms of its exquisite invulnerability, nor been able to hold a feeling for its unique character."
jbseth
Hi Deb,
This message is in response to your comment in reply #3 where you said,
"Dang, I do remember reading that, but I just can't imagine how anyone but Christians will be open to someone saying he is related to JC."
I "think" that this third Christ personality probably won't be affiliated with any major religion. While I know I may be completely wrong about this, here's the reasons for coming to these conclusions.
In regards to when this third Christ personality arrives, Seth says that "By that time, all religions will be in severe crisis." If this is true, then it seems to me that anyone at that time who is affiliated with a major world religion would likely have very little credibility with people. Especially, in regards to their personal religious philosophy.
In addition to this, Seth also says that "He will undermine religious organizations — not unite them." At that time, I would think that people would be willing to listen to him because he "doesn't" represent a major religion and because what he says "undermines" these religious organizations.
This is why I don't think that he will be affiliated with any major world religion.
Seth says that, "His message will be that of the individual in relation to All That Is." Because of this, it seems to me that his message will be very much like Seth's. Thus, I'm guessing that he'll probably talk about "All That Is", reincarnation, the nature of reality and how these all work.
Seth also says that, "he will not be generally known for who he is." This makes me think that perhaps, while he will understand his relationship with the original Jesus, he may not spend much time, if any, talking about it. Otherwise, why would people not know who he was? Maybe it's just that many people who weren't followers of his messages didn't believe this about him or maybe it's just that, by that time, with Christianity in shambles, many people just won't care.
I've spent a lot of time pondering these things because I've always been intrigued by this Seth concept. I don't know that I'm necessarily right on any of these conclusions, but it's definitely fun to ponder them.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11850#msg11850)
Usually, when I use the word "religion", I'm typically referring to entire set of beliefs and practices of those people who practice that religion.
Hi jbseth,
The administrators of the great religions are the forerunners of modern marketing organizations - They want to sell the entire package. If you get Windows 10 on your computer, Microsoft will be pushing you to use all the associated "apps" like the Microsoft Edge browser. I try to resist this pressure by using the Chrome browser.
If the Second Christ comes with a religion, I would hope that he does not stoop to the level of Microsoft.
Hi All,
Today, September 16, 2018, the Dalai Lama says that he knew of sex abuse of Buddhist teachers since the 1990's. This is the first time that I've ever heard of this.
I wonder if this problem, across the various religions, isn't aggravated and potentially the result of the belief in the need to deny the flesh. Its very sad that this is occurring.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/dalai-lama-i-knew-of-sex-abuse-by-buddhist-teachers-since-1990s/ar-BBNnDZ3
In regards to the second coming, in Seth Speaks, Chapter 21 Session 586, Seth does say:
" [...] By that time, all religions will be in severe crisis. [...].
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11853#msg11853)
By that time, all religions will be in severe crisis.
The persecution of Muslims by Buddhists in Mayanmar is really nasty.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11851#msg11851)
I "think" that this third Christ personality probably won't be affiliated with any major religion. While I know I may be completely wrong about this, here's the reasons for coming to these conclusions.
I agree.
As far as "he will not be generally known for who he is," I take this to mean that people will not immediately be aware that he is here directly to straighten the world out spiritually or that he is part of the Christ entity. He will have to find a way to have ALL people listen to him. But to appeal to the entire planet—that's ambitious.
And yet this still troubles me: "This personality will refer to the historical Christ, will recognize his relationship with that personality; [...]" I wonder if he will at some point reveal the truth behind the Christ myth? Whoa. That would certainly put the last nail in Christianity's coffin.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11852#msg11852)
If the Second Christ comes with a religion, I would hope that he does not stoop to the level of Microsoft.
Nice one Sena, that cracked me up! But you have a good point there, it seems religion has to be accepted as a whole—one chink in the wall and the whole belief system could crumble. About 20 years ago I discovered Deepak Chopra and was playing a recording of him on TV. My born-again sister in law was visiting at the time and she ran from the room covering her ears and eyes, saying something like "I can't watch that, it goes against our Lord." Deepak was saying, at the time, how wherever we are, we are the center of the universe, surrounded by infinity.
Oh wow, JB, the sex abuse of Buddhist teachers was a new one to me (the Muslim persecution too, I've always romanticized Buddhism as peaceful, kind and spiritually advanced). I kind of expect the abuse in Catholicism, maybe because I've always heard about it. I blamed that on the chastity vow. But then sex abuse seems to be rampant in all sorts of organizations, by people in positions of trust. Schools, offices, scouts, military, politics/government, medicine. I've been on the receiving end myself. I wonder what it is that can make people be sexual predators? Maybe that type of person is drawn to positions of authority.
Hi Deb,
In your previous post, in regards to the new Christ personality, you said:
"He will have to find a way to have ALL people listen to him. But to appeal to the entire planet—that's ambitious "
I'm not sure this will be a problem for him, considering what Seth says about him and Jesus.
First, in TES5, Session 203, Seth said:
"Your Christ had abilities which I still do not have... [...] "
Now that's quite a statement.
Then in Seth Speaks, Session 586, Seth said:
"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 that alone make true spirituality possible."
If this third personality will be "known" as a great psychic, and if he has abilities like Jesus, that Seth doesn't even have, then I don't think he'll have any problem gaining world-wide attention. :)
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11824#msg11824)
"He will, however, begin a new religious drama."
I enjoy reading the Seth material and have been reading it for many years. There is quite a bit of it that I have a difficult time believing in. This return of Christ thing is one of those things I don't believe in. But then, I don't believe in religion in general or that JC ever actually existed. I've always believed that the bible is actually just a set of stories to keep people in line. I've never seen any evidence that it is anything else.
The thought of a new religious drama actually makes me feel queasy. I very much dislike religion. Very much.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11865#msg11865)
This return of Christ thing is one of those things I don't believe in.
usmaak,
The only Christ I would accept is one that was completely different to the one fabricated by Saints Paul and Augustine and the Catholic Church. We have a good test for the second Christ, because he will say, "I agree with everything Seth said".
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11865#msg11865)
But then, I don't believe in religion in general or that JC ever actually existed. I've always believed that the bible is actually just a set of stories to keep people in line. I've never seen any evidence that it is anything else.
I've long felt that myself: a complete distaste for religion, and was not sure JC ever existed and didn't really care. But Seth has made me at least be open to the idea that Jesus did exist as a person (I'm not at all saying you should be too, just trying to explain where I'm coming from), but he was totally blown out of proportion by Christianity, the Bible, etc. and ulterior motives. I personally explored and somewhat settled this "issue" for myself elsewhere here.
The only reason I became even remotely interested in the Christ personality is because it comes up so much in the Seth materials. It's either important, or it was only important to Jane and to a lesser extent Rob, because of Jane's early heavy absorption in religion. To me it doesn't really matter whether Jesus ever walked the earth. Seth has said the whole crucifixion drama was not real, was a psychic event, the man known as Jesus is not the person we think of as the legendary Jesus the Christ. I also feel there tends to be a seed of truth at the base of every myth and legend.
But if there is going to be a return of that strong entity, I look forward to this:
"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 that alone make true spirituality possible. Slayers and victims will change roles as reincarnational memories rise to the surface of consciousness. Through the development of these abilities,
the sacredness of all life will be intimately recognized and appreciated."
—SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971
True spirituality, not a new
religion. And the "new religious drama" could mean the end of religions entirely, as they will be in a "shambles" by then. Taking religious beliefs away from people alone would eliminate a major divisive component in humanity. This crumbling of dogmatic beliefs would, I hope, open people's minds to new ideas.
The "great psychic" part is interesting to me, as currently the majority of people and about all of science don't believe psychics are real. I did a search yesterday on "great psychics 2018" and didn't find anyone who stuck out in my mind. I think we have a way to go.
And yes, it would certainly be great if he would be a Seth fan. 8)
Hi All,
For me, probably the biggest issue I've had with the Seth information is trying to figure out "why" Seth placed so much emphasis on this "Second Coming" story.
This just didn't seem to make any sense to me, especially because it seems so inconsistent with his general message where he says that predictions often don't work because we create our reality and others can't always correctly predict what reality we will choose to create.
Furthermore in his general message he also talks about probable realities and how there are other realities that exist that we don't experience. For example, in the beginning of Chapter 16 in "Seth Speaks" Seth gives an example where he says a friend calls you and wants you to meet him at five o'clock, and you consider: (A) saying no and staying home, (B) saying no and going somewhere else and (C) saying yes and keeping the engagement. Seth says that all three of these realities do, in fact, occur somewhere though in this reality we only experience one of them.
Given this then, "I" interpret Seth's general message as saying that there are realities where Jesus never existed. There are realities where Jesus existed and his existence was that described in the New Testament. There are realities where Jesus existed and his existence was that described by Seth as one of the three personalities of the Christ entity, and there are other realities where Jesus existed and his existence was different than any of these.
Along with this "I" also interpret Seth's general message as saying that in the future, there are realities where no second coming will occur. There are realities where a second coming will occur and these realities will be like what most Christians believe will happen. There are realities where a second coming will occur and these will be like what Seth says will happen and there are realities where a second coming will occur and the events in these realities will be different than any of those previously mentioned.
So then I asked myself, given that this is Seth's general message, why would he have emphasized his specific "Second Coming" scenario.
One plausible answer that I've come up with, has to do with what he talks about in Chapter 15 of Seth Speaks, on Re-incarnational Civilizations; this is the chapter where he talks about the Lumanians. In this chapter, Seth says:
"In a manner of speaking, it can be said that you have reincarnational civilizations as well as reincarnating individuals."
Then, in this same chapter, Seth also says:
"Groups of people in various cycles of reincarnational activity have met crisis after crisis, have come to your point of physical development and either gone beyond it, or destroyed their particular civilization."
I believe that, as a society, we have reached a point where we can very easily destroy ourselves if we aren't wise about the choices we make. This destruction could come about due to any number of situations like nuclear war, environmental disaster, overpopulation, or even perhaps the "terminator" movie scenario for example.
I think that Seth knew that one of the future probable realities, where we don't destroy ourselves, has to do with the "Second Coming" scenario that he told us about. By having us believe that his "Second Coming" scenario is actually going to occur in the future, we will then create it by our belief and as a result of this, we won't end up destroying ourselves in the meantime.
"I" truly believe that this is the real reason why Seth emphasized this "second coming" scenario, and since I see the wisdom of this, I willing choose to go along with it.
I don't expect other members of this forum to necessarily agree with me on this and that's OK, we are all on our individual paths.
However I, for myself, haven't come up with any better ideas to explain why Seth may have chosen to emphasize his "second coming" scenario, given what he says about predictions, how we create our reality and the nature of probable realities.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11869#msg11869)
For me, probably the biggest issue I've had with the Seth information is trying to figure out "why" Seth placed so much emphasis on this "Second Coming" story.
Yep, I'm with you there. As I mentioned above, I tend to think that Jane had a lot to do with that. Seth did answer a lot of questions that Jane and Rob posed, and both Jane and Rob were very interested in the Christ story so that probably added a lot to the Christ-related content. Seth offered a book on the subject, but somehow that never happened in this reality. I'm not forgetting that Jane also could block Seth when he was about to disclose something that made her feel uncomfortable, so by the same token did she manufacture some info? And there were no doubt some distortions. There were also other times when I've questioned things attributed to Seth in the books that just didn't feel like Seth to me. For instance, dietary recommendations from the man who said it is more important what you feel about what you eat than what you actually eat. Seth did say to not take his words as dogma, that could easily excuse some of that grey area.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11869#msg11869)
This just didn't seem to make any sense to me, especially because it seems so inconsistent with his general message where he says that predictions often don't work because we create our reality and others can't always correctly predict what reality we will choose to create.
I don't have a problem with that part, I've been somehow able to rationalize it away by feeling that when he was saying those things, he was addressing the Jane and Rob and the rest of us that are in THIS current reality, where probabilities have lead up to where we are now and with the history we know. Yes, there are other probabilities where things transpired differently. And he did say that due to free will, the future cannot be accurately predicted, but that in this case (at least with regards to the 2075 date) "all probabilities point in [that] direction." So the return seems to be the plausible option. But not guaranteed. I kinda think if the probabilities were that low, he would not have even mentioned it.
"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."
SS, Session 586
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11869#msg11869)
By having us believe that his "Second Coming" scenario is actually going to occur in the future, we will then create it by our belief and as a result of this, we won't end up destroying ourselves in the meantime.
Now THAT'S an interesting thought. Belief is huge. I know I've had the feeling that Seth had a lot of affection for the Earth as we know it: the people, his lives, Rob and Jane. Would he try to influence us with disguised insider information? I don't know, but he often hints of clues that are there for us in this reality.
Today someone put this quote up on a Facebook Seth group and I really liked it. It's from channeled material from a woman named Pat Rodegast, her channel source was named Emmanuel. I'm not interested in pursuing Emmanuel, I have what I need from Seth, but I thought it was beautiful and talks about beliefs.
Quote from: Emmanuel (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11870#msg11870)
The moment you believe in something, you have created – literally - a reality. The moment you believe in something – the moment that you give something credence - no matter how improbable or impossible it may seem to be - the moment you allow it into your framework of belief - you have given it, not only probability or possibility but reality. That is how unencumbered, and how powerful you really are.
I'm ready for a shakeup. It feels like we've been on this treadmill waaaayyyyy too long.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11869#msg11869)
By having us believe that his "Second Coming" scenario is actually going to occur in the future, we will then create it by our belief and as a result of this, we won't end up destroying ourselves in the meantime.
This makes me uncomfortable because it goes against what Seth has always seemed to be, at least to me. In spite of benign intentions, it would be manipulative and against our free will (if our free will choice is to destroy ourselves in this reality). If I accept this premise, then I have to wonder what other distortions were introduced into the material with benign intentions and that makes me question what is "real" and what is not.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11869#msg11869)
I think that Seth knew that one of the future probable realities, where we don't destroy ourselves, has to do with the "Second Coming" scenario that he told us about. By having us believe that his "Second Coming" scenario is actually going to occur in the future, we will then create it by our belief and as a result of this, we won't end up destroying ourselves in the meantime.
"I" truly believe that this is the real reason why Seth emphasized this "second coming" scenario, and since I see the wisdom of this, I willing choose to go along with it.
jbseth,
This is very interesting. So the Secong Coming, if it occurs, will be a reality created by us.
I have been reading about Dostoevsky. According to him, humans as a mass are usually not able to make rational decisions. An example is the Brexit vote in the UK. A people with a generally high level of education have chosen a path which is going to hit many of them economically. It was an emotional decision rather than a rational one.
So perhaps Seth was trying to influence the emotions of his readers in order to dissuade them from destroying themselves.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11872#msg11872)
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11869#msg11869)
By having us believe that his "Second Coming" scenario is actually going to occur in the future, we will then create it by our belief and as a result of this, we won't end up destroying ourselves in the meantime.
This makes me uncomfortable because it goes against what Seth has always seemed to be, at least to me. In spite of benign intentions, it would be manipulative and against our free will (if our free will choice is to destroy ourselves in this reality). If I accept this premise, then I have to wonder what other distortions were introduced into the material with benign intentions and that makes me question what is "real" and what is not.
Sorry for this short "drive by" post, but Ron Card posted this quote (below) on Facebook recently. I do sometimes wonder if he reads some of the posts on this forum, he often posts timely things related to our current topics. Could just be coincidence or the collective consciousness. This past week he posted a long quote from Seth on the second coming. I still need to sort that out to see if there's anything useful there.
Anyway, I really didn't get the feeling that Seth was trying to manipulate anyone, ever. He's always felt very direct to me, and while warm, also objective.
@Sena, I think you nailed it though that the second coming will be created by us. If we are to accept that we create reality, individually and en masse, then it would
have to be our creation. And in cooperation with the Christ entity and any of its incarnations.
The quote is from the Seth Audio Collection. While I have most of that, I have not listened to it all and do not have the transcripts, so can't verify the accuracy of the quote. But Ron is good with quotes, aside from a rare typo here and there. The reason for me posting the quote is because it speaks to the "state of mind" of Seth with regards to his lack of feeling responsible for [our or Jane and Rob's] beings or welfare. Here goes:
"I come here because it is fun.
I have fun when I come here.
I do not come here because I feel I have any great responsibility for your beings or welfare. Who am I to set myself against the innate wisdom or your own individual being, or to take upon my invisible shoulders the great privilege or joyful responsibility for your behavior and destiny?"
I suppose one just has to decide whether to trust and believe Seth. Or not.
Hi Deb, Hi All,
Deb, at the end of your last post on this topic you said, "I suppose one just has to decide whether to trust and believe Seth. Or not."
My question is this, "Which Seth do we trust and believe?"
Throughout all of the Seth information, Seth was occasionally inconsistent about what he said on several different topics. One of these was in regards to predictions.
For example, in Seth Speaks, Appendix: ESP Class Session: Tuesday, January 5, 1971, Seth said:
"Time, in your terms, is plastic. Most predictions are made in a highly distorted fashion; they can lead the public astray. Not only that, but when the predictors fall flat on their faces it does not help "The Cause." Reality does not exist in that fashion. You can tune in to certain probabilities and predict "that they will occur," but free will always operates. No god in a giant ivory tower says, "This will happen February 15 at 8:05." And if no god predicts, then I do not see the point of doing so myself."
Then, several months after making this statement, in Seth Speaks, Chapter 21, Session 586, July 24, 1971, Seth talks about this second coming and predicts that this is to occur by the year 2075.
In addition to this, he does say the following in this same session:
"Events are not predestined. The framework for this emergence has already been set, however, within your system of probabilities. The emergence of this third personality will directly affect the original historical drama of Christ as it is now known. There is and must be interactions between them. "
There were also several occasions where Seth told Rob, that Rob and Jane would both live a long life in this life, and it turns out that this prediction wasn't, in fact, accurate. Jane passed in 1984 while Rob lived until 2008.
So why did Seth make any prediction, given what he said about predictions in the ESP Class. My thought is that he was trying to help. I think that Seth always tried to help people out.
He may have been aware that there was a probable reality where Jane would die long before Rob, and was either trying to get them to change this through their beliefs, or maybe he just didn't want to reinforce this probable reality.
Somewhere, (I've been looking for this statement in my books and through the Seth Search Engine, but I haven't been able to locate it again) Seth makes a statement along the lines of, "I know that its important to help" and the way he says this, makes me think that this has to do with value fulfillment.
I think, as a rule, Seth was always trying to help people, where he could.
Now, in regards to the concern about Seth's predictions (or anyone else's) affecting our free will choice, each of us has to decide for ourselves, whether we believe Seth's statement that, "You can tune in to certain probabilities and predict "that they will occur," but free will always operates. "
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11876#msg11876)
There were also several occasions where Seth told Rob, that Rob and Jane would both live a long life in this life, and it turns out that this prediction wasn't, in fact, accurate. Jane passed in 1984 while Rob lived until 2008.
So why did Seth make any prediction, given what he said about predictions in the ESP Class. My thought is that he was trying to help. I think that Seth always tried to help people out.
He may have been aware that there was a probable reality where Jane would die long before Rob, and was either trying to get them to change this through their beliefs, or maybe he just didn't want to reinforce this probable reality.
It could have also been a distortion, caused by the wishes of Jane herself. All through the books, her health issues are discussed. Fear of death and non-existence is buried down deep in all of us. Perhaps it was that, that was coming out with this "prediction".
Hi usmaak,
Yes, it could have been a distortion.
What I'm expressing here is my "opinion" on what I believe Seth may have been doing.
This was an idea that I came up with and it's not necessarily a fact.
It is OK with me if others don't share my "opinion".
I do know that many times, Seth tried to help Rob and Jane.
He also never seems to shy away from expressing an idea even if Jane or someone else, did not necessarily agree with it. I'd say that Seth certainly wasn't reticent.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11876#msg11876)
My question is this, "Which Seth do we trust and believe?"
For some reason I'm not seeing the same contradictions that you are. He did say that it appeared that "things would be in place by the year 2025" but did temper that with "within your system of probabilities." To me, it's just a probability but Seth seemed to feel it is a strong probability, yet not carved in stone. "You can tune in to certain probabilities and predict "that they will occur," but free will always operates."
Seth is/was a teacher. We are here to learn. If he were to force his ideas onto us, it would defeat the whole reason of of our existence here. We have the free will to choose what we do and do not do, including following Seth's advice (lord knows Jane and Rob ignored a lot of Seth's suggestions). Free will is why predictions are almost impossible to make, although we can speculate on the
probability of a future event based on what we witness around us. The last US election was a perfect example of how even strong probabilities aren't 100% reliable. I think every celebrity psychic on the planet said Hillary was going to win. But like Seth said about our scientists, people were looking in the wrong direction and missed something. We are here to learn and free will is a learning tool. We have the freedom to make choices and mistakes, and luckily in this arena we often have repeated opportunities to get it right. If there was no free will, this whole setup would be pointless. The teacher:
"I want all of you to learn enough and think enough so that you will be able to read my material on your own—word by word—and understand what I am trying to say without the sugar coating and the frosting, though frosting is good."
~ESP Class Session, 01/14/69
Seth: "Soon, you see, you will all be able to read the Seth material. You all have good minds. You are not used to using them. You set up barriers and gates and limitations, and the material demands your high intellectual focus. I want you to use your intuitions, but I also want you to use your intellects. Some of you still have to learn to use them and how to give them freedom. I spoon-fed you. And I added a bit of sugar here and there. But if you continue here in classes, more and more you will have to give. You will have to give your high intellectual purpose and learn to use your minds as you never used them before. I am a tricky old character.
I am glad that you find me lovable. But I will trick you into using your minds. You must use all of your abilities. You will need them. And if you do well, you see, you can solve problems now. And if you are good you can skip a class, which means skip a reincarnation. The more problems you solve now, the fewer you will have to solve later. That does not mean that you will not have new challenges in other dimensions, for so you will. Think of the challenges that I have, for I must awaken you, and lead you onward and shake you up."
~ESP Class Session, 01/14/69
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11876#msg11876)
There were also several occasions where Seth told Rob, that Rob and Jane would both live a long life in this life, and it turns out that this prediction wasn't, in fact, accurate. Jane passed in 1984 while Rob lived until 2008.
So why did Seth make any prediction, given what he said about predictions in the ESP Class. My thought is that he was trying to help. I think that Seth always tried to help people out.
Yes, Seth was always willing to help those who asked for it. And also trying to teach people how to think.
Rob: "Every so often someone wants to know about the extent to which we follow Seth's advice or information, and I suppose a good answer is that we may decide to go along with it if it suits our conscious purposes to do so. Sometimes we don't agree with what Seth tells us even when we know it's good counsel. [However, Jane and I freely admit that on occasion we've made the wrong choice in deciding to ignore what Seth had to say; in retrospect we've seen that he gave out very valid material.]"
—UR2 Section 6: Session 738 February 19, 1975
I've run out of quotes at the moment (sorry to disappoint, lol), but there was an pre-1960s earth agreement between Jane, Rob, Seth where they would all join up and produce the Seth Materials. The arrangement was for Jane to participate for 40 years. There were more books to be written, the book on Christ, etc. I think Seth said somewhere that before we come into the current earth existence, we decide not only on our family situation and challenges in life, but also our death. And we sometimes give ourselves a few choices of death opportunities. It seems that Jane opted, due to her free will, for an early out. Free will, once again. I think she let her earthly early childhood experiences get the best of her and she just ran out of steam.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
I have my ideas about the role of Laurel coming into the scenario as well.
Well, OK, just one more quote:
"I am in the position of teaching Ruburt and Joseph, and their responsibility is to teach others. They could accept this situation or not. The choice was up to them. Their own development however would not be as complete had they chosen to ignore the responsibility. They know me and they have known me well in past lives, you see, so I was not the stranger to them that they thought I was. This is their last reincarnation, and I tell you it is much easier to solve your problems now than to solve them later, and they are solving theirs now. And in solving theirs, they are helping others also."
—TECS1 ESP Class Session, March 12, 1968
And yes, we always have to consider possible distortions. Honestly, in reality we always only have ourselves to rely on and trust.
Hi Deb,
To me, it seems like there were times when Seth contradicted himself. One example is with his statements regarding dietary restrictions that you previously pointed out. For me, another has to do with Seth making predictions.
I'm going to say that a "prediction" is a "foretelling" of a future event.
In the ESP class, in January 1971, Seth basically says the he sees no point in making predictions. But then, after saying this, in July 1971, in Session 586 Seth predicts that by the year 2075, the birth of the second coming Christ will have occurred.
If Seth sees no point in making predictions, then why did he make this second coming prediction 6 months later? This is what I meant about Seth contradicting himself in regards to predictions.
Is it possible that at least one of these 2 statements were a distortion? Yes, but it's also possible that neither one of these 2 statements were a distortion.
For me personally, I'm rather uncomfortable, with using the "distortion" possibility, to cover up what may have been a "legitimate" Seth contradiction. This rings of covering up or overlooking a messy situation (Seth contradicted himself) because it's inconvenient.
Does this possible contradiction bother me personally? No, for me, the take away here is Seth's point that predictions are not always reliable because people have and use free will to make changes all the time.
Will this possible contradiction bother others? Yes, I suspect, that for some people, this will prevent them from believing anything that Seth has to say.
Given all of this, if neither one of these two statements were caused by a distortion, I've asked myself, why would Seth have done this? I don't know the answer to this, all I've got is speculation.
The bottom line here is this. I believe that Seth probably did contradict himself and for some people, I suspect that this will prevent them from believing anything that he has to say.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11880#msg11880)
Does this possible contradiction bother me personally? No, for me, the take away here is Seth's point that predictions are not always reliable because people have and use free will to make changes all the time.
Will this possible contradiction bother others? Yes, I suspect, that for some people, this will prevent them from believing anything that Seth has to say.
Given all of this, if neither one of these two statements were caused by a distortion, I've asked myself, why would Seth have done this? I don't know the answer to this, all I've got is speculation.
The bottom line here is this. I believe that Seth probably did contradict himself and for some people, I suspect that this will prevent them from believing anything that he has to say.
Good points, all of them. These types of things have always been a struggle, because I spent much of my life believing in nothing. There are people that are very rooted in the physical and the are many that are more open to other ideas. I've pretty much always been the former. I approach everything from a very scientific viewpoint, yet for some reason, I find myself drawn to this type of material over and over again. I have been this way as far back as I can remember. I was not raised with any religion, so I was essentially a clean slate. I had bad experiences with born again christianity when I was a teen, but that's a whole other story. The bad part about not being raised in religion (if there has to be a bad part) is that I never believed that there was anything other than this one life and that we all become worm food in the end. By the time my mind could be opened to the possibilities, it was already a concept that just didn't make any sense. My point in all of this is that I've been trained from the start to find distortions and contradictions in material and to automatically discount everything that was said up until the point of the contradiction. This has made Seth challenging for me over the years and yes, there have been times where I've been convinced beyond doubt that the Seth material is entirely the creation of a deluded and seriously mentally ill woman. Or maybe it was just a result of all the cigarettes and beer. Rob sure does go into great detail about that.
To me, the material on the second coming is very unlike the material rest of the books. It almost seems like another book written by a different author. Whenever I get to that material, I usually just skip ahead to the end of it. Based on my inherent dislike of anything religious, one thing that's always bugged me is the amount of information in the books about so called religious figures that I think are just a product of what was considered good fiction in those days.
And then I'm always thinking about how much of a coincidence it is that it's the second coming of christ. There are so many religions out there, and hey, I just happen to live in a country where the most popular one is the one that Seth always talks about. Wow, what luck!
My thoughts are that an event regarding something in the life of one person or a small group has greater potential to change, since a person could easily change his/her beliefs before the event and cause a shift in the nature of that event or a cancellation. When dealing with a potential mass event such as the return of the Christ entity, we are dealing with the strong and emotional belief of hundreds of millions of Christians. We might also throw in the Jewish belief in a coming Messiah. If established religions are at that point in disarray (as we have been seeing before our eyes), there will be a yearning from believers for that void to be filled. The trending mass beliefs and yearnings may be so strong and durable that it is an almost guaranteed event. Seth also said that this was how the Christ story came about. Jesus (or whatever composite) was not what those who were waiting for him expected. He did not come to vanquish the enemies of the Jewish people. So mass consciousness creates what it needs in the context of mass beliefs, even if what it needs is not what it expected. If a returning Christ entity delivers the same message to billions that Seth has managed to deliver to a few million, that's OK with me.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11881#msg11881)
To me, the material on the second coming is very unlike the material rest of the books. It almost seems like another book written by a different author.
usmaak, I agree. We need to rememember that the Second Coming of Christ is reputed to be a nasty, violent event, with "gnashing of teeth". I am inclined to offer two fingers to someone who speaks of this.
"Matthew 13:40-43 (NASB) "Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/mark/8_38-9_1.htm
Hi usmaak,
In your reply above, you said:
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11881#msg11881)
I've pretty much always been the former. I approach everything from a very scientific viewpoint, yet for some reason, I find myself drawn to this type of material over and over again.
Have you ever spent any time trying to figure out why, you are drawn to this type of material?
Years ago a good friend of mine shared with me a bit of wisdom having to do with how to look at material that seems philosophically challenging. He told me to take what works for me and disregard the rest.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11884#msg11884)
Have you ever spent any time trying to figure out why, you are drawn to this type of material?
I have. I think that it comes down to my hope that there's more to life than, "you're born, you live, you die". I also like to hope that there's more to life than what I was brainwashed to believe during two summers at fire and brimstone born again christian bible camp when I was a kid. It's a hope that we have more control over what happens to us in life than it appears on the surface.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11884#msg11884)
Years ago a good friend of mine shared with me a bit of wisdom having to do with how to look at material that seems philosophically challenging. He told me to take what works for me and disregard the rest.
Sounds like good advice to me. Follow your gut. I just searched "intuition" on the Seth search engine and came up with numerous interesting quotes about critical faculties, intuitional truths, intuitional knowledge, and the intellect. Especially Session 380 from TPS1. https://findingseth.com/q/intuition/
Two things that are always in the back of my mind are: 1) much of what Seth said was directed to specific people, and usually to Jane and Rob who were asking Seth questions (books like NoPR and NoME were for a broader audience). We may be made of the same stuff, but we are also unique individuals on our own paths, so some of the advice may not apply. 2) there was some distortion (and censoring) of the materials due to Jane's religion hangups and who knows what else. But we seem to be able to sense when something is just not right. Maybe we need to start a new topic on Distortions in the Materials? I think even Rob, who was co-editor with Jane in deleting some sessions, seems to have had trouble knowing the difference.
I have not made Seth into my "religion," I don't want or need a religion, but the materials resonate with me like nothing else I've read before and am constantly examining my life experiences from a perspective of how Seth said things work. I don't think he's said anything that could be harmful to any one or thing, so I'm good with it.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11883#msg11883)
We need to remember that the Second Coming of Christ is reputed to be a nasty, violent event, with "gnashing of teeth". I am inclined to offer two fingers to someone who speaks of this.
Well, that's the
Bible's version of the second coming, designed to frighten and control people. Seth's version is very different. Not an end, but a big leap forward for humanity.
"He will not come to reward the righteous and send evildoers to eternal doom."
—SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11885#msg11885)
I think that it comes down to my hope that there's more to life than, "you're born, you live, you die".
That's how I got started on all of this. Raised Catholic but it never stuck, was an atheist or at the least agnostic for a very long time. Then one day it occurred to me that all of this -- the earth, the plants, animals, humans, education, children -- would be a giant waste if that's all there was.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11885#msg11885)
I also like to hope that there's more to life than what I was brainwashed to believe during two summers at fire and brimstone born again christian bible camp when I was a kid.
Sorry you had to endure that. For some reason I'm surrounded by BA Christians and Baptists and had a really hard time with that in the beginning. Now they leave me alone. But it's hard to explain to your 3 year old when he comes home from a friend's house and asks, "Mommy, does it hurt when you burn in hell?"
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11886#msg11886)
Sorry you had to endure that. For some reason I'm surrounded by BA Christians and Baptists and had a really hard time with that in the beginning. Now they leave me alone. But it's hard to explain to your 3 year old when he comes home from a friend's house and asks, "Mommy, does it hurt when you burn in hell?"
I still remember coming back home from camp that first year and telling my mom that I was sad because she was going to burn in hell.
She still remembers that as well.
Hi Deb, Hi usmaak, Hi All,
Deb, you made some really great points in you latest post. Thanks for sharing them. :)
Usmaak, when I asked you have you ever considered why you are drawn to this type of material, you replied as follows:
"I have. I think that it comes down to my hope that there's more to life than, "you're born, you live, you die". I also like to hope that there's more to life than what I was brainwashed to believe during two summers at fire and brimstone born again christian bible camp when I was a kid. It's a hope that we have more control over what happens to us in life than it appears on the surface."
Thanks for sharing that.
I agree with you, at the present time, from a scientific standpoint, it appears that we are born, we live, we die, and that's all there is to life. That's a very nihilistic standpoint.
However, I believe that this scientific standpoint is very biased. What I mean by this is that it appears to me that mainstream science and the medical profession refuses to seriously study topics like ESP, psychokinesis, Near Death Experiences and spontaneous healings.
The issue here, as I see it, is this; if they seriously studied these topics, they might conclude that this present nihilistic scientific standpoint, isn't really valid.
This being the case, I don't know that the present scientific standpoint really is valid, and because of this, I'm open to other ideas like Seth's.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11888#msg11888)
This being the case, I don't know that the present scientific standpoint really is valid, and because of this, I'm open to other ideas like Seth's.
I hear and agree. I've been reading Seth since the late 80s. I've read every one of the books at least once, and Seth Speaks and Nature of Personal Reality more times than I can count. I was into Abraham for a while, but at least to me, it seems like a fraud. I've read all sorts of books that offer specific methods and/or exercises to achieve enlightenment, but with poor results. But I suppose that going into it with the belief that it is all fake doomed me to failure.
Hi usmaak,
I would say that if you went into it with the belief that it is all fake, then I would expect your experience to be that it was all fake.
Assuming that this is what actually occurred for you, then I would say that this should have demonstrated that what Seth says in NOPR has some validity. :)
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11890#msg11890)
Hi usmaak,
I would say that if you went into it with the belief that it is all fake, then I would expect your experience to be that it was all fake.
Assuming that this is what actually occurred for you, then I would say that this should have demonstrated that what Seth says in NOPR has some validity. :)
jbseth
Either that, or it demonstrated that it's all fake. ;)
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11881#msg11881)
There are so many religions out there, and hey, I just happen to live in a country where the most popular one is the one that Seth always talks about.
Here's another one Seth talks about (from TPS, book 7): "Each'...person is born there with a private natural religion--one that rises from the springs of the individual psyche, and one that provides an easy, custom-made method of dealing with inner and outer reality. It is important, therefore, that such persons rediscover their natural heritage, and put themselves in touch once more with this inner, natural 'religion.' "
Hi LarryH, Hi All,
Hey LarryH, thanks for that Seth quote on natural religion, I really like it and I've never heard it before.
"Each'...person is born there with a private natural religion--one that rises from the springs of the individual psyche, and one that provides an easy, custom-made method of dealing with inner and outer reality. It is important, therefore, that such persons rediscover their natural heritage, and put themselves in touch once more with this inner, natural 'religion.' "
jbseth
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
usmaak, in your last reply, you said; "Either that, or it demonstrated that it's all fake."
Yes, and you're absolutely correct about that.
I would say sometimes experience leads belief (I stuck my hand in a fire and I got burned; now I have a belief that my hand will get burned, if I stick it in a fire) but I also think that sometimes belief leads experience.
I'm trying to think of a good example of where belief leads experience but at the moment, the only thing that I can come up with, is an example from an old episode of the TV series, "Kung Fu".
In one particular episode, Caine, the main character, is in the monastery and he's told that he must walk across a thin wooden beam, in order to cross, what appears to be a 15 foot pool of boiling water or acid. The liquid is bubbling and as he's crossing the pool, suddenly human bones float up to the surface. When Caine see's these this, he gets really nervous and as a result of this, he falls into the pool of liquid.
Now, it turns out that this pool only contained bubbling water at normal temperature. The floating bones were intentionally released from the bottom of the pool by Caine's Master, at a certain point as Caine crossed the pool. His Master then tells Caine, to learn from this lesson, that things are not always what they appear to be.
Here, I'd say that Caine "believed" that the pool contained a deadly liquid, which it didn't and because of this, he got really nervous when he saw the bones surface and fell in. Had he known that the liquid was just bubbling water at normal temperature, he probably wouldn't have fallen into the pool.
I think that many of us have probably experienced something like this, at some point during our lives.
jbseth
I don't remember that episode, but it's been 45 years since I've seen that show. But I like it. Very deep.
And I'm certainly not trying to be contrary.
Hi usmaak,
Yeah, no problem. I really liked this show too. At the time, more so for the great Kung Fu fight scenes, but as I got older, more so for the wisdom.
Apparently this episode was in Season 1 and was called, "Superstition" (see attached website).
Sometimes I'm not sure why I remember some of the things that I do. I haven't seen this show in a very long time. :)
http://the-haunted-closet.blogspot.com/2009/04/superstition-kung-fu-1973.html
jbseth
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
I see the Buddhist who says that there is no God, there is reincarnation after death and once you've dealt with your karma and grown spirituality then there's Nirvana and I ask myself is that reality, and in response, I say I don't know, but it seems to be a belief system.
Then I see the Christian, standing on his box, preaching out to the crowd, saying, "You must accept Jesus as your Savior, or you will burn forever in the fires of hell." and I ask myself is that reality, and in response, I say I don't know, but it seems to be a belief system.
Then I see the scientist, who scorns the Christians and all those crazy "New Age" people and he tells you that science has all the answers and there is no God, you are born, you live, you die and that's all there is to it, and I ask myself is that reality, and in response, I say I don't know, but it seems to be a belief system.
Then I see the people who believe in the Seth information and I ask myself is that reality, and in response, I say I don't know, but it seems to be a belief system.
If you look for it, there appears to be fallacies in all of these belief systems.
At this very moment, I think that each and every one of us holds a very unique individual belief system and furthermore these belief systems evolve and change as we go through life. I also think that "maybe", reality itself actually encompasses all of these belief systems.
jbseth
There are seven billion "faces of God", and that is just the collection of earthly human conceptions of God, including the conceptions of God by atheists. Each one is a little different from all the rest. Which one is closest to correct? The only conclusion that I can come up with is that we are all wrong. And that's OK.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11897#msg11897)
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
I see the Buddhist who says that there is no God, there is reincarnation after death and once you've dealt with your karma and grown spirituality then there's Nirvana and I ask myself is that reality, and in response, I say I don't know, but it seems to be a belief system.
Then I see the Christian, standing on his box, preaching out to the crowd, saying, "You must accept Jesus as your Savior, or you will burn forever in the fires of hell." and I ask myself is that reality, and in response, I say I don't know, but it seems to be a belief system.
Then I see the scientist, who scorns the Christians and all those crazy "New Age" people and he tells you that science has all the answers and there is no God, you are born, you live, you die and that's all there is to it, and I ask myself is that reality, and in response, I say I don't know, but it seems to be a belief system.
Then I see the people who believe in the Seth information and I ask myself is that reality, and in response, I say I don't know, but it seems to be a belief system.
If you look for it, there appears to be fallacies in all of these belief systems.
At this very moment, I think that each and every one of us holds a very unique individual belief system and furthermore these belief systems evolve and change as we go through life. I also think that "maybe", reality itself actually encompasses all of these belief systems.
jbseth
I really like this. A lot. I mean it made me sit back and think. It is easy to call out someone else's beliefs when they are so obviously (to me) ridiculous or false, but my truths aren't beliefs. They are real! Seth says it much more eloquently than I just did. I remember reading it.
I'll admit that I have a difficult time seeing science as a belief system. I'll admit that I have a tough time seeing medicine as a belief system. I mean I have actual proof that these things are real. I just watched doctors save my mom's life no more than five months ago. But I would willingly scoff at someone who said that they prayed for her and that is why she recovered.
It is certainly something deep and profound for me to ponder.
But still, there has to be something that is not a belief or part of a belief system. There has to be something that is a real and 100% true universal law. Right? Right??
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11899#msg11899)
There has to be something that is a real and 100% true universal law. Right? Right??
Right. Probably. The problem is that even if we accept a 100% true universal law, we are accepting our individual conception of that law, and that conception is limited by our ability to grasp it from within our reality.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11899#msg11899)
But still, there has to be something that is not a belief or part of a belief system. There has to be something that is a real and 100% true universal law. Right? Right??
To be honest, I don't know. I think that many people want there to be something that is a real and 100% true universal law, but I don't know that there is one, or necessarily that there has to be one.
"According to Seth" (as I understand him) there are "root assumptions" that provide the basis for how various realities operate. For example, gravity is a "root assumption" of our physical world reality. This is why an apple falls to the ground, when it falls from a tree. This is also why we don't fly like birds.
However, in other realities, like dream realities, this root assumption doesn't apply; which explains why people sometimes have the experience of flying in their dreams.
Again, "according to Seth" (again, as I understand him) the one universal truth, the one universal reality, is "All That Is".
jbseth
From Deb: I just modified this post to move the misplaced "close quote" code. Sorry, I'm a nerd. Let me know if you want me to stop. :)
"I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."
~Cypher, The Matrix
Scientific and medical successes are easier to demonstrate as 'real' with equipment and experiments that produce consistent and material results. Not so with religion. But then...
"I have mentioned earlier the peculiar problems of your scientists as with tools and instruments they attempt to reduce reality to their terms. Any instruments made on your plane are like your outer senses, constructed to perceive camouflage patterns. The instruments of the scientists, and the outer senses themselves, are camouflage patterns and cannot, and never will, dissect themselves."
—TES1 Session 37 March 23, 1964
We've seen that doctors and medical procedures can heal -- or help the body heal itself. Then you get someone like Anita Moorjani who is on their deathbed and does a 180 with no explanation (other than her own), and that tells me there's more going on here than meets the eye.
I can sit at my desk and pick up a glass or a stapler or pen and they are real to me. And to anyone else that would visit my desk. Seth explains that, but I can't completely believe his explanation unless I give in to faith because I like demonstrable proof. Quantum mechanics DOES say objects in our material space are not solid and are made of energy and lots and lots of space, so there's the comfort of validation there.
"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."
~Niels Bohr
Why do we only have science and religion? Reality is looking more like a fork in the road to me than a tree with branches. Well, there's the Seth branch. :) And YES, root assumptions are big, no pun intended. Well, maybe.
I thought this was a fun article, though not much new there: https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/09/27/this-is-the-world-of-quantum-physics-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/
Seth did say something like that even though our current plane is a camouflage one, that does not devalue it or our existence, and our materializations of matter are real. At least here, for us. I wish I could pin down the quote.
I don't think too deeply about this very often, maybe because I swallowed the amnesia pill (I've been called an overachiever), although I do often take a second to look around at my surroundings and consider and marvel that I created it. I've done that in lucid dreams too. It's a pretty amazing feeling.
BTW this poem just popped in to my radar tonight, hours after I'd started drafting this post. I've been working on something new and exciting from Mary Dillman, which will be available pretty soon, but it brought this poem to me and I thought it was relevant. I'll let you know when the new "something" is available. In my proofreading, I realize it will answer a lot of questions that have been asked here on SoS. Now, back to the poem: Jane rejected religion and totally embraced science at a certain age, like a lot of us, and I think this poem is a wink at her about-face.
Science
Science convinces me of magic
more each day.
To think that you and I,
the tiniest blade of grass,
and highest mountain,
the smallest ant
and the Empire State Building
(and all the shops, streets,
and people in the modern-day Manhattan),
all exist because
some elemental dice
just happened to
fall together right!
Dice thrown by no hand
or intent,
because neither were
invented yet.
Jane Roberts, If We Live Again Or, Public Magic and Private Love
I think I'll put this book on my nightstand for when I wake up at 3 am and am tempted to catch up on the news.
PS The "universal law" thing has me intrigued. Now I want to research that. I know Seth mentioned there are root assumptions or laws in most or all realities, but I would think there would be a thread that ties them all together and my brain is telling me I've read something about this...
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
usmaak, in reply #43 you said:
"I'll admit that I have a difficult time seeing science as a belief system. I'll admit that I have a tough time seeing medicine as a belief system. I mean I have actual proof that these things are real. I just watched doctors save my mom's life no more than five months ago. But I would willingly scoff at someone who said that they prayed for her and that is why she recovered. "
I think that the trick here is to figure out, what are those things that are "real" (gravity seems to be real in this physical world) and those things that we only believe to be real (as in Caine believing that the pool contained acid).
For science and the medical profession, there are many things that these institutions tell us are real, which, in fact, appear to be real. However, because of this, I think that this sometimes blinds us to those things that these institutions tell us are real, but, in fact, may not necessarily be real.
jbseth
There may be potential evidence that has not been discussed yet under this topic.
Summary (TL;DR):
Maybe evidence of the return of Paul can be linked to someone who is said by some to come before him. Some call this first person the Antichrist; some do not. Figuring out who this person is (assuming he really exists) could give us a time frame for Paul's emergence. According to several prophets, both should already be here, and one should be well known by now. And maybe there will be some interaction between these two people that is tied to an unusual global event, defined in various ways over the years by various prophets, which might provide further evidence of Paul's appearance if/when this event occurs.
Details::
I am not an expert on Seth, or on any of the related things I'm interested in that have led to these comments.
However, after having learned from personal experience that time is not linear and the future can be seen and described to some degree, I have been looking at this topic for a while now.
The first point to make is perhaps obvious. In the framework in which we exist, the majority of us will not recognize the reincarnated Paul for who he is, at least not while he's alive. Consider all the things you've heard and read, whether from the Christian Bible, or from Seth, or from another source. People will not generally know who this reincarnation of Paul is; even if they know the man personally, they may not recognize him. Seth specifically said he will not generally be known for who he is. Seth would not present a name, a country of birth, or a date of birth. It's clear, it's just not going to be obvious who this person is, and there seems to be some amount of control, or direct guidance if you will, from the higher levels on keeping this knowledge mostly hidden. However, Seth said he will generally not be known for who he is. Generally. Seth didn't say "not a single person will know him for who he is in this drama". So maybe a few of us will know who he is, and maybe even meet him or even work with him.
It seems to me Paul will be working with a lot of people over time, even if few of those people realize who he is in this drama. Some of those people will likely come from communities trying to understand life better, such as the one built around this website and its forums. While it's fascinating to try to figure out when he will emerge, who he might be, and what he might be like, maybe the most important thing is to keep trying to understand life better, and to do what we can to help bring about the future life I think many of us see in Seth's words.
I believe Seth said something along the lines of other prophets have been, and will continue to be, describing what is to come, and who. So perhaps we may look at various sources to see where to find our evidence of the return of Paul. It would seem that each prophet would have some pieces of the puzzle; some would overlap; some would have a piece only provided by them, and might skip over pieces clearly defined elsewhere. Each would have some clarity, some omissions, and some obscurity and distortion, to mask their descriptions of events so that we may learn. Each would have people who relate to their words. But, if we were to be given all the details with undeniable clarity and accuracy, what then would we learn? Perhaps each prophet has a precise set of ideas to put forth, a part of the whole, with a bit of distortion (probably intentional from a higher level) to keep it from being too easy.
Think about it. Distortion. It has its uses in educating us all. I believe Seth said the "second coming" is quite distorted as described in the Christian religion. Further, he said that Paul's tendencies 2,000 years ago were known at a higher level. Those tendencies were necessary or useful, and they helped lead to the Christian religion developing in a certain way that eventually included distortions. And this was according to plan in some way. To me, this indicates those tendencies towards distortions were appropriate in the framework that created Christianity, so we would learn from what became the Christian religion. So Distortion, with a capital "D" is part of the curriculum on our little planet schoolroom.
If we consider the distortion that, by design, is likely built into each prophet's revelations, we have to put a puzzle of evidence together wherein some pieces just don't fit. And they don't fit by design - not by design or intention of the prophet at our level here, but maybe at the prophet's entity's higher level, or at the level of the design of our framework. However, I think if we work at it and try to feel it out, we can learn to understand that which fits and has light in it, and how to ignore that which does not. It's a kind of "reading between the lines". This is not a particularly straightforward or scientific method, but it has helped me feel like I have improved my understanding of some of the puzzle over time.
A consideration for us, and maybe for the reincarnated Paul, might be this: what distortions will this reincarnation of Paul bring this time? Certainly from Seth's description, the results of Paul's adventures will not be so "bad" this go-round (as compared to the life created around the Christian religion, with all the activities and ideas connected to it that don't seem very "Christian"). We can hope "Paul's second coming" will be a "good thing", while still keeping our awareness as to it being simply another step in our curriculum on our planet. Of course "good" and "bad" in this context are simply a common way of describing something that doesn't exist, yet might be perceived that way on our level.
A lot of the thinking around this reincarnation of Paul, "the second coming", revolves around the Christian religion and a particular event. So what does that religion say?
This area is one of my many weak points. The distortions of time, translations, and manipulations are so strong it's hard for me to be too interested in the Christian religion, even though I believe there was more light in it when it was young than there is now. My somewhat limited knowledge of it at least tells me we are expecting not one, but two primary people to show up at the "second coming".
The Christian religion's two people are The Antichrist and Christ. I believe their prophecy shows the Antichrist will be hard to distinguish from their version of Christ, at least at first. I think they show that the Antichrist and Christ will interact while in physical form. Their event is the "rapture", but it's not likely to be as described and their explanations of it don't seem to relate at all to what Seth has described for our future. But, I suspect there was once more light behind what was seen and what was written. Their prophets were looking quite far into the future, with no context as to what they were seeing. Then there's time, translations, manipulations and distortions added one upon the other.
And what do some other prophets say?
Seth: I don't know that I've come across anything from him about two people. However, his description of Paul, both in the past and for this new emergence, is amazing in its depth and what seems to be clarity. I don't recall Seth tying Paul's return to any unusual and specific events.
Ruth Montgomery (on Wikipedia.com) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Montgomery): Her two people are The Antichrist and I think eventually the Christ (it's been quite a while since I read her books, and I no longer have them). Her event seems tied to what she describes as the "axis shift". I don't remember if she put a time frame on her prediction, but it seems like her Antichrist was going to show up in the 1990's, and maybe become more well known a little later. I believe the book having a pretty good description of the Antichrist was "Herald of a New Age". Here's a forum post with some quotes about him from her book "The World to Come" (projectavalon.net) (search on "anti-christ") (http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14926). Her event is partially described in her book, "Strangers Among Us" (links to rense.com for a section from the book) (https://rense.com/politics5/pred.htm):
"It is like a marvelous solar flare that would bring all out of their houses to watch, and to tell their grandchildren about..."
Jeane Dixon (on Wikipedia.com) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Dixon): The Antichrist and the Christ (it's also been a long time since I read books on her, and I no longer have them either). Her prediction is from an unusual vision which may also describe a coming event. Her vision tied this upcoming drama to ancient Egyptian times, and to Joseph and dreams. In Ruth Montgomery's book on Jeane Dixon, "A Gift of Prophecy", it seems Dixon understood her vision to be referring to the second of the two (Christ). It was "The vision which Jeane Dixon considers to be the most significant and soul-stirring of her life". If I remember correctly, in "My Life and Prophecies: Her Own Story as Told to Rene Noorbergen" (amazon.com) (https://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Prophecies-Story-Noorbergen/dp/B000LE8GRO) she reversed herself and said her prior vision was about the Antichrist. I got the impression Jeane Dixon's changed interpretation might have been heavily filtered.
Here is a copy of Dixon's vision from "A Gift of Prophecy" (greatdreams.com) (http://www.greatdreams.com/dixon.htm). It has some typing errors in it, but I think it's a pretty accurate copy of the vision.
In the vision, Dixon says this child was born on February 5, 1962. It seems she based this birth date on having the vision on that day. This would make him 56 years old in 2018. She said "I knew within my heart. "here is the beginning of wisdom"".
She goes on to say "Before the close of the century he will bring together all mankind in one all-embracing faith. This will be the foundation of a new Christianity, with every sect and creed united through this man who will walk among the people to spread the wisdom of the Almighty Power".
This sounds something like what Seth says the drama around the reincarnated Paul will be. Seth says he replaces religions by undermining them, Dixon says they all get united. In the end, the result might be kind of the same thing, so maybe they are referring to the same person in the same drama.
She then says "His power will grow greatly until 1999, at which time the people of this earth will probably discover the full meaning of the vision." So either her timing is off or she's completely wrong. Timing is hard, so maybe later she will be shown to be correct if she and Seth are describing the same drama. If she got the birth date anywhere near correct, her protagonist only has so much time left, so this may help us narrow the time frame for the reincarnated Paul to emerge.
The coming event could be related to this part of her vision:
"Just above the horizon was the brightest sun that she had ever seen, glowing like a golden ball. Splashing from the orb in every direction were brilliant rays which seemed to be drawing the earth toward it like a magnet."
Paul Solomon (on Wikipedia.com) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Solomon): He described the coming of one person and a counter to that person, a man he calls John Peniel. Solomon doesn't say John Peniel is the reincarnation of Paul, but rather of John the Beloved. But he seems to give him the same mission in life, so perhaps this is some of that "useful" distortion I mentioned above. From my view, Paul Solomon's John Peniel and Seth's reincarnation of Paul may be one and the same.
Solomon also describes an unusual globally significant event occurring while his two predicted men are alive. In this reading (wisdomofsolomon.com) (http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/psr8.html), Solomon says John Peniel appears after the Antichrist appears, and like other prophets and the Christian religion, he says they'll be hard to tell apart:
"He will, however, become a leader of light, only when that one who appears as a savior (anti-Christ). When he appears, John also will appear as his adversary. But it will be difficult for you to know at first, the one from the other."
Solomon goes on to say he will rise to prominence fairly fast:
"And John will make himself known sometime after the 2nd battle has begun to rage. And he will be seven years in making himself known about the earth to the extent that he will be considered a figure of international import."
In this reading (wisdomofsolomon.com) (http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/psr47.html), Solomon again says they will difficult to tell apart:
"There will come two, then, who appear as saviors. This, then, will be the difficulty, to distinguish who is the world savior."
In the same reading, in the same paragraph, Solomon goes on to discuss the event:
"During the time of this bloodshed or confusion, look for another event which will distract the attention of the entire world. This is a celestial event, the coming of a light from the sky. This event will be so great in magnitude as to distract the attention of the world from war and from fighting. It will give to all men common cause, greater than that which is the concern of the war. For it will seem to every man that the very existence of the earth will be endangered.
His light as it comes in the sky will be brighter than that of the Sun. Because of the magnitude, the Sun will appear to turn black. It will be as if it had collapsed giving its power to that which comes.
Then two will stand, one drawing attention to himself as [if] he were a savior of the world. He will seem to have answers and means of protection. His approach will be one which will attempt to destroy the incoming object.
Then you will know the savior by the fact that His attention is turned to the individual. It will seem foolish to most that man will be invited to accept and to welcome the incoming light."
This could relate to Seth's description of Paul's work having to do with the individual.
As far as evidence for the return of Paul, here is another time frame clue. There is one reading I've seen, which I haven't been able to find again, where Solomon says John Peniel is not aware of his identity at this time. This would indicate that Seth's returning Paul was alive at the time of that reading. Paul Solomon died in 1994, so Seth's returning Paul would have to be at least about 24 years old as of 2018. Here (again) is the Wikipedia page on Paul Solomon (wikipedia.com) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Solomon). See the section heading "John of Peniel and the Second Coming", which refers to this reading, but has nothing in the footnotes that link to that exact reading. (I'm not referring to the reading where Solomon says Peniel will realize his own identity when he opens the Hall of Records (wisdomonofsolomon.com) (http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/psp1.html), but to another reading I can't find now.)
On page 6 of a PDF from a Solomon reading in 1988 (paulsolomon.com) (http://www.paulsolomon.com/NewFiles/Prophecy%20Reading%209182%20Japan%20151208.pdf), he again indicates John Peniel was alive during Solomon's lifetime, further narrowing the time frame of Peniel's life:
"Now understand that the one we refer to as John [Peniel] is not necessarily a single man upon whom is placed the burden for bringing a New Order of life to the earth, although such a man does exist. The reincarnation of John the Beloved walks upon the earth in this time."
This would make John Peniel, or the reincarnated Paul, at least around 30 years old in 2018.
Further aging Peniel is this reading, #0101, done in 1972, which would make him at least around 46 years old in 2018, [see the first reading here (wisdomofsolomon.com) (http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/psr6.html). Reading #0101 also shows the same restrictions Seth had on revealing Paul's identity.
"John, the Beloved, lives, and is this day on your plane. That which would identify him would not be given at this time. For he will present himself to you at such time as is expedient, both for his welfare and for yours."
On the above link containing reading #0101, is a second reading, #0850, which says Peniel is not his given name:
"He will be called John. The last name is not by birth Peniel, but that name adopted for its meaning "where I met Him face to face." And (he) will use that name in the ministry and will be known of men not because of his use of the name, but because of his teaching and his work among men."
If Solomon's John Peniel is the same person as Jeane Dixon's Christ and Seth's reincarnating Paul, he's been around a while.
I am aware of at least couple of people who either publicly claim to be John Peniel, or use a version of the name, and have discussed the possibility they are the one who is predicted to come.
One, Jon Peniel, wrote some books and taught. I think his most known book was "The Children of the Law of One and the Lost Teachings of Atlantis". He died in 2002, so it seems he was probably not the one Cayce or Solomon was talking about, unless they are referring to what is really two different people. (Here's what appears to have been his site (atlantis.to) (http://www.atlantis.to/links/followers.htm); search the page for "death".) Here's a page about this Peniel (gatheringspot.net) (http://www.gatheringspot.net/topic/inspirationstransformational-stories/who-jon-peniel-amazing-story) that includes an Edgar Cayce reading about a John Peniel.
Another one, John Davis, uses the name John of Peniel in his work. He's still alive.
Here's an interview with John Davis (beliefnet.com) (https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blissblog/2012/03/john-the-beloved-apostle.html).
Here's his business website (corporateactionhero.com) (https://www.corporateactionhero.com/).
Here's an Amazon link to a book about him (I haven't read it) (https://www.amazon.com/John-Old-New-Awakening-Apostle/dp/0980006112/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250557548&sr=1-1).
Joseph McMoneagle (on Wikipedia.com) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McMoneagle): In the "The Jesus Transcripts" from his book "The Ultimate Time Machine", he mentioned two time tracks intersecting and this being part of the reason this Jesus was reincarnating at various times here. This intersecting of two time tracks might be the celestial event Paul Solomon described, the Bible's "rapture", and Jeanne Dixon's earth moving towards the brightest sun she'd ever seen. Two time tracks intersecting. This time track intersection may even be related to Ruth Montgomery's axis shift. Time and time tracks must involve energy. If two intersect, perhaps one will be different and the handling of it might involve a better understanding of energy and light, which could relate to what Solomon's John Peniel proposes in the future.
Here's a quote from the section from McMoneagle's book about the two time tracks intersecting, where "this cogent Being" refers to Jesus:
"Joe: I just keyed into something else now that's really interesting. The coming together of two realities, isn't too far off in the . . . ah . . . the far-flung future. It's not too far off and that is apparently one of the reasons why the . . . this cogent Being has been going and coming over the years. There are two time tracks intersecting soon. (Soon in this case is relative to man's history, could be a year, could be a thousand years.)" (From: "McMoneagle, Joseph. The Ultimate Time Machine (Kindle Locations 1345-1347). Crossroad Press & Macabre Ink Digital. Kindle Edition.")
There are probably more examples that would support this line of reasoning. But, with all the information available from so many sources, we can probably find something to support just about anything you can think of to explain the past and the future.
However, my point again is this: I believe we are not looking for one man; we are looking for two. One will show up first and will become well known. Then the second one shows up - the reincarnation of Paul. It seems their time is tied to an unusual event that occurs after both are well known, even if they are not known for who they truly are in this drama. They interact around this event, and perhaps for a time leading up to it.
So where is this evidence of the return of Paul? If some of the prophets were correct, maybe it's right in front of us.
In my view, part of Ruth Montgomery's position was that of describing this first person in a lot of detail. There are other descriptions, but as I recall, hers was pretty detailed. However, I'm sure she also introduced the requisite distortions to sift through.
If there is so much information about the first of the two, maybe some of us could understand who he is, especially if the information was correct about his growing in power before the second one appears. I think it can probably be understood, by at least a few people, who he is. Certainly from all the prophesies that I'm aware of, most people will not recognize either of these two, so I would not expect to find a completely obvious description of either one anywhere. The distortions and restrictions placed on what we have been told, what prophets have been allowed to understand, will make certain of this.
Of course, neither of these two is "good". Neither is "evil". These two simply play their part, as we all expect them to, as we have all agreed to play our parts in this time. The idea behind these words is not to "find this first person and stop him"; it is simply to recognize where we are in the drama by realizing the first of the two can possibly be known, and he only has so much time in one lifetime. By recognizing him, and knowing the first and second must interact at some point, the possible time frame for the emergence of the second one narrows further.
But, If people will have a bit of trouble telling the first one from the second one, and we, as people who believe some, or a lot, of the ideas Seth described, then what type of person would be somewhat similar to the person Seth described as the reincarnation of Paul, while being extremely different in major areas of thought? I would think both would at least appear to want to help people. If Christians and others are to be confused as to which is which, what type of person would mainstream Christians consider to be a Christ-like figure, given their continued belief in a religion that has been distorted? I'm guessing the first person would not challenge their belief systems, much, if any. At least at first. Whether he would have a much clearer (in our view) understanding of life or not, might not be the point - maybe he would understand as much, or even more than Paul, and would choose not to discuss it. My guess is this would not be the case.
Further, the definition of "Antichrist" might simply be based on one's perspective. This might be obvious, but I'll go ahead and mention it. If we believe the reincarnation of Paul to be the 3rd personality tied to the "Christ" entity, then this first person to show up would be anti-Christ, in the sense that he's doing things or supporting ideas that might be opposing what Paul is promoting and/or doing. From the view of followers of the Christian religion, the ideas and work Paul is likely associated with will be in direct opposition to what they've been taught to believe; and in their eyes, those beliefs are based on Christ's ideas. Therefore, it seems the reincarnation of Paul is the Antichrist from the Christian religion's perspective. So the more well known these two become, the more likely it is somebody's not going to be too happy about either one being alive and doing what they're doing.
So, if any of us were to feel like we knew who the first one, or the second one is, I think we would be remiss to point that person out publicly. I think if any of us are to understand the identity of either one, we will understand it more clearly when we figure it out for ourselves. If we are not to understand it, we will dismiss any idea anyone has about the existence and identity of the either of the two. More importantly, if we could not prove any theory, would it be fair to name someone? Everything I've ever seen indicates no one will be able to prove or clearly demonstrate either person is one or the other, and therein lies quite a learning experience for us all. Even if someone could prove the identity of either one, that might bring harm to one or both of them. I think this is not desirable for reasons beyond the simple idea of not harming others. We, as a group of souls connected to lives on this planet, have called out for this drama, and so I think we should want to see both of the two play out their roles in this drama to see what we learn. It doesn't seem like either will be causing pain, suffering, or death, as that would seem to make it extremely easy to stir people up against them. It seems like this will be a drama of one set of ideas contrasted against another; at least for a while. Hopefully whatever happens won't end up with anyone or any group trying to damage or destroy the lives other groups or people in any way. But, there will probably always be a few people who want to rid the world of this well-known person, or that well-known person, but there may come a time when many people will want to forcibly remove one or both of these two from our drama. I just don't think it's appropriate to contribute to that possibility. In a more enlightened world, I think this self-imposed limitation of not publicly naming possible identities of either person would become completely unnecessary. But we're not in that world yet. I do realize this point is simply more of my opinion, and many may think it's a silly idea to refrain from publicly discussing something that might be important to understand.
Regardless of what we do or don't discuss publicly, just for a little fun, consider this: What if the first and the second were both aware of their own role in this drama? And what if each was aware of the other's role? Now here's the fun part of these assumptions...what if they sat down together and discussed it to try to have the best outcome for all? That's a conversation I'd like to hear! I would expect Paul would be aware of both his and the first person's role. But would the first be aware? I would hope so - it seems far more interesting if he also understands what's going on.
Of course, there is the chance that I am wrong about all of this.
It is entirely possible all of the prophecies are part of a framework we all agreed to, and the framework is such that none of them accurately reflect the future. In this possible framework, the various prophecies have enough bits of truth to lead us away from simply trusting ourselves, and towards looking outside of ourselves. Maybe that is the one and only lesson of all these prophecies.
But that's not what it feels like to me. I have looked into my own future more than once, in more than one way, and have seen exactly what was there; even if it often did not make any sense when I was looking at it, and it only became clear when my waking now caught up to that time which was seen from in the past. Even if I am correct to some degree in all this, I think the big lesson will still be learning to recognize and trust ourselves.
It also feels to me like there really is an event that relates to all of this. If this event does occur, and is significant, perhaps the things Paul will lead us to learn for ourselves will help us get through the event. And perhaps this learning will contribute to our helping each other get through this event. And as another by-product, this learning could help us realize for ourselves a higher understanding of who and what we are individually, which will then lead to the future described by Seth. This could relate to the 1,000 years of peace as described in the Christian religion, and how it comes to be.
Consider that Seth's description of the level of improvement in a civilization in such a short amount of time seems unprecedented in our known history; at least in my limited knowledge of history. We, as humans, are often slow to change unless forced to. And the fewer people who are being forced to change, the less widespread the change is likely to be. Some type of significant, global event, coinciding with the spread of ideas and methods Seth says Paul will help bring about, makes more sense than people just changing because they are learning something more useable in their lives. This seems especially likely since these ideas and/or methods of Paul's will be contrary to what a great many people now believe to be true or useable.
This event that appears to be coming sounds challenging. What if it's extremely challenging? And what if the reincarnated Paul actually does help people handle it better? I know this idea might be quite a reach, but is it possible the people who follow whatever it is that Paul will propose to learn and do for themselves are "saved" from the most difficult aspects of this event? Maybe we won't fully understand what this could mean unless, or until, this event occurs. But, it seems this could be what followers of the Christian religion are saying when they talk of being "saved" by Jesus Christ, even though they may not realize it. Maybe the religion and its followers have "tuned in" to something that's there in our futures, but have a distorted description of it. Given the descriptions of the event, and that we don't seem to have any records of a similar event in our past, some distortion could be expected from anyone trying to "see" or figure out the event before it occurs. If we look at "Salvation in Christianity" (wikipedia.com) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity) on Wikipedia, there is quite a lot of disagreement about it.
This is especially interesting if we consider McMoneagle's description of two time tracks intersecting - what if following Paul's proposals puts someone on one time track, and not following them, or following whatever the Antichrist (the first of the two men) proposes, puts them on another one? What a person had done in the past would make no difference, as long as that person "believed" (and acted upon) what Paul was saying around an event that might seem like "judgment day". I don't have any evidence or any source to point to on this one, but I thought of it a short time back, and thought I'd include it here since this upcoming event appears to be such a major consideration in our future and in identifying Paul.
Further, if there are two time tracks, and if it's an actual choice that determines the track we progress along, it's possible only one track results in what sounds like a more evolved human race that Seth has described. An interesting quote from the top of the Wikipedia page noted above, in the "Summary" section, is "According to Saint Peter the Apostle in Acts 4:12, Jesus Christ God is the unique way of truth and door of salvation...". Could the "door of salvation" be a time track? However, I don't think this is the case. My guess is following whatever it is Paul proposes for us to learn for ourselves is related to handling this event in this lifetime (and the soul's longer term education), and we all follow the "evolved" or new time track. Maybe the "door of salvation" is just going into this new time track. But some of us follow it in the body we have when it occurs, and some of us decide that we've been here long enough in the body we have, and we later reincarnate in the new time track. Either way, it's also possible whatever this event is might be a contributing factor itself to what Seth describes as a more advanced and capable human race. By this I mean that since the event appears to involve energy and/or light, it might be a natural structural raising of the vibration of our planet in terms of how energy flows in our universe, and possibly by the nature of the higher vibration we are all raised in vibration. Maybe if we want to be here in a physical body during the change, we'll need to raise our vibrations rather quickly to handle the new time track. Like I said, this one might be quite a reach.
Regardless of how the framework of this drama is designed, and whether or not there is some major event, the one thing I am pretty sure of is that if these two men exist, neither of them will be, or are, quite what we expect. If they are not what we expect, it will be much harder for anyone to figure out who they really are.
But I think a few will know. Maybe some of us.
Holy cow, I've been trying to respond to your post for, well, too long. I'm just going to go with what I have so far. There was so much to explore and then I'd go down some rabbit holes and run out of time. So sorry if my response doesn't explore all the things you brought up in your provocative post.
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12078#msg12078)
Maybe evidence of the return of Paul can be linked to someone who is said by some to come before him. Some call this first person the Antichrist; some do not.
It seems to me that the people talking about the Antichrist are mostly Christians, with maybe some of the channelers you mentioned. In what I've read so far of the Seth Materials, he never even suggested that and I couldn't find anything on the Seth search engine: https://findingseth.com . How would you define an Antichrist (just curious), what's your perspective? Growing up around a lot of Christians, I always pictured the Antichrist as being Satan, evil vs. good, like in Stephen King's
The Stand. (Great book!)
Seth did say there were "others" coming before the return of the Christ personality, to prime the pump. Is the following what you were thinking about when you wrote "I believe Seth said something along the lines of other prophets have been, and will continue to be, describing what is to come, and who" ?
"Now there will be several born before that time who in various ways will re-arouse man's expectations. One such man has already been born in India, in a small province near Calcutta, but his ministry will seem to remain comparatively local for his lifetime.
"Another will be born in Africa, a black man whose main work will be done in Indonesia. The expectations were set long ago in your terms, and will be fed by new prophets until the third personality of Christ does indeed emerge."
—SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971
It makes sense to me that there would have to be predecessors around the planet because it would be, in my mind, impossible for just one person/personality to effect change on or unify so many different cultures on this planet, let alone so many religions and beliefs. Unless, as you say, there is some event big enough to unite humanity. Even the Christ event as we know it didn't do that and then Paul fell down on his job ("it was the errors that he made unwittingly that perpetuated some dangerous distortions." "...he will emerge once again, this time to destroy those distortions" "John and the historical Christ each performed their rules and were satisfied they had done so. Paul alone was left at the end unsatisfied, and so it is about his personality that the future Christ will form"). (All from session 586)
I've been curious as to who these other prophets could be, if we've heard of any of them. Or even if some of the current-day channelers (and there seem to be a lot of them) could be one or more of them. The only "prophet" I've known to talk so in-depth about the return has been Seth, if you could call him a prophet in a non-religious sense. But I don't stray too far from Seth lately and have not been keeping up on other channelers.
Can you explain how you feel distortion has its uses in educating us all? I'm having a hard time seeing distortion in a positive light. Unless are you including camouflage reality as distortion? That definitely has a purpose for us here.
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12078#msg12078)
So maybe a few of us will know who he is, and maybe even meet him or even work with him.
Or maybe we Seth readers, already on the lookout, could suspect who he is. I have a feeling we average citizens are not supposed to consciously know and also wonder if there will be guides or speakers that will be in place specifically to facilitate this mystery man. Even then, they might not know on a conscious level what their role is.
I do think the purpose of Paul's 'return' ("but within him the three personality groupings will form a new psychic entity") is for the good of mankind as ATI's intent is benign and loving. As Seth said, "In the next century, the inner nature of man, with these developments, will free itself from many constraints that have bound it. A new era will indeed begin—not, now, a heaven on earth,
but a far more sane and just world, in which man is far more aware of his relationship with his planet and of his freedom within time." Later on he talks about a metamorphosis on a human level and what that will mean: "Man's experience will be so extended that to you the species will seem to have changed into another." That all sounds wonderful to me, a giant leap for mankind. (Quotes still from 586.)
As far as the Christian version of the second coming... for me there is so much distortion, contrive and deleted material that it would be impossible to know what's even a shred of truth regarding anything in it.
I wonder if the people you mentioned (Montgomery, Dixon, Solomon) were just relying on the biblical version of the return with the Antichrist/Christ stuff, due to their own beliefs or background? Or the human belief in opposites?
Going offtrack a little, I looked up the meaning of Peniel and came up with a wiki on Penuel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penuel)— "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen. 32:30 NIV) There's more to the story, but does he mean that God spared his life? I find that ironic that God will kill considering the Commandments.
Paul Solomon sounds like an interesting person, I'm always surprised when someone mentions a fairly prolific channeler and I've never heard of them before. He mentions that several figures have acted from this Christ consciousness, as Seth did also say that the Christ personality had visited at other times in our "history" but was not recognized for who he was. The whole paragraph on the Second Coming was especially interesting, sounding pretty close to what Seth described.
Solomon: "This person, who is referred to as John of Peniel, will then cause those already living to elevate to an equal level, enabling them to achieve Christ consciousness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Solomon (ref. http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/psr35.html 2009).
Seth: "(11:14) The metamorphosis mentioned earlier on the part of the third personality, will have such strength and power that it will call out from mankind these same qualities from within itself."
I wonder if Paul Solomon read any Seth?
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12078#msg12078)
What if the first and the second were both aware of their own role in this drama? And what if each was aware of the other's role?
I imagine on some level they would be. Maybe not consciously, but the new and improved Christ personality is supposed to be a super power and will no doubt be connected with his inner self, entity and all the resources that go along with that. He will be known as a great psychic. Seth did say that John/Jesus/Paul did connect in dreams and knowledge in other ways,
"John the Baptist, Christ, and Paul were all connected in the dream state, and John was well aware of Christ's existence before Christ was born." Sess. 588
and the new one:
"That personality will indeed be multidimensional, aware of all its incarnations. It will not be oriented in terms of one sex, one color, or one race."
I'm trying to get a visual on that.
And what type of event do you suppose would be big enough to unite the world? Alien invasion? Asteroid? Maybe something we can't even imagine.
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12078#msg12078)
But I think a few will know. Maybe some of us.
Maybe. Or maybe we'll just suspect.
Nice having a heads-up from Seth though.
I hope I see
something while I'm still in this physical body.
If Seth is suggesting that the return of Christ has something to do with Paul, I cannot accept it.
"To achieve his goals, Paul needed more than the death on the cross, what he needed was the resurrection. This was the ultimate weapon of control in Paul's armoury. It served to enslave Christians with guilt and self-loathing during their life on earth, in the hope of achieving salvation after death!–'the most contemptible of all unfulfilable promises, the shameless doctrine of personal immortality'. Paul's central dogma of Christianity was cleverly underpinned with one of its most irresistible claims: that God sacrificed his only son for us in forgiveness of our sins. 'Sacrifice for sin, and in its most obnoxious and barbarous form: sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty!' "
http://www.cynicalreflections.net/2012/04/nietzsche-anti-christ-not-anti-jesus.html
I need to clarify what is meant by "personal immortality" in the above quote. This is clearly not a Seth teaching. Personal immortality means Jane Roberts remaining as Jane Roberts for all eternity. Seth was absolutely insistent on referring to Jane as Ruburt (her Inner Self). It is Ruburt who may be immortal (I am not sure), but certainly Jane Roberts is not immortal.
OK, let me start out by apologizing for the length of this response. I kept finding so many quotes to help me explain myself that this kept getting longer. I know the quotes I'll add here are not new to any of you, but I thought they were important and also helped me organize my thoughts and interpretation of what Seth has said about Paul and the return of the CP. Sena you're always so efficient with getting a point across with a minimum of words. I'm just the opposite.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12129#msg12129)
If Seth is suggesting that the return of Christ has something to do with Paul, I cannot accept it.
I don't have a problem with it because the quotes below (from session 586, skipping around a bit) explain the situation to me. At least, my interpretation is:
Seth was clear that Paul
completely failed at what he came here to do and was aware of that after the fact. (The Nietzsche article seems right in alignment with Seth, but Seth is more objective. I'd love to find the complete article.) The return of the CP will not be Paul as himself, but a "new psychic energy" that has been transformed, and will be a catalyst for the transformation on the human level as well. Paul messed up big time, but maybe as murderers and other violators then become victims, Paul (in some form) will right what he did wrong.
Seth:
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.. . .
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.
Paul tried to deny knowing who he was, until his experience with conversion. Allegorically, he represented a warring faction of the self that fights against his own knowledge and is oriented in a highly physical manner. It seemed he went from one extreme to another, being against Christ and then for him. But the inner vehemence was always present, the inner fire, and the recognition that he tried for so long to hide.
His was the portion that was to deal with physical reality and manipulation, and so these qualities were strong in him. To some extent they overruled him. 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 Christ will form.
The entity of which these personalities are part, that entity which you may call the Christ entity, was aware of these issues. The earthly personalities were not aware of them, although in periods of trance and exaltation much was made known to them. Paul also represented the militant nature of man, that had to be taken into consideration in line with man's development at the time. That militant quality in man will completely change its nature, and be dispensed with as you know it, when the next Christ personality emerges. It is therefore appropriate that Paul be present. In the next century, the inner nature of man, with these developments, will free itself from many constraints that have bound it.His ego was necessarily stronger than those of John and Jesus, because of the huge task ahead of him. Unfortunately, I think he let his ego get in the way and he ended up creating the Christianity, the dogma and all the problems associated with it. [Maybe Paul symbolically represents the human ego, John and Christ as the inner self and entity?] He will get another chance to correct his mistakes that have affected humanity as a whole (as either the people choosing Christianity, or their victims) for the past 2,000 years.
But Seth also said the "return" will not be the same entity/gestalt:
This personality will refer to the historical Christ, will recognize his relationship with that personality; but within him the three personality groupings will form a new psychic entity, a different psychological gestalt. As this metamorphosis takes place, it will initiate a metamorphosis on a human level also, as man's inner abilities are accepted and developed.So while the fragment of the entity known as Paul will be still in the mix, it will not be the Paul that we 'know', but new and improved, the metamorphosis of which will be mirrored by mankind.
I enjoyed the article about Nietzsche. I'd never read him but I think I'd get a lot of enjoyment out of
The Anti-Christ book. The article says the book is full of paradoxes and of course the book is Nietzsche's opinions about Paul and his interpretations of what is written in Bible. Reading his claims about Paul make me think that Paul may have been mentally ill, narcissistic, ego-driven, or at the very least self-serving.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12129#msg12129)
It is Ruburt who may be immortal (I am not sure), but certainly Jane Roberts is not immortal.
I write this book through the auspices of a woman of whom I have become quite fond. To others it seems strange that I address her as "Ruburt," and "him," but the fact is that I have known her in other times and places, by other names. She has been both a man and a woman, and the entire identity who has lived these separate lives can be designated by the name of Ruburt.—SS Chapter 1: Session 511, January 21, 1970
So then the entity/oversoul is named Ruburt. Seth has indicated that he, Jane, Rob and all of their various incarnations, probabilities etc. are parts of the same entity. Seth from his standpoint was privy to much more information than Jane, Robert and the rest of us here.
I don't recall Seth ever saying Jane was immortal. But he did say that every one of us is eternal (pretty much the same thing to me). The individuals we know as ourselves, right now, are merely a fraction of our greater self. Even when our individual reincarnational cycles end, we do not cease to exist. We may return to the entity, but we/the entity remember all events from our incarnations and more in the way I now remember things that happened to me over this lifetime. I think that's why so many people who have had NDEs say they felt there was "so much more," a feeling of expansiveness or intensity, expanded awareness while being in the afterlife.
From NoPR session 637:
(Pause at 9:20.) The you that you consider yourself is never annihilated. Your consciousness is not snuffed out, nor is it swallowed, blissfully unaware of itself, in some nirvana.* You are as much a part of a nirvana now as you will ever be.
To some extent, we have discussed your body and its composition of cells (in the 632nd session in Chapter Seven, for instance). All of the cells that now make up your physical form obviously exist at once. Imagine that you have many lives enduring in the same fashion. Instead of cells then you have selves. I told you that each cell has its own memory. The self-memory is, of course, of far greater dimension.
Think of the greater you, call it the entity if you want to, as forming a psychic structure quite as real as your physical one, but composed of many selves. As each cell of your body has its position within your corporeal space and boundaries, so each self within the entity is aware of its own "time" and dimension of activity. The body is a temporal structure. The cells, however, while a part of this body, are not aware of the entire dimension in which your consciousness dwells. They do not perceive all of the elements that are available even in three-dimensional experience, yet your present consciousness, seemingly so much more sophisticated, physically rests upon cellular awareness.
So the entity or "greater" psychic structure of which you are a part is aware of much larger dimensions of activity than you are, yet in the same way its more sophisticated consciousness rests upon your own, and one is necessary to the other.Phew, again I apologize.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12130#msg12130)
But it was to be a framework of ideas, not of regulations; of men, not of groups. Here he (Paul) fell down, and he will return as the third personality, just mentioned, in your future.
Deb, thanks for the quotes. Why does this guy Paul, responsible for 2000 years of evil, have to return? Aren't there better individuals or entities in the history of humanity? What about Hypatia of Alexandria, Joan of Arc or Giordano Bruno (all three murdered by Paul's followers)?
(https://i.ibb.co/WzbTLBL/burnt-alive2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1XDSkRk)
2009 infiniti fx50 0 60 (https://statewideinventory.org/infiniti-0-60-times)
(Giordano Bruno burnt alive)
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12131#msg12131)
Why does this guy Paul, responsible for 2000 years of evil, have to return?
Right? May as well be Hitler. Maybe it has to due with value fulfillment. He screwed up, now he has to clean up his mess or at least complete the task he had set for himself.
But we can also blame 2000 years of Christians for keeping his doctrine alive. From the article you linked to above (I thought this was terrific):
"If it had been possible for Paul to promote the idea of a Christian god, Nietzsche found it incredible that two thousand years had come and gone and we had not invented for ourselves a single new god! He criticised us for not having had the courage to confront the moral dogmas that have been passed on from one generation to the next and he challenged the belief that equates strong moral convictions with virtue. He substitutes the popular saying 'to have the courage of one's convictions,' for one that would free us from received morality: 'to have the courage to attack one's convictions', as for Nietzsche, 'convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.'"
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12137#msg12137)
He substitutes the popular saying 'to have the courage of one's convictions,' for one that would free us from received morality: 'to have the courage to attack one's convictions', as for Nietzsche, 'convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.'"
Deb, yes, Nietzsche was a smart cookie.
Deb,
Sorry it's taken so long, but here's my reply to your Reply #49 (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1557.msg12123#msg12123) above:
That's a good point about mostly Christians talking about the Antichrist. So, I did a quick search on "Islam false prophet OR antichrist" and found this Wikipedia article entitled "False prophet" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet#Islam). According to this article of unknown accuracy, Islam says that the last of 30 false prophets will appear before the return of Jesus Christ, and this last false prophet and return of Jesus story sounds a lot like the Christian Antichrist and Christ story to me. But, I imagine if one of the main characters in a religious drama has an opposing character in the finale of that drama and the start of another one, the people most involved in that particular drama would be the ones to see and/or discuss any characters in it, whether in the past, the present, or the future. So it makes sense Christians talk about the Antichrist the most.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12123#msg12123)
How would you define an Antichrist (just curious), what's your perspective?
I think the Antichrist and the Christ are exactly the same in this respect: they are both just personalities of entities that have agreed to play a part in the drama we all have called out for. When I was younger, I don't know that I gave it much thought, but I've always enjoyed watching movies (and The Stand miniseries) that portray the Antichrist in various ways - a business man, a mysterious evil guy, etc., etc. But the concept of good vs evil doesn't really make any sense to me. I think the Antichrist will be one specific person who many people will find to be someone who is a positive influence on the world. I think these people who feel this way will be followers of the status quo: government, religion, science, technology, etc., all based on current spiritual ideas. This Antichrist will probably attain a certain level of influence and power. What he does with that influence and power, I'm not too clear on. Does he really continue to try to benefit humankind, or does he start to abuse that power in ways many of us would not approve of? I don't know. Maybe things just get to a point where it's clear he's not really helping, but hindering our progress as a global community. What we do think we know from most stories is that eventually his power and influence decreases while that of the returning Christ personality increases.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12123#msg12123)
Seth did say there were "others" coming before the return of the Christ personality, to prime the pump. Is the following what you were thinking about when you wrote "I believe Seth said something along the lines of other prophets have been, and will continue to be, describing what is to come, and who" ?
Definitely not: It never once crossed my mind to connect the Antichrist with the several others Seth said will
re-arouse man's expectations. And it really struck me that you made a really interesting connection with that, and it kind of bothered me that I never even got close to that connection (while making me appreciate this forum and your posts all the more). However, as fascinating as that connection is, I don't think these people who will re-arouse man's expectations are related to the Antichrist. I think they are much, much more similar to what the third personality of Christ will be. I agree with what you said about the "predecessors around the planet", and I think it's entirely possible they do things that will make Paul's job possible, where it might not otherwise be possible; whereas the Antichrist will probably be doing little to nothing that will help Paul get his job done. If I had to guess, I'd say these predecessors could possibly do Paul's job if that were the agreement on the framework level for this drama. Maybe it's one of their turns in the next drama. I too would be curious to know who the predecessors to Paul would be; however I don't know that they would be considered prophets so much as teachers. It doesn't really sound like Paul will be considered so much a prophet as a teacher, but I could be wrong about that.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12123#msg12123)
Can you explain how you feel distortion has its uses in educating us all? I'm having a hard time seeing distortion in a positive light.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone else describe distortion as useful, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but this is how I see it. The example I used in my really long post earlier in this thread is the Christian religion. We all, as a group of entities and personalities connected to earth, chose this current religious drama which produced this religion. According to Seth, Paul's tendencies which helped create this religion, and its resulting distortions, were known at the level of his higher entity, and it sounds like they were part of the framework for this drama. We all called out for this drama, so we could learn from the Christian religion, including its distortions. I think the main reason, and maybe the only reason, we are here on this planet is to learn. We chose to learn from a drama we created which included distortions. And we have learned a great deal I would say. Some we might look at as positive, and plenty we might look at as negative. But we learned. And learning is "positive", based on the premise that we are here to learn. Therefore, distortion has proven useful in our learning.
Another way to look at distortion being useful is in trying to understand descriptions of the future. A number of channellers, psychics, prophets, etc., have looked into and described our future. What they saw, or said, or felt, and described has some similarities and many differences. Some of these differences and discrepancies are said to be from our free will and the making of future choices. However, from what we've seen of Seth's talking about Paul, Seth would not provide detailed information about who Paul is in this lifetime, but he clearly indicated that he could if he wanted to. From what I've seen of the various descriptions of our future, I would say that the personalities receiving the information have agreed at some level to have distortions in what they receive and/or how they describe it. This is slightly different from Seth or Paul Solomon just flat out saying (paraphrasing here) "no, you can't have that information", but it's the same idea - we get some clues, like we would from any good instructor or teacher, but ultimately we have to think for ourselves to learn. I think the information from various people who have described our future is distorted by agreement from a higher level. And with that distortion, we get some clues that lead us down a road, but to figure out where that road really goes and how to travel it, we have to think for ourselves, and therefore learn. So in this case, distortion again is good, as it forces us to think for ourselves and learn. This is kind of like going to your favorite local psychic and they give you some information that is accurate, but maybe from a restriction on a higher level they don't have access to information that would make it too easy.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12123#msg12123)
I have a feeling we average citizens are not supposed to consciously know and also wonder if there will be guides or speakers that will be in place specifically to facilitate this mystery man. Even then, they might not know on a conscious level what their role is.
I agree with this. I've seen on another topic on this site where posts discuss whether or not Paul will know who he is. Perhaps these speakers will help him realize who he is, and help him get his job done. It makes sense. And for a little fun with this idea, what if from another level Paul's personality or his entity was collaborating with these other speakers on how to do this? Here's an imaginary higher level (dream state, pre-birth state, or something like that) conversation between Paul and say for example a speaker named Martha who is going to write a book that will help Paul figure out who he is: Martha: "hey Paul, what if I say that you will be born in the East?" Paul: "East? East what? East Asia? East Milwaukee? I'll never figure that out! How about something easy...like maybe the exact date and time?" Martha: "Come on, you know we'll never get away with putting that in there!" Paul: "OK, how about adding at least a continent? Or maybe a country, come on - a country is not THAT easy!"
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12123#msg12123)
I wonder if the people you mentioned (Montgomery, Dixon, Solomon) were just relying on the biblical version of the return with the Antichrist/Christ stuff, due to their own beliefs or background?
Their descriptions are quite different in some ways, so I don't think they were just relying on the biblical version of the story. However, I'm guessing their focus and the details of their descriptions were very much influenced by their beliefs. I think this is where we kind of read between the lines, trying to match up their descriptions with a bigger picture and see what fits.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12123#msg12123)
"That personality will indeed be multidimensional, aware of all its incarnations. It will not be oriented in terms of one sex, one color, or one race."
I'm trying to get a visual on that.
Me too. It seems like it would take a lot of time to be aware of all of one's incarnations - I'd love to understand a fast way to do this! Maybe "...not be oriented..." would be better said as "...not be historically reincarnated in terms of just one sex, one color, or one race". Or maybe it's that it will be obvious that he understands no sex, or race or color is any more or less valued than any other.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12123#msg12123)
And what type of event do you suppose would be big enough to unite the world? Alien invasion? Asteroid? Maybe something we can't even imagine.
I think you added your post before I wrote a summary of what I was taught this event might be. I explained who taught me, and a bit about him in the member-only "Welcome & please say hello" section topic, here (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1593.msg12098#msg12098), so I hope it's OK to copy my description of the event here:
"I guess this might be a good place to summarize very briefly a little of what Josef explained about this event. It's been a long time since I've tried to explain this in any detail, so I'll stick to the bigger picture here. From his view, and I've only become more and more convinced over the last 30 years that he has the clearest view, it's a natural event. He calls it the light change. Every period of some thousands of years (I don't recall the exact number), the primary influence, or light source, of the earth changes. I imagine this is somewhat related to the Astrology idea of influences, but I am not that into Astrology. The primary influence naturally moves to a higher vibration source. It's starts off slowly, taking years, and then very quickly, the shift connects to the new source and the light on our planet is much brighter, and there is a great deal more energy here. And we have to adjust to it quickly. Apparently, knowledge of the structure of light and energy can help us increase our vibration and make this adjustment to the new level. So basically, if he's right, a good thing for us to be doing would be to raise our vibrations as much as we can. And this is what I think we need to learn to be doing for ourselves. From my view, working with dreams is an easy entry point to this, and that's part of why I'm interested in getting more people working with their own dreams. We can learn a lot there. Plus, the things we learn there could easily help us as our environment changes more and more. And anyone can learn to get information from their dreams. In the best case scenario of this event being an imaginary tale, learning what we can from working with our dreams is still a uniquely valuable thing to be doing, and the experience is something we can use across any lifetimes."
Sorry about the length of my post(s). I'm apparently not so good at being succinct.
I'm out of time right now, but I expect to come back and post something (shorter) in response to Sena's posts as soon as I can.
Hi Sena, Hi All,
This is in response to your comments about "personal immortality" in Post #50 above.
I think this concept is a dilemma for those who think of time, in terms of how it appears to operate in our physical reality.
On the other hand, Seth tells us that time, as we think of it, does not exist.
If what Seth tells us, is, in fact true, then Nietzsche's comments regarding "personal immortality" have a much different implication and perhaps are actually just a mute point.
What does immortality mean if all time is simultaneous in the spacious present?
Here's what Seth had to say about time and the spacious present in "The Early Sessions, Book 2, Session 54".
There is indeed no contradiction, though it may appear so, in the fact that all entities existed before your planet was formed, and the fact cause and effect is faulty and antiquated, and I have said that the cause and effect theory is logical only as a result of your theory of time and continuity. If time as you think of it does not exist, and it does not, then the cause and effect theory does not follow.
I have told you that all consciousnesses exist in the spacious present, which is spontaneous while also durable. Then it is no contradiction to say that entities existed before the birth of your planet, though in your time it seems that new ones are being brought to consciousness.
In their materialization upon your plane, and as seen from your own camouflage perspective, you seem to be aware of new entities, but this is because of your own limited viewpoint. In your time scheme entities have had time to produce more fragmentary personalities, but in truth from your viewpoint these personalities can be seen to have changed long ago.
The old analogy, rather trite I'm afraid, is still a good one. Walking through a forest you find many trees. Time can be conceived of, truly, as the entire forest. You however see a tree in front of you and call it the future. You think that the tree was not there because you had not come to it yet. The tree behind you, you call the past. You are walking so to speak along one narrow path, but there are many paths. The forest exists as a whole. You can walk forward, so to speak, and backward, though you are only now learning how.
We will carry this analogy a giant step further. Now we will call the whole forest, if you can conceive of it, the spacious present. The trees are compared to consciousnesses, all existing simultaneously; and yet this forest of spacious present does not take up space, as you think of space.
There is no past, present or future in your terms within it, but only a now. Because of the endless possibilities within this now, durability is maintained in terms of value fulfillment, the fulfillment of literally endless values. Therefore the forest is constantly expanding. Remember your expanding universe theory, but not in terms of space or indeed in terms of time, but in terms of fulfillment of abilities and values that may be constructed upon various levels and in various guises, your present plane of existence being one.
And in each of these planes of existence there is a reflection of the basic laws of the spacious present itself, which I am in the process of giving you. Therefore there is no need, really, to think of a given group of entities before the birth of your planet. I have said that all the entities who would ever dwell upon your plane did exist, and actually have a hand in on the creation of your planet, that would ever dwell upon it.
I also said that new entities were being formed, but in the framework of the spacious present all this is spontaneous. The contradiction seems a contradiction only on your terms. On my terms there is none. For practical purposes you may say, in truth on your own terms, that entities simply have had time to develop further personalities. But I want it understood that this is true only within your own time framework.
There is much yet to be covered dealing with a spontaneity that is nevertheless durable. I have also said that your own present existence occurs simultaneously. You only perceive it in slow motion.
I suggest your break, and if this hasn't broken you up then nothing will. You are indeed as you can see broken up a million times, and put together in many various manners; and yet you retain the inner ego, and in other words your own identity. But this identity must change. This again is no contradiction. Nothing can be static, and believe it or not, nothing is.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12144#msg12144)
I have told you that all consciousnesses exist in the spacious present, which is spontaneous while also durable. Then it is no contradiction to say that entities existed before the birth of your planet, though in your time it seems that new ones are being brought to consciousness.
jbseth, thanks for this quote. "Existing in the spacious present" is an excellent alternative to the delusion of personal immortality.
Yes, that simultaneous time thing is something to be considered and I still don't completely understand that on the deepest level, there are so many ramifications. Yet Seth did always talk about the survival of the personality (Eternal Validity of the Soul). And if we are to believe Seth was real, then we have to consider that he was "located" in a post-earth life existence. The other option is to think Jane* was faking it all or was schizoid as some have accused her. In the beginning she doubted her own sanity and I think had herself checked by psychiatrists.
I also have to consider that Nietzsche was a nihilist and so Paul's introducing the concept of immortality, among other things, would be offensive to him. What a perfect way to control people! Tell them they are immortal and will go to Heaven or Hell depending on their adherence to the Christian dogma. And people being people, often fall off the wagon. Make them believe in Heaven and Hell and then give them confession to absolve them of their indiscretions to get most of them back on the path to Heaven. I just realized I have no idea what the Jewish religion believes about life after death.
Saw this Second Coming photo on Facebook the other day, I couldn't resist. Dog shaming.
*If Jane was faking it, then Rob would have been in on that. And all of the publishers, class attendees and steady stream of scientists, intellects, physicists and more were duped. But then... Christianity has survived and grown for 2000 years based—solely?—on Saul/Paul's teachings. Regarding Jane/Seth, it is less important to me where the information was coming from than the message, and Seth's messages were the complete opposite of religion in that they were teaching that we make our reality, we are not victims, and we should listen to our inner selves rather than some preacher. Responsibility, accountability, independence from a higher/smarter power.
Hi All,
In Seth Speaks, Chapter 21, Session 586, in talking about the future coming of the Christ personality, Seth says the following:
[...] That personality will indeed be multidimensional, aware of all its incarnations. It will not be oriented in terms of one sex, one color, or one race.
(11:20.) For the first time, therefore, it will break through the earthly concepts of personality, liberating personality. It will have the ability to show these diverse effects as it chooses.
I've always wondered if this might mean that this personality, while alive here on earth, will literally change its physical appearance from moment to moment showing each of its many multidimensional personalities. Kind of like the morphing from person to person that occurs starting at about 5:30 into Michael Jackson's "Black or White" video (see link below).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2AitTPI5U0
jbseth
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12149#msg12149)
I also have to consider that Nietzsche was a nihilist and so Paul's introducing the concept of immortality, among other things, would be offensive to him. What a perfect way to control people! Tell them they are immortal and will go to Heaven or Hell depending on their adherence to the Christian dogma. And people being people, often fall off the wagon. Make them believe in Heaven and Hell and then give them confession to absolve them of their indiscretions to get most of them back on the path to Heaven. I just realized I have no idea what the Jewish religion believes about life after death.
I agree, Deb. The fear of hell is also a nice way for the Church to make money. The teaching is that the more money you give, the less likely you are to go to hell.
There is no hell in Judaism, only "Sheol". Hell was invented by the Christian New Testament.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol
Hi Sena,
I think Nietzsche would like what you've done on this topic. In a post from September of this year, you say:
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11867#msg11867)
The only Christ I would accept is one that was completely different to the one fabricated by Saints Paul and Augustine and the Catholic Church. We have a good test for the second Christ, because he will say, "I agree with everything Seth said".
This sounds like a fairly strong conviction you felt at that time.
But then a week or so ago, it seems to me you question your conviction...
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12129#msg12129)
If Seth is suggesting that the return of Christ has something to do with Paul, I cannot accept it.
So, it seems you have updated your conviction towards Seth's material by questioning it, which according to the article referenced above on Nietzsche (link to the same article) (http://www.cynicalreflections.net/2012/04/nietzsche-anti-christ-not-anti-jesus.html), is a critical thing for us to always be doing.
This questioning of convictions seems like an important part of a better future; no matter what the convictions are and no matter how we arrived at them.
For me, something I completely believe to be true that I can not prove, or can not find proof of, I try to hold in my mind as something I am 100% sure I am supposed to believe as true right now, rather than something that is an absolute. Sometimes I'll consider an estimate in my mind of a probability as to whether it really is true or not. I think this helps me give myself the flexibility to question that belief, whatever it is.
Your questioning of Seth's material by rejecting Paul brings up another point. If some of us don't really agree with some parts of what Seth says, then will Paul be expected to agree with all of it? Some of it? None of it? It seems like it's going to be hard to pin down who he is, since we may have a lot of variances in our ideas of what we expect him to be like, and what we expect him to believe, and to do.
Maybe he can get a twitter account that might help us: @realReturnOfPaul.
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12156#msg12156)
If some of us don't really agree with some parts of what Seth says, then will Paul be expected to agree with all of it?
Hi Jack, thanks for taking the trouble to analyze my posts. As for your question that I have highlighted, I think it is a purely hypothetical one as I don't think Paul will be coming back.
Do you think Seth is infallible like the Pope? I think Seth gave us some useful teachings, especially about the Nature of Personal Reality, but he appears to have been confused about some other things.
Hi Sena,
In Post #50 above, you said, "If Seth is suggesting that the return of Christ has something to do with Paul, I cannot accept it."
Ever since you've made this comment, I've been wondering about it.
If you don't mind to much, would you please give us a little insight as to what's behind your thinking on this. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it or anything like that, I'm just interested in hearing specifically what your thinking is on this.
Thanks
jbseth
Just my two-cents worth, but the way I understand it, it will not be the same personality, faults and all, of the original Paul. Seth said that this would be the dominant component, but would have elements from the other two as well. Thus, a different mixture of the entity. Further, I can only presume that the personality Paul has done a great deal of work in his current state to understand where he erred, and this along with the influence of the other entity components, ensures that the "Paul" as manifested in the past will not be what we get the next time around. Just as we manifest differently in different incarnations and grow from them, so will "Paul".
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12160#msg12160)
If you don't mind to much, would you please give us a little insight as to what's behind your thinking on this. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it or anything like that, I'm just interested in hearing specifically what your thinking is on this.
jbseth,
Thanks for asking. I think the whole idea of being able to predict the future reincarnation of an individual who has lived in the past is contrary to common sense. Can you give an instance of Seth or anyone else having correctly made such a prediction?
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12163#msg12163)
I think the whole idea of being able to predict the future reincarnation of an individual who has lived in the past is contrary to common sense. Can you give an instance of Seth or anyone else having correctly made such a prediction?
Interesting question. The Sethian idea (and quantum physics for that matter) of time being an illusion is "contrary to common sense", yet there is evidence. I don't know how quantum physicists came to that conclusion, but any accurate prediction of the future (a precognitive dream, for instance) does suggest that probable futures exist "now". Practitioners of hypnotic regression have stumbled upon "progression" to future lives among their subjects, though this would be hard to prove, since we would need to wait until the dates or eras revealed to check out the accuracy. Hypnotic regression to past lives are easier to check out, and many have been found to be accurate. To Seth, the future is as real as the past. That being said, he also says that the past is a changeable as the future. That one is hard for me to wrap my head around (again contrary to common sense). But I have learned that when something is contrary to common sense, that is not a reason to reject the possibility. Quantum theory is contrary to common sense, and yet the evidence for quantum theory is overwhelming.
Hi all,
Sena - You're welcome on the post analyzing thing. I just thought you gave us a good example of questioning everything.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12158#msg12158)
Do you think Seth is infallible like the Pope?
I love this question.
Yes, I think Seth is infallible like the Pope. Absolutely.
What does infallibility of the Pope mean (Wikipedia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility)? To sloppily paraphrase the link, it means when he's creating church doctrine as part of his job, he can't make a mistake.
From a normal view, to me, this is ridiculous. So to me, Seth is absolutely infallible exactly like the Pope, because the Pope is not infallible, and neither is Seth. But, also like the Pope, some people probably do believe Seth is infallible. Just not me. So yes, to me Seth is infallible in exactly the same way as the Pope.
But this entire line of thinking might not be very useful from my view. It assumes the possibility of making mistakes. I don't really believe in mistakes, only learning. Certainly I've done (and continue to do) a large number of things that one might normally consider mistakes, but are they really? Who defines what is correct and what is a mistake; what is right, and what is wrong? A religion? The government? Your community? Your parents? Your spouse? You? And if the accepted definitions of right and wrong change over time, then are they real? While I realize with the current level of awareness of most of us, our civilization needs rules and consequences, what I consider a more correct view for me is what is usable, and what is not? If Seth (or the Pope) relates something that has more light or truth in it, it is more usable to me. If they relate something that has less truth or light, it might be a good lesson in discerning what has more light and truth and what does not; rather than simply a mistake. I think we learn multiple aspects of an activity over multiple lifetimes; we learn that killing and being killed are not very usable ways to live; stealing and being stolen from are not very usable ways to live; etc., etc. The point being that sometimes we learn how to treat each other as we'd like to be treated from our "mistakes", so if the point of being here is to learn, then are they really mistakes, or just part of the curriculum? Some of my biggest mistakes have led to some of my greatest learning; not painless learning, but learning.
So maybe Seth really is infallible, as is the Pope, as are all of us. It just doesn't look like it, and it sure doesn't feel like it sometimes. Yes, this might seem like Semantics, but how we look at the results of, and the making of "correct choices" or "mistakes" is the basis for a lot of pain and suffering in our world, and is connected to how we judge ourselves and others; over this lifetime, and ones that have come before.
Seth said in the future when we are dramatically more aware of our past lives, and the past lives of others, we will see that heroes and villains change places over lifetimes. When that happens, I think we will see more clearly the various patterns of learning we all go through, and we will respect and honor each other's lifetimes and their "mistakes".
This concept keeps coming to mind when I see comments about the result of Paul's lifetime 2,000 years ago. It appears we don't select one lifetime at a time; we have sets of lifetimes that are very related and selected outside of our time. So Paul had one job to do 2,000 years ago, and like Larry mentioned above (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1557.msg12162#msg12162), he's almost certainly been doing a lot of work to further his learning for his job this time around. I feel quite sure he's had a number of lifetimes since then learning and working on a variety of things, as part of a set of related lifetimes. And I've never seen anything to indicate he's not been here since his visit 2,000 years ago. The brouhaha about this particular upcoming lifetime is likely related to all the changes that seem to be coming around this next lifetime's time frame.
Further, consider what you have learned in this one lifetime. Then consider what you might learn in five or ten or who knows how many lifetimes. Of course Paul will be different this go-round. We are all different from even one lifetime.
Here's a question for us all: if we participated in the growth of any Christian church in one or more lifetimes in the last 2,000 years, how should we feel about this? Should we judge ourselves as unfit to try to change the spiritual situation around us now? Or maybe should we congratulate ourselves on having learned through what might have been a very difficult experience that the Christian church is not really what we want to be a part of? I'm pretty sure I have contributed to the church's existence and growth over more than one lifetime. And I've got a pretty strong feeling I've been persecuted by at least one Christian church in other lifetimes. My guess is that many people on this forum have learned from both sides of the Christian church - both for it, and against it, in lifetimes before this one. And for me, this not only doesn't preclude us from being qualified to help change the spiritual focus and education in our civilization now, it makes us particularly well suited for this work. The more religions and the wider our spiritual focus has been over multiple lifetimes, and probably the more "mistakes" we've made, the more well trained we are for these roles now.
As far as Paul's apparent assignment for this coming lifetime...forgive the (American) football sports analogy...but say you're trying to win over a team who's won the Super Bowl for most of the last 2,000 years. You can't get the guy who invented the game (Jesus), but you could get a quarterback with maybe some experience, or maybe your team could actually get the starting quarterback (Paul) who not only played for the other team, but created much of the playbook for their wins for the past 2,000 years, and he really, really wants your team to win the Super Bowl for the next 2,000 years. Which one do you pick? My money would be on the guy who created their playbook (especially if it's flawed and he's got a better one for this game). And one of the best bookies you know (Seth) has already seen all the players, the new playbook, all the new rules and the field for the game and he's saying something like the odds are 95% in favor of your team with this quarterback.
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12162#msg12162)
...but the way I understand it, it will not be the same personality, faults and all...
Hi Larry,
From SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971:
"This personality will refer to the historical Christ, will recognize his relationship with that personality; but within him the three personality groupings will form a new psychic entity, a different psychological gestalt. As this metamorphosis takes place, it will initiate a metamorphosis on a human level also (emphatically), as man's inner abilities are accepted and developed."This seems to me that Seth is saying it will initially be the personality of Paul, which I agree will be somewhat different due to his learning since then, and that somehow he undergoes the "metamorphosis" mentioned above where he's essentially something new. I think this means that he's alive a while, and then this metamorphosis happens while he's alive, but Seth doesn't seem to explicitly say that anywhere that I've seen.
Sena,
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12163#msg12163)
Can you give an instance of Seth or anyone else having correctly made such a prediction?
You're like the king of good questions. I've never thought of this question, nor have I ever seen it asked.
I think Larry's reply to your question (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1557.msg12164#msg12164) is excellent.
For me, I don't know that I would have become interested in all this stuff without having read some amazing personal stories of spiritual adventures when I was first getting into it. I still love hearing good stories about it.
I know of an unpublished story that may or may not help. It's about a couple who were born in the 1800's, died, and came back and eventually met and became close friends in the 1900's. They were told in the 1900's by a friend who was a psychic that they were connected to that lifetime, and they determined that it was very likely to be true. The husband in the 1800's was close to a different woman before they were married, and remained somewhat connected to her throughout his life. The couple died long before this other woman. The woman wrote a book about her life and some about the couple before she died in the 1900's. She wrote it due to having a dream that the souls of the couple born in the 1800's were coming back. In his current life, the husband from the 1800's was born in the year the author dated the prologue in her book, and he's still alive, as is his friend.
This is a story about a precognitive dream describing the return of some personalities and via a nice little synchronicity, connected it to the year one of the personalities was born; the personality she was closest to. There is a lot of detail to the story, and if you think the details might help you with your question, I can make more of the story available.
There may be far better stories than the one above, but I can't recall any other stories at all, except for how the Buddhists know when the Dalai Llama is back and they go find him. I was hoping someone else on here could point us to a story, as I'd like to hear a different one too.
Larry,
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12164#msg12164)
That being said, he also says that the past is a changeable as the future.
I had exactly one moment in my life where I thought the past had changed. It felt like I'd been the one messing around with it, possibly from another level. It was a strange feeling. There was something I saw that didn't feel like it should have been there, yet it made sense to me that it was there, even though it did not seem to make sense to anyone else. It almost felt like that scene in the Matrix movie where Neo saw the cat, and then he saw what seemed like the same cat again, and they said it was that something had been changed in the Matrix. Except in my case, I don't remember ever having seen the first "cat", only the second one, but I felt strongly that something had changed.
This one hurts my head as much as trying to understand free will. I think you can't understand changing the past without totally understanding the structure of free will, whatever it is.
All of it has to relate very precisely to thoughts. If any part of any probable future exists now, then so do the thoughts that we use for our actions in that future. If there is no time, then all the thoughts of all the futures and all the pasts exist now. So the question becomes, how is thought created, and where, and when? What makes this even more interesting is if all those thoughts exist, and the probable future path taken is only choosing a thought or set of thoughts, then thoughts themselves have to be quite literally real. The key would be to understand precisely the difference in a thought and an action based on a thought. There might not be any (significant?) difference, which could then place it all in a fairly simple structure of a single universe of various levels with what seems like infinite possibilities based on the sets of thoughts that exist in it and are constantly created, however their creation works. All the thoughts are there, and the pasts and the futures of our experiences can be changed by moving our focus through different thoughts or sets of thoughts, in any apparent direction of time, since time is not real. If there is no thought to do something, we can not do it, so that implies that if there are limits as to what we can choose, then the controls are at the level of the creation of thought.
WOW. Lots to digest. Brilliant, all of you.
At least Seth said this much about the Return:
"Events are not predestined. The framework for this emergence has already been set, however, within your system of probabilities. The emergence of this third personality will directly affect the original historical drama of Christ as it is now known. There is and must be interactions between them."
—SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971
The Return of the Christ Personality sounds like a super being. The original appearance was achieved with three distinct personalities (John/Jesus/Paul) because supposedly one being could not sustain all three. It seems like the new and improved personality will be strong and vigorous enough to handle the combined personalities—or a direct representation of the entity. To me that means this new being will be extraordinary and not limited to ordinary human qualities or weaknesses.
I need to think about this more. Just had to jump in and save space for my thoughts.
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12164#msg12164)
The Sethian idea (and quantum physics for that matter) of time being an illusion is "contrary to common sense", yet there is evidence. I don't know how quantum physicists came to that conclusion, but any accurate prediction of the future (a precognitive dream, for instance) does suggest that probable futures exist "now".
Hi Larry,
If you quote quantum physics in support of your belief that Paul is coming, then absolutely ANYTHING is possible in the future. I shall choose a future without Christ and Paul.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12170#msg12170)
If you quote quantum physics in support of your belief that Paul is coming,,,
Sena, that is a mischaracterization of both my purpose and belief. I used quantum theory as an example of something that is contrary to common sense and yet largely proven. It was not to support a belief in something else, but to suggest that something being contrary to common sense is not a reason to deny its possibility. I don't believe or disbelieve what Seth has said about this future Paul, I just allow for the possibility.
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12171#msg12171)
I don't believe or disbelieve what Seth has said about this future Paul, I just allow for the possibility.
Larry, thanks for clarifying that.
I have had a further thought/feeling about why I shall choose a future without Christ or Paul. I don't have a clear recollection of my previous lives, but I have a feeling that in one of these lives I may have been put to death by followers of Christ and Paul. It is a fact that hundreds of thousands were put to death for "heresy", especially in Europe, Central America, and South America.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12173#msg12173)
I have a feeling that in one of these lives I may have been put to death by followers of Christ and Paul.
Because of your strong feelings about Jesus/Paul, I think you're onto something here.
I'd always found it ironic that Jesus, as far as I could tell, was against religious dogma and tried to teach people that "god" was within them. Then there was an entire religion created around him, totally ignoring and distorting his message.
If there is a return of the Christ personality, I don't think I (this me) will be around to witness it. But it is interesting to ponder. And not just for us members. If you look at the forum status, the most popular topic is The Return of the Christ Personality by both # of posts and # of views. That topic is separate from this one, plus we have one or two other Christ related topics on the forum.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12170#msg12170)
I shall choose a future without Christ and Paul.
Good point, we have choices in this existence.
Hi Sena,
Thanks for responding to my question about your comments on Seth and the Return of the Christ.
Before you answered, I was wondering if perhaps your comment had to do with Paul himself, i.e. Jesus, not Paul, was suppose to return, of if perhaps it had to do with the Return itself, i. e., I think the whole idea of Jesus returning again was some sort of Christian mythology or misunderstanding or if your comment had some other basis.
I've noticed over time that you seem to have a very deep-seated dislike of almost all things that have to do with Christianity and I'm definitely not saying you are wrong for this. The Christian Church has definitely done some horrible things over the last 2,000 years. The feelings however, behind this dislike "may" have a big impact on how you view things; such as with the comments that LarryH made.
I think LarryH's comments were spot on, but the feelings you have behind your dislike of Christianity, may have kept you from seeing this.
jbseth
The strong belief in prophesies of the arrival of a messiah in old testament times led to the en masse creation of the events that were then interpreted as fulfillment of those prophesies. However, the stories that grew out of that event suggest that the prophesy was fulfilled in a way that was unexpected: instead of a King of the Jews vanquishing their enemies, the stories indicate a man whose main message was one of love and peace. As with many 'man-gods' prior to his presence, he had to be "born of a virgin", perform miracles such as healing the sick, be killed, and rise from the dead (the stories arose from mass consciousness regardless of what actually happened).
There is a school of thought that says that most of the 'end times' prophesies attributed to Jesus were fulfilled within about 70 years of his life. I forget the name of that school of thought, but it begins with a 'P'. That being said, it is a minority, and the majority of Christians expect the event to be in our future.
This strong expectation among many of the return of Christ, not to mention the long-awaited Jewish Messiah and similar prophesies in Islam suggest that mass consciousness might result in something that can be interpreted by most in these groups as the fulfillment of their prophesies. It would also be fulfilled in ways that are unexpected, not exactly matching any of those expectations, but perhaps being different in the same sense that the stories of the "King of the Jews" with the unexpected messages of love, peace, and forgiveness did not meet the desires of those who expected a king who would vanquish their enemies. I see this possibility based on Seth's concepts of mass events and group consciousness. It does not even need his direct suggestions of such an event. It is not unusual to have desires and expectations be fulfilled in unexpected but helpful ways. Just look at the synchronicity thread for examples of that.
Sena,
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12170#msg12170)
I shall choose a future without Christ and Paul.
In my question below, I'm referring here to the you as the level of you that reincarnates here multiple times, which I think would be a personality in Seth's terms, so I'll use "your personality" in the question. I am not referring to the level of you that is reincarnated in a past lifetime and may not have been aware of living beyond one life.
For the purpose of this question, let's assume you were definitely put to death by the followers of Christ and Paul in a previous life.
If you don't mind my asking, do you feel like the death you experienced at the hands of the church was a choice made for your personality or by your personality?
Maybe this isn't something you feel like discussing here, but it might be something to think about and maybe explore a bit. It's totally up to you of course.
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12180#msg12180)
If you don't mind my asking, do you feel like the death you experienced at the hands of the church was a choice made for your personality or by your personality?
Jack, thanks for asking. I think it must have been a choice made by my Inner Self. For what purpose? So that it could disprove the historical Christ and expose Paul for the conman he was.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12183#msg12183)
So that it could disprove the historical Christ and expose Paul for the conman he was.
Sena, thanks for answering. To me that feels like an answer that you feel to be pretty solid for yourself. A good kind of answer when we can get to one that feels like that.
Sometimes I'll get to an answer for myself, and then I beat it to death until it's not clear, and sometimes that leads to a new one, and sometimes not.
Hi Sena,
I'm not sure I get the connection here, in another life, how does your having been put to death by followers of Christ and Paul, disprove the historical Christ and expose Paul for the conman he was?
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12191#msg12191)
Hi Sena,
I'm not sure I get the connection here, in another life, how does your having been put to death by followers of Christ and Paul, disprove the historical Christ and expose Paul for the conman he was?
jbseth
jbseth,
False beliefs, such as those which venerate a mythical Christ as God and Paul as a saint, cannot usually be altered by reason alone. Hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by those beliefs may cause some people, though not many, to question those beliefs. The moral principle here is that truth is a good thing, sometimes worth dying for.
Hi Sena,
When the Moslems overran much of North Africa and the Middle East, killing many people in the process, this was not based upon the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.
When the Mongols overran much of Western Asia and parts of Europe, killing many people in the process, this was not based upon the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.
When the Aztecs, started a war with their Native American neighbors, so that they (the Aztecs) could capture live slaves, many of which were used as human sacrifices to the Aztec gods, killing many people in the process, this was not based upon the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.
Instead, I would I would maintain that what drove many of these actions was the belief that it was OK to kill others if they had something that was desired (land, human bodies for slavery, etc.) or if they were doing something that was viewed as being wrong (practicing a different form of religion).
Furthermore, I would maintain that it was these types of beliefs that drove the Vikings to kill many people when they invaded both Eastern and Western Europe and it was these same types of beliefs that drove the Christians to kill many people when they went off on the Crusades and when they performed the inquisitions.
Personally, I don't believe that any of these actions really had anything to do with the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.
jbseth
Wow, it just seems like mankind is looking for any excuse to kill. What a murderous lot we can be. And it doesn't have to be the killing of other people, we will eradicate insects and other pests to protect crops, hunt animals to extinction (for reasons other than food), overfish the oceans, poison bees. We kill the very things that sustain us, the way diseases kill the body they inhabit (killing themselves in the process).
It's crazy.
Hi All,
I think the 3rd Christ is Gregg Braden :)
Quote from: T.M. (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12196#msg12196)
Hi All,
I think the 3rd Christ is Gregg Braden :)
Gregg Braden has some very interesting ideas, but I think the last thing he would do is to claim to be a mythical figure.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12194#msg12194)
When the Mongols overran much of Western Asia and parts of Europe, killing many people in the process, this was not based upon the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.
Hi jbseth,
You have mentioned a number of mass killings, but not the relatively recent case of the Holocaust of 6 million Jews. Why do you think these 6 million chose to be born to face starvation and death? Was it to prove that Pope Pius XII was a Nazi sympathizer? Have you read "Hitler's Pope" by John Cornwell? Are you aware that the Vatican helped thousands of Nazi war criminals to escape to South America?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/25/nazis-escaped-on-red-cross-documents
Wow Sena, I'm stunned. You always find interesting information on the internet. This was shocking:
"The documents – which are discussed in Steinacher's book Nazis on the Run: How Hitler's henchmen fled justice – offer a significant insight into Vatican thinking, particularly, because its own archives beyond 1939 are still closed. The Vatican has consistently refused to comment.
"Steinacher believes the Vatican's help was based on a hoped-for revival of European Christianity and dread of the Soviet Union. But through the Vatican Refugee Commission, war criminals were knowingly provided with false identities."
According to this (https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution), while 6 million Jews were killed by Nazis, 8.65 million Soviet civilians and prisoners of war (Jews not included in this figure) were killed, but no one talks about them.
It appears the Vatican is accountable to no one. Even the God it worships. It is above the law. Something needs to be done about that.
BTW The author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Steinacher) of the book is rock solid.
Hi Sena,
I just took a look at my last post, post #84, and as I read it, it sounds like I'm attacking you. Please accept my apology if you've taken this that way, that is not my intent here at all. Actually, I really like you and enjoy your comments and the insights that you share with the rest of us, they make me think. :)
What I'm actually trying to do here is walk myself through an idea I have about Christianity / Christians and all of the killings that they have participated in. I don't think this really has to do with religion or religious beliefs. Instead, I think it has to do with spiritual ignorance.
I think where I heading here has to do with pinning down the relationships that exist between people's actual practiced beliefs, (its ok to start a war and kill others if they have something you want), their religious beliefs, their beliefs having to do with the concepts of exclusivity / inclusivity thinking, and the level of their spiritual thinking (are they spiritually ignorant).
I'm somewhat of a history buff and as such, I am pretty familiar with much of what occurred during WW2. Regarding why the 6 million Jews chose to be born at that time, my feeling is that there were many reasons. I think that each person probably made the choice to be born at that specific time for their very own specific reasons. Furthermore, while many of them may have done so for similar reasons, I don't think that they were all done for any one specific reason alone.
In "Seth Speaks", Chapter 21, Session 586, Seth talks about spiritual ignorance. In this session he says the following:
[...] Many of your problems now result from spiritual ignorance.
Further down in this same session, he also says:
I am including this information in this chapter on religion because it is important that you realize that spiritual ignorance is at the basis of so many of your problems, and that indeed your only limitations are spiritual ones.
Now, in this same session, session 586, Seth talks about the types of behaviors of people who are not spiritually ignorant. He says:
No man will look down upon an individual from another race [...]
[...]
No sex will be considered better than the other, [...]
[...]
An open-ended consciousness will feel its connections with all other living beings.
I interpret these 3 statements as follows: 1) people who look down on individuals from another race are spiritually ignorant, 2) people who look down on individuals from another sex are spiritually ignorant and 3) people who don't grasp the sacredness of all life, are spiritually ignorant. Now, along with this, I would say that anyone who practices some form of exclusivity, is also spiritually ignorant.
There is a connection between religious beliefs and spiritual intelligence. Unfortunately it's not necessarily a one to one connection and I think that this is an idea that many people don't grasp. People can be members of a religious belief system and yet still be very spiritually ignorant.
An extreme example of this is the Westboro Baptist Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
https://religionnews.com/2018/07/17/theyre-still-here-the-curious-evolution-of-westboro-baptist-church/
This is fundamentally a "hate" group, although these people consider themselves Christians. While they do have Christian based religious beliefs, and they are very spiritually ignorant.
I would also say the same thing about the Ku Klux Klan. It is my understanding is that some of the people who participate in the KKK, are practicing Christians, who attend a Christian Church on Sundays. These people are also spiritually ignorant.
In my previous post, I mentioned the Moslems, the Mongol's, the Vikings, the Aztec's and the Christians who participated in the Crusades and in the inquisitions. These people all had their various religious beliefs, but they were all spiritually ignorant, and this, I think is the real problem.
For a comparison, I would say that Mahatma Gandhi, who had Hindu religious beliefs, was an example of a person who wasn't spiritually ignorant. Furthermore, I would also say the present Dalai Lama, who has Buddhist beliefs, is also an example of a person who isn't spiritually ignorant.
Thus, people can have various religious beliefs and be either spiritually ignorant or not. The fact that a person has a certain set of religious beliefs doesn't guarantee that they won't be spiritually ignorant.
The bottom line here is this. I think that the Christians who participated in the various killings that occurred over the years were spiritually ignorant. This wasn't really an issue of Christianity, Christ, Paul or anything like that. It was an issue of spiritual ignorant.
This however, is my belief on the subject, and I'm OK with it, if you or anyone else here doesn't see it this way. We all come from different backgrounds and experience. I just wanted to clarify my understanding of this issue because it is different than yours.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12200#msg12200)
Regarding why the 6 million Jews chose to be born at that time, my feeling is that there were many reasons.
Not just Jews either, a conservative estimate according to my link above shows 17,283,900 people killed, with no figures for German political opponents and resistance advocates and homosexuals. A side thought: The Jews were Jews in this existence, F1, but in F2 there are no things such as gender, race, religion. So the conscious beings that chose to incarnate as Jews during that time period
would could have done it for non-religious reasons. Something bigger than that. Did it work?
When I was reading your post about all of the wars and killing throughout history, and knowing it was just a small representation of the slaughter humans have been responsible for through the ages, it really depressed me. Because only humans will do things like that (oh jeez, I was reading about the history of the Catherine wheel the other day), and I realize just how spiritually ignorant or bankrupt we have been all this time. It feels like we are SO impossibly far away from waking up spiritually.
But then the thought occurred to me that since the Holocaust happened, hopefully many people who know enough about it have been horrified enough to not repeat that type of atrocity. People are constantly being compared to Hitler. Yet I actually read a while ago that only about 50% of the world population has even heard of the Holocaust. And only 1/3 of US millennials! Here's just one link: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/05/half-of-people-surveyed-by-the-adl-dont-know-what-the-holocaust-is/370801/ And yet, I do read stories about genocide being alive and well in other countries and that pulls me down as well.
As a non sequitur: I have to say I've always had a "bad" feeling about Saul/Paul. Well, I mean since I read the NET (New English Translation) bible during my brief religion study period (prompted by living in a BA Christian neighborhood—"what am I not getting?"). He was not a likable person from what I read about him back then, was a zealot, against Jesus and then fanatically for him. He just didn't seem stable. I'm not sure whether any of the people in the New Testament actually ever existed, but I made room for the possibility that it's possible and I have no way to prove anything. If I can be open to the idea that John or Paul existed, then I can also be open to the idea of Jesus existing. But in no way resembling the idol he was made into.
I especially dislike the idea of a "new religion" (yes, Session 586 again) because I am totally turned off by religion in any shape or form. I'm hoping that was something Jane's filters inserted into Seth's message. If there is a second coming, I hope it's someone who can wake us up to the nature of reality rather than introducing another religion.
"Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
Nope. No worship for me. Even as a child that seemed unnatural to me.
Hi Deb,
In your post above, you said, "So the conscious beings that chose to incarnate as Jews during that time period would have done it for non-religious reasons. "
I wouldn't necessarily have come to that conclusion. Nor would I be able to say, with any confidence, how many may have come for any of the various reasons that were chosen.
Was there some thinking behind this statement that I may have misunderstood?
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12200#msg12200)
What I'm actually trying to do here is walk myself through an idea I have about Christianity / Christians and all of the killings that they have participated in. I don't think this really has to do with religion or religious beliefs. Instead, I think it has to do with spiritual ignorance.
jbseth,
No need to apologize. I think religious belief is actually the problem. The problem is monotheism, so it is not restricted to Christianity. One of the great things about Seth is that he has got rid of monotheism. "All That Is" is inclusive, not exclusive. Monotheism is exclusive. Monotheists are saying "My God is the only God. Your God is false." Monotheism leads to violence.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12199#msg12199)
It appears the Vatican is accountable to no one. Even the God it worships. It is above the law. Something needs to be done about that.
Deb, the one billion Roman Catholics should stop giving money to the Vatican, and governments should stop giving tax exemptions for these donations.
Hi Sena,
Thank you. I'm glad to here you didn't think I was trying to attack you in any way. That was definitely not my intention.
Regarding this topic, I'd say that the problem here is a lack of the following of a certain set of principles.
To avoid any confusion with spirituality and spiritual principles, I'll call these principles, CLR (Compassion, Respect and Love) principles instead.
I'd also say that these CLR principles, such as the "Golden Rule", do exist and are a part of most of the world's major religions. It's just that many of these CLR principles are often not practiced by people of various religions, when they get in the way of what these people want to do.
I'd say that it's the lack of practicing these CLR principles that allows people of various religions to practice exclusivity. I'd also say that it's the lack of practicing these CLR principles that allows the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, to practice their brand of hatred, while still identifying themselves as Christians.
In regards to monotheistic beliefs, I'd say that a belief in "All That Is" is a monotheistic belief. It's just that, a belief in this concept, as Seth describes it, is inclusive, while many of the members of the world's monotheistic religions practice exclusivity instead. Again, this practice of exclusivity, does not follow the CLR principles.
jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12202#msg12202)
In your post above, you said, "So the conscious beings that chose to incarnate as Jews during that time period would have done it for non-religious reasons. "
I wouldn't necessarily have come to that conclusion. Nor would I be able to say, with any confidence, how many may have come for any of the various reasons that were chosen.
Was there some thinking behind this statement that I may have misunderstood?
Sorry, it was a half-formed thought and I wasn't clear. I also should have written could rather than would. Where my mind was headed when I wrote that is: my impression of F2 is that "we" exist as consciousness in that plane and would not have gender, age, race, creed, political bias. So our decision to incarnate into a situation like the Holocaust would not be solely to further our individual beliefs and biases, but instead work for the greater good. I associate all those things that we define ourselves by here F1 (race, religion, etc) as F1-based characteristics.
Growing up, it was only stressed that the Holocaust was about race and religion: Hitler hated Jews and his goal was to eradicate them. But Hitler, the Nazis, didn't only kill Jews (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/non-jewish-victims-of-the-holocaust). They killed anyone who didn't support Hitler's agenda or fit within his ideal of the perfect human. It's a little confusing for me, as Hitler didn't appear to be a Christian. Some historians say that while he was raised a Catholic, he appeared to be an atheist. Yes he targeted Jews, but also killed Orthodox Christian Serbs, Muslims, gays, Soviets (forced to be atheists), political conservatives, disabled people, gypsies, intellects, Jehovah's Witnesses, priests and pastors, blacks. It's hard for me to see the Holocaust as a completely religion-based event, and so those that participated would have had various reasons (aside from religion) to do so. But you're right, I couldn't venture to say what reasons individuals choose to take part in something of that magnitude and horror.
My hope is that the event has taught and will continue to teach more people about compassion, respect for life and that people are more than their appearance or beliefs. But reading some articles about how the Holocaust is being forgotten already, or downplayed, and not taught in schools worries me.
Hi Deb,
Thanks for your reply. I thought that maybe there was something in your statement that was probably not quite what you meant.
Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Growing up all I remember hearing from history class was how "Hitler" was so horrible for his "madman" genocide practices. Nobody ever talked about where or how he may have come up with these ideas; he was just a madman. I don't recall ever hearing anything about the eugenics movement and how it was practiced right here in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and most European countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
I would say that Hitler probably got some of his "madman" practices directly from this movement. He just took them to the extreme. I would also say that this eugenics movement was very much an "exclusivity" movement, where people held the belief that "they" were better than "them". The principles of eugenics, are not principles that came from a CRL (Compassion, Respect and Love), point of view and thus I'd say that they definitely weren't spiritual principles.
Back around September and October of last year, a lot of things about the Vietnam War, seemed to be showing up in my life. As a result of this, I spent some time digging into this subject in a little more detail. While I grew up during this war and remember seeing it on the TV news, (I had 2 older brothers who were stationed in Vietnam during this war and so I had a little more interest in it, at that time, than some kids my age) I didn't necessarily understand all the implications of many of the issues involved in it such, as the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident and the "Pentagon Papers". As a result of this, I spent some time watching the 10 part Ken Burns special on, "The Vietnam War", which I found at our local library in DVD format.
The neat thing about this special is that not only did they interview many Americans, but they also interviewed many people who were members of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. Today in Vietnam, the vast majority of Vietnamese citizens are people who were born after, and some, well after this war. The old timers, the people my age, say that many of these young people have no real understanding of the extreme hardships that these old timers went through, during this war.
I think that between this type of situation and the situation where people no longer learn about the "Holocaust", there is the risk of people in the future, repeating the same mistakes that were made in the past. The hope we can have, is that enough people will continue to share what they know about history, so that this doesn't occur.
jbseth
Well there you go, thank you for that. I had not looked into eugenics before, but Hitler was aware of it. He must have thought he was God, even if he didn't believe in a God. What a horrendous ego he had.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12207#msg12207)
I would also say that this eugenics movement was very much an "exclusivity" movement, where people held the belief that "they" were better than "them".
I too feel exclusivity is the key, it seems to be the biggest problem in society these days. Maybe it always has been. The Us vs Them helps people rationalize criminal acts. It makes it easier to harm others if we believe that we are right, those who don't fit within our narrow beliefs are wrong—or bad. Good vs Evil again. This fits with your Divisiveness topic, something else that's been on my mind a lot due to the current extreme political polarity lately. You quote fits nicely here (here's half):
Quote from: Seth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12192#msg12192)
I spoke earlier of rigid concepts of right and wrong. There is only one way to avoid this problem. Only true compassion and love will lead to an understanding of the nature of good, and only these qualities will serve to annihilate the erroneous and distortive concepts of evil.
Less Than Human: The Psychology of Cruelty (https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human), mentions Nazis and Jews quite a bit. This book looks extremely interesting but would be too painful to read. There's an excerpt from the book after the article. It's all about dehumanizing people in order to be able to make harming them easy and even virtuous:
"From the beginning, Hitler and his followers were convinced that the Jewish people posed a deadly threat to all that was noble in humanity. In the apocalyptic Nazi vision, these putative enemies of civilization were represented as parasitic organisms — as leeches, lice, bacteria, or vectors of contagion."
From
Silence of the Lambs: "it rubs the lotion on its skin" (my first exposure to dehumanization).
I've been trying to find the quote where Seth talks about how science views animals used for experiments. To do so without guilt the animal has to be thought of as an expendable object and not a living, conscious being.
I've been skim-reading Joe Salatin's
Folks This Ain't Normal, a great book about sustainable farming, promoting better treatment of farm animals, better farming practices, the decline in the Western world's quality of food and health because of current farming practices. At the same time, I've been jumping around in Michael Pollan's
Omnivore's Dilemma and then came across this:
"When I was at the farm I asked Joel [Salatin] how he could bring himself to kill a chicken. 'That's an easy one. People have a soul, animals don't. It's a bedrock belief of mine. Animals are not created in God's image, so when they die, they just die.'" That really shocked me. That statement made me lose some admiration for Joel as a person. Plus I don't understand his rationale at all. When they die, they just die? Why does
that make it any easier?
On a happier note, I have a friend who just took off for a 6 week drive around the western states and coast. She plans to visit coffee shops along the way and is asking people, on video, what they feel is already great about America. No politics or complaining allowed! She'll either make a documentary or a book about it.
Common Grounds. I kinda wish I could go with her, I think it's an excellent idea and would be very uplifting and refreshing.
Interesting about your Vietnam connections lately. I just realized today that while I've spent my entire life only hearing occasionally about the World Wars, within a few months I saw the new WWI documentary, went to that concentration camp in Linz (I had never heard of it before), spent 8 days exploring Linz (Hitler's home town, I didn't realize that at the time) and Vienna (where he later lived and was rejected by the art school. Twice.) He actually was a good artist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler):
"I am an artist and not a politician. Once the Polish question is settled, I want to end my life as an artist." I wonder what happened to
that Adolph Hitler.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12205#msg12205)
In regards to monotheistic beliefs, I'd say that a belief in "All That Is" is a monotheistic belief. It's just that, a belief in this concept, as Seth describes it, is inclusive, while many of the members of the world's monotheistic religions practice exclusivity instead. Again, this practice of exclusivity, does not follow the CLR principles.
Interesting thought! I agree, but then I have to also add that it depends on your definition of God. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God. I don't see ATI as being a "God" under most people's definition. And yes to it being inclusive.
Wikipedia says: "The concept of God, as described by theologians, commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), omnipresence (all-present), and as having an eternal and necessary existence." While a part of that sits fine with my interpretation of ATI, religions have added on a lot of baggage that I can't accept -- the vengeful and punishing God of the Old Testament, the obligation to worship a deity (most if not all religions), necessary sacrifices to appease that deity (humans, animals, fasting, money), then all the added doctrines, rituals, tithing, structures and levels of organized religion. That all comes down to there's one supreme being that is in control of everything and everyone, we are powerless, and must appease the God or we will be punished.
In my mind ATI is just benign and impartial source energy underlying everything. As impartial as, say, electricity. The building blocks for everything, but building blocks with consciousness and we are the ones in control of creating reality. Maybe I need to start a new topic about ATI, I feel the need to clarify my thoughts about what it is.
I thought I'd add this FB post from Ron Card, his perspective on religion and the Return. He's actually a member on this forum, so if you want to ask him any questions you'll have to "mention" him in your post ( use the @ before his name ron_card ) to get his attention:
...ron speaks...initially, all so-called, religions--and this goes for religion whether it was founded millions of years ago, or 10 or 2,000 years ago, or 200 years ago, in either the east or the west--were founded upon an innocent central pearl of spiritual wisdom and inquiry as to the source of man and his world and everything in it. Man yearned to know.
And then...and then, greed, gain, power and CONTROL changed all that when EGO-men discovered that his cleverly invented religion and his INVENTED God and all God's rules could easily be used as a WEAPON to subjugate and harness their follower's minds, energy, and, most of all, their money in order to keep the Church going and feed its increasing militaristic expansion.
Those who did not become instant believers--on unquestioning blind faith, were imprisoned or killed, many by God's direction. Some loving creative God. Which God?
The Christian Garden of Eden parable, Adam's rib, the apple, the serpent, the book of knowledge, were but a few allegorical myths created by early EGO-man, purposely designed to, in part, relegate women--to downgrade the status of women to that of second-class citizens, so women would submit to man's whims, while HE goes off to war, conquering and killing--in effect, man as the DESTROYERS, while women stayed home, gave birth--in effect, were the CREATORS. Just ask Jane Roberts here in The God of Jane, and her early "dark" fiction novels, for example.
Where's Christ? When essence portions of the Christ Entity return in two generations, returns in physical form as Speaker-Teachers, in both male and woman form, a new direction in consciousness will commence, the results being that humanity will be taught to love itself first and then love one another, that everyone, regardless of gender or race, are equals, that we are here to learn to live together in peace and harmony and respect mother planet earth. Humankind will be taught that they create their own reality.
Two generations from now, Christianity will be in a state of shambles and disarray, and, the time will, once again, be ripe ready for the teaching Christ Entity, or WE ARE CHRIST, to appear and straighten out the 2,000 year old MESS that Christianity has egotistically spawned.
Renaissance II, the New direction in consciousness, will be in full swing by about the year 2075, or sooner depending on the spontaneity of future probable events.
You may also like to know that in the not too distant and fluid future, the next Dalai Lama will be FEMALE, and a strikingly attractive woman at that. She will cause millions to change their thinking about the positive spiritual and psychic power of female, and she will be alive when the Christ teachers appear all over the world. She will lovingly and intuitively assist from her base in Asia.
By then, government, religion, psychology, the internet and cyberspace will thankfully be obsolete and will no longer have any control or influence, replaced by the awareness of the Self, and the power within each and every individual to control their own destiny. This will be reinforced by the world-wide ability for people to use ESP powers of personal psychic communication. Mental veils will lift allowing the New Age to flourish and grow.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12211#msg12211)
The Christian Garden of Eden parable, Adam's rib, the apple, the serpent, the book of knowledge, were but a few allegorical myths created by early EGO-man, purposely designed to, in part, relegate women--to downgrade the status of women to that of second-class citizens, so women would submit to man's whims, while HE goes off to war, conquering and killing--in effect, man as the DESTROYERS, while women stayed home, gave birth--in effect, were the CREATORS. Just ask Jane Roberts here in The God of Jane, and her early "dark" fiction novels, for example.
Where's Christ? When essence portions of the Christ Entity return in two generations, returns in physical form as Speaker-Teachers, in both male and woman form, a new direction in consciousness will commence, the results being that humanity will be taught to love itself first and then love one another, that everyone, regardless of gender or race, are equals, that we are here to learn to live together in peace and harmony and respect mother planet earth. Humankind will be taught that they create their own reality.
Deb, thanks for this quote. Is it a Seth quote or is it the words of Ron Card?
I have been wondering why there are few active female members of this forum. There have been active female members in the past, but they left for various reasons. It may be because the Seth teachings as usually understood seem to over-emphasize the male. The female Jane became the male Ruburt.
I am interested in the reference to Speaker-Teachers, "both male and female" in the above quote.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12210#msg12210)
Maybe I need to start a new topic about ATI, I feel the need to clarify my thoughts about what it is
hey Deb,
hmmmmmm.
things that make me go hmmmm.
(please know that I will now try to amuse, entertain and make you laugh, chortle guffaw, perhaps even all at once.)
you said "what it is".
it reminded me of years ago, we used to say that phrase alot. like, a real real lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_It_Is
sooooooo, wheels in brain turning, trying to think of clever thing to say.
I wonder if there is an alternate probable reality, where all that is,
has a different name, like (you guessed it), what it is.
maybe all that is, and what it is, even know each other, and are friends.
you know, hang out together on days off and such.
yeah, thats it.
ohhhh, I feel a song coming on:
(sung to the tune of lets call the whole thing off, as in you say either and I say either, you say neither and I say neither....):
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=N9gyXMH3O8Hp_Qbs-b2ICg&q=let%27s+call+the+whole+thing+off&oq=lets+cll+the+whole&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i13l10.99.3185..5887...0.0..0.165.1883.13j6......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i10j0i131i10.rE2Gy3AQaPU
you say all that is, and I say what it is.........and so on.
Happy New Year,
Charlie
Hi Deb, Hi All,
This is in response to your comments in reply 99 on this topic. Earlier, in a reply on this topic, I said, "In regards to monotheistic beliefs, I'd say that a belief in "All That Is" is a monotheistic belief."
In response to this comment, in reply 99 you said, "Interesting thought! I agree, but then I have to also add that it depends on your definition of God."
After thinking about this, I can see your point and I agree with you. A monotheistic belief is a belief in one (mono) God (theism). If a person doesn't believe that "All That Is", is God, then to this person, a belief in "All That Is", wouldn't be, by definition, a monotheistic belief.
The issue then becomes how does someone differentiate "All That Is" and God. While it is true that the God of some religions, is a vengeful, wrathful God, this definition of God doesn't fit the definition of God held by all religions; I'm not sure this fits the definition of God as defined by the Hindu religion and it definitely doesn't fit the definition of God as held by the "New Thought" community. The God of the "New Thought" community is in many ways very similar to Seth's "All That Is".
Then we get into other issues, like materialism, idealism, agnosticism, atheism and questions like is God immanent, transcendent or both. What about Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, ..., this topic can get real complex and confusing very quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
jbseth
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12212#msg12212)
Deb, thanks for this quote. Is it a Seth quote or is it the words of Ron Card?
I have been wondering why there are few active female members of this forum. There have been active female members in the past, but they left for various reasons. It may be because the Seth teachings as usually understood seem to over-emphasize the male. The female Jane became the male Ruburt.
I am interested in the reference to Speaker-Teachers, "both male and female" in the above quote.
It's purely Ron Card, no Seth quotes. It's his paraphrasing of Seth, plus he says he gets direct information when he sleeps at what he calls Seth University. I thought his mention of the next Dalai Lama was interesting too.
If you want to question his Speaker-Teacher reference, you can ask him here by using the @ and his name (I think you've done that before), or directly on his Facebook post. (https://www.facebook.com/SethJaneRobertsForum/posts/2031176966977295)
I've also wondered about the low ratio of female to male members on this forum. It seems most of the female members that did post were not completely into Seth and would post about various other channelers. So yes, maybe the over-emphasis of the male in the Seth stuff makes it harder to relate. It never actually occurred to me before, since I grew up in a male-dominated society and so it's not uncomfortable for me. But now that you've mentioned it, yes, even Jane was male in a way when she was called Ruburt and certainly when she was speaking as Seth. It seems like a lot of the students, and other visitors to the sessions, were also male. And there are Rich Kendall, Rick Stack, Barrie Gellis. Of The New York
Boys. A lot of the Seth groups on Facebook were created by males. Lynda Dahl is the rare female. I seems even Laurel Butts doesn't post much about Seth.
I can say I belong to a few other forums, for technical support, and they are also male dominated. And when I read comments to news articles online, they tend to be mostly males. I did a little research and apparently it's not uncommon. Some of the reasoning in the below thread link was that women have less disposable time due to household responsibilities, women tend to be less into technology, women tend to hide their gender online, and some others below:
From:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-gender-and-online-forums/48317
"Women may find a need to hide in the online world of tech, sciences, and mathematics because they are dominated by males. The reason should be very straight forward."
"men and women like different things, and therefore there will be different gender ratios in different places"
"men and women have different instincts, inclinations, and natural preferences in general, and therefore will tend to gravitate towards different things then you will find issue with much in this world throughout your journey"
Quote from: chasman (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12213#msg12213)
you said "what it is".
it reminded me of years ago, we used to say that phrase alot. like, a real real lot.
Charlie, you crack me up.
While I don't remember the "what it is" as clearly, when I followed the wiki link I was amazed at how many songs and albums share that name. And I definitely remember the Astaire/Rogers song.
You've seen this? https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=410.0 Uptown Funk movie mashup. My all time favorite!
Happy New Year to you too. :)
thank you Deb.
you are very kind.
first time I've seen the Uptown Funk mashup.
that is so excellent!!
what fun!!! :)
Just a few more data points in the gender ratio issue. The Seth group that I attended in CA decades ago was led by a man, but all of the attendees (5 or 6 typically) were women until I joined. The more recent group that ended its Seth orientation last year typically had the opposite (5 men, 2 women on average). I was surprised by the ratio at the more recent group. I went to a weekend workshop decades ago put on my Linda Dahl and Stan Ulkowski, and I believe the ratio was fairly even.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12208#msg12208)
"I am an artist and not a politician. Once the Polish question is settled, I want to end my life as an artist." I wonder what happened to that Adolph Hitler.
hey Deb,
I found this after reading your post.
https://www.sho.com/titles/3438501/adolf-hitler-the-artist
on the google search page I also saw this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler
and this is also from the same post:
"From the beginning, Hitler and his followers were convinced that the Jewish people posed a deadly threat to all that was noble in humanity. In the apocalyptic Nazi vision, these putative enemies of civilization were represented as parasitic organisms — as leeches, lice, bacteria, or vectors of contagion."
I remember watching Schindler's List.
the monster Nazi commandant was shooting Jews that were in the concentration camp yard.
he called them vermin.
monster!!
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=12217#msg12217)
"men and women like different things, and therefore there will be different gender ratios in different places"
Deb, I have been reading a bit about feminist philosophy. What they point out is that if there is God the Father, why isn't there God the Mother? This problem does not arise in Seth because he never refers to All That Is as Father.
If Ron Card has had a personal communication from Seth that Speaker-Teachers will be appearing in both female and male forms, that is something I look forward to.
It looks like you've been talking about me. Here i am. Ask the questions. Yep, i'm that personality.........no one will ever know that i am that personality, however. Or maybe i'm just another aspect of that personality. It matters not. :)
Quote from: carsch (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15064#msg15064)
It looks like you've been talking about me. Here i am.
Care to expound on that?
Reading through some of the posts, i decided to connect with this new Christ entity and see what he's about.
He was born before Seth wrote about him. He was born on June 13, on a small island in the Atlantic Ocean. He's of European and African descendents. He's not black, he's not white but more like a mulatto. He looks Hispanic to some, Arab to others, and Indian to a few. Until a few years ago, he's been living and experiencing his life like anyone else. He's been aware of his god-like nature since he was a child. He's a simple person. He holds no material possessions and doesn't care much about them. He believes in his ability as the creator of his reality. He thinks, sees and understands things differently from most. He can be deep and is very connected with his nature. He could see through people and humanity since he was a child. Most of those who know him would not think anything different about him. Some have seen his qualities and knew there was something special about him, however. He's not religious and was never attracted to any religion. He is spiritual; but not in the sense most think of spirituality. He's a likable person and can mingle easily getting along with most everyone. He's not aware yet of the role he's choosing to play. He does know, however, that there is something different about him. He does not see himself anymore special than anyone else. He is not here to save anyone or anything but rather to help with the humanity's awakening. He won't address to the masses nor does he want to be known by the masses. Some will come to him as he awakens to his role. Those who come to him and learn with him will also help others in their awakening process. He may not be what many would think the Christ personality would be. He has a fun, joyful, and loving personality. He has also a child-like quality about him. He's sincere and can be straightforward. He won't preach to anyone nor will he think of himself as a teacher but as an equal to everyone. He simply wants to help others reconnect with themself. Contrary to what Seth said _(did he?),_ he's not here to re-establish or renew the old religion. That is against his nature.
Speaking of the future, most everyone will be awakened, and like Seth said, this will be achieved by 2075. By 2045 everyone will be experiencing their awakening. Before this happens, however, there is much that humanity will go thru. This virus is part of the process. Most religions will be abolished. Those who continue with their religions will do so but it will be different.
(https://i.ibb.co/JrPnTZ2/Jesus.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mh7JKpt)
Seth's pronouncements on being male or female:
"As I mentioned earlier, each person lives both male and female lives. As a rule, conscious memory of these is not retained. To prevent an overidentification of the individual with his present sex, within the male there resides an inner personification of femaleness. This personification of femaleness in the male is the true meaning of what Jung called the "anima." The anima in the male is, therefore, the psychic memory and identification of all the previous female existences in which the inner self has been involved. It contains within it the knowledge of the present male's past female histories, and the intuitive understanding of all the female qualities with which the personality is innately endowed. The anima, therefore, is an important safeguard, preventing the male from over-identifying with whatever cultural male characteristics have been imposed upon him through present background, environment, and education. The anima serves not only as a personal but as a mass-civilizing influence, mellowing strongly aggressive tendencies and serving also as a bridge both in communicating with women in a family relationship, and in communication also as it is applied through the arts and verbalization. The male will often dream of himself, therefore, as a female." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)
From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/5rDqxL1
Quote from: carsch (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15066#msg15066)
He was born before Seth wrote about him. He was born on June 13, on a small island in the Atlantic Ocean. He's of European and African descendents. He's not black, he's not white but more like a mulatto. He looks Hispanic to some, Arab to others, and Indian to a few. Until a few years ago, he's been living and experiencing his life like anyone else. He's been aware of his god-like nature since he was a child.
The things you wrote in your post, all the specifics, are you paraphrasing from the Seth books, or this is coming from your intuitions? While some of it sounds familiar to me, a lot of it does not. There's a nice resource for tracking down Seth quotes here: https://findingseth.com
Sena, interesting Jesus portrait. Judging by the pixilation of most of the image, it appears the female face (not pixilated) has been Photoshopped in by someone. I've always wondered what Jesus would have looked like. While paintings show him as a caucasian, often with light brown hair and blue eyes, he was a Galilean Jew and so would have had dark hair, skin and eyes. I thought this was informative: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15069#msg15069)
As I mentioned earlier, each person lives both male and female lives. As a rule, conscious memory of these is not retained.
I've been reading
The Nature of the Psyche lately, and came across this:
"The psyche is not male or female. In your system of beliefs, however, it is often identified as feminine, along with the artistic productions that emerge from its creativity. In that context, the day hours and waking consciousness are thought of as masculine, along with the sun — while the nighttime, the moon, and the dreaming consciousness are considered feminine or passive. In the same manner, aggression is usually understood to be violent assertive action, male-oriented, while female elements are identified in terms of the nurturing principle.
Physically speaking, you would have no males or females unless first you had individuals. You are each individuals first of all, then. After this, you are individuals of a specific sex, biologically speaking. The particular kind of focus that you have is responsible for the great significance you place upon male and female. Your hand and your foot have different functions. If you wanted to focus upon the differences in their behavior, you could build an entire culture based upon their diverse capabilities, functions and characteristics. Hands and feet are obviously equipment belonging to both sexes, however. Still, on another level the analogy is quite valid.
The psyche is male and female, female and male; but when I say this I realize that you put your own definitions upon those terms to begin with."
—NotP Chapter 4: Session 765, February 2, 1976
Of course the entity would have to be neutral, sending out splinters of itself into various gender identities in F1, not to mention all the other forms it takes in systems beyond ours.
While a racially ambiguous figure could be easily accepted by the masses, will the return of the Christ personality also be gender neutral? Will civilization still not be ready for anything other than a man?
https://findingseth.com/q/'male+god'/
Quote from: carsch (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15066#msg15066)
Before this happens, however, there is much that humanity will go thru. This virus is part of the process.
That keeps coming up here on the forum, we have a couple of topics about the pandemic and it's purpose. I'm really interested in seeing how and what this current situation changes in my country and in the world.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15070#msg15070)
While a racially ambiguous figure could be easily accepted by the masses, will the return of the Christ personality also be gender neutral? Will civilization still not be ready for anything other than a man?
Deb, post-pandemic civilization will hopefully be more open-minded.
Thanks for the link to the "male god" search results:
Quote"The male god is a god of power. He is not a god of creativity."
—NoME Chapter 7: Session 853, May 14, 1979
;D
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15068#msg15068)
(https://i.ibb.co/JrPnTZ2/Jesus.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mh7JKpt)
That was my intuition.
Hi Sena,
Hey, could you fill us in, a little bit, about the picture you posted of, I'm assuming it is suppose to be Jesus.
I'm curious about the story behind it, why you posted that specific picture, and what "you" think of it.
I find it interesting, by the way. :)
Thanks.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15083#msg15083)
I'm curious about the story behind it, why you posted that specific picture, and what "you" think of it.
jbseth, I don't know the story behind it. The reason I posted it is to express my hope that if and when Jesus Christ returns, she will not come as an uncreative male god.
There is an interesting article here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/23/usa.religion
"Although it was men who first explored the feminine qualities of the godhead - in the second century, Clement of Alexandria was already speaking of "the Father's loving breasts" and "the milk of the Father" - the best-known proponent of the idea in the western church is the 14th- century female mystic Julian of Norwich, whose formulation Dr Schori was using (a cliche so beloved by theology students that Rowan Williams once sighed he wished she'd never written it): "And so Jesus is our true Mother in nature by our first creation, and he is our true Mother in grace by his taking our created nature."
It is true that thereafter the Julian feminine interpretations rather took a back seat, only reappearing again in the late 60s and 70s, and reaching their maturity in the works of Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza and Elizabeth A Johnson."
This is an extract from a book about Elizabeth A Johnson (Turning to the Heavens and the Earth :
Theological Reflections on a Cosmological Conversion: Essays in Honor of Elizabeth A. Johnson
by Julia Brumbaugh and Natalia Imperatori-Lee):
"The Marian phenomenon has been powerful throughout history precisely because it
is a female representation of the divine, bearing attributes that have been excluded from
mainstream Christian perceptions of God as Father, Son, and Spirit.
The feminine face
of God has been suppressed and excluded, and female images of God have migrated to
the figure Mary through a long process of patriarchalization. As a result of this process,
the divine image became more remote and judgmental, while Mary became the beloved
"other face" of God."
Another article here, which is rather relevant as tomorrow is Easter Sunday:
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/could-jesus-have-actually-been-a-woman-20150401-1mcjqw.html
"Consider Easter. We know that Easter shares an etymology with oestrus – probably (according to Bede)
also with Eostre, the Germanic goddess of spring and possibly with Ishtar, the 4th century BC Babylonian goddess of fertility (and war). Hence, Easter eggs."
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15084#msg15084)
jbseth, I don't know the story behind it. The reason I posted it is to express my hope that if and when Jesus Christ returns, she will not come as an uncreative male god.
Hi Sena,
Oh, OK.
- jbseth
Hi carsch, Hi all,
Quote from: carsch (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15066#msg15066)
Reading through some of the posts, i decided to connect with this new Christ entity and see what he's about...
I've never seen anything quite like this description of the third personality, and I find it intriguing.
So this guy could be standing right next to me in line at McDonald's joking about the weather and I'd never know it was him.
If that's the case, the previous version was called JC (Jesus Christ), this version should be called SC (Stealth Christ).
Except if what you've received via intuition is close, you just outed him a bit.
And if you did out him a bit, that's all the more interesting, since I've seen two different channelers in decades past explicitly say they ain't telling us enough to out the dude (Jane Roberts channeling Seth, and Paul Sololmon channeling "Source" (I think is what he said he channeled)).
So maybe that means it's getting close to time for somebody, somewhere, to figure out what's up and maybe work with him or something.
Now from what I've seen, there appear to be some competing variations in the description of this third personality. It's almost like we get some clues, but not perfect ones. And it looks intentional from the spirit levels to not out him too clearly before it's time. If that's the case, then it seems possible that you've been allowed to see what others have not. But I'd venture to guess that some of what you've seen might be shown to you in a way to still mask his identity to some unknown degree. The question then, if this theory holds any water at all, is which part of what you were allowed to intuit is the clearest, and which part, if any, might be a bit of a smokescreen.
You said he's fun, and childlike (similar to what Joseph McMoneagle was picking up on him in his book "The Ultimate Time Machine") - imagine the fun and games he's gotta be having with this from various levels, especially if, as you say, at our level he doesn't even know who he is yet.
I say he's Stealth Christ.
Not to be disrespectful of Stealth Christ (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15087#msg15087), but have you ever noticed that none of the descriptions of the third personality from any source say he's smart? Nowhere. Nada. Zip.
Seth says when he was alive as Paul, he had superior energy and power, and great organizing skills. This could be read as qualifications to work for Amazon packing trucks. I mean, have you ever seen how these trucks are packed? Talk about organized. And to get all that done as in the time frame Amazon requires, all these people doing this gotta have superior energy and power. But Seth doesn't say he's smart, super-intelligent, a genius, or anything. Great organizer, good energy, good power. Yep, he could get a job at Amazon.
The bible seems to give him all kinds of power, but not a particularly high IQ.
Paul Solomon never said anything about whether he could pass math class either.
Joseph McMoneagle seemed to think he was funny - when he connected to the Christ entity at whatever level, it made him laugh. But I don't recall him mentioning anything about him being particularly smart.
Of course Seth goes on to say as his metamorphosis occurs he'll have some amazing spiritual aspects, but still, nothing about being all that smart, which is not to say he's not smart, but it's not discussed.
So I guess this is a clue - if someone is purported to be Stealth Christ, if he's in MENSA (https://www.mensa.org/), he might not be the right guy.
Just sayin'. When I realized this, I thought it was funny. No disrespect intended.
Yep, he could be standing right next to you and you won't know anything about him.....unless you're very psychic. But then Seth has already said something like he's been here a few other times anonymously?
I've heard from another trusted source - Elias channeled by Mary Ennis - that the Christ energy (ONE Essence) is already manifested as 12 different entities. They're spread all over the world. But then Seth mentioned something like that, didn't he, and that there is one them in India, and another in Malaysia.
QuoteYou said he's fun, and childlike (similar to what Joseph McMoneagle was picking up on him in his book "The Ultimate Time Machine") - imagine the fun and games he's gotta be having with this from various levels, especially if, as you say, at our level he doesn't even know who he is yet.
Ah, interesting!
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15088#msg15088)
Not to be disrespectful of Stealth Christ (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15087#msg15087), but have you ever noticed that none of the descriptions of the third personality from any source say he's smart? Nowhere. Nada. Zip.
You're right, i don't think that being 'smart' has anything to do with this energy. He's (or 'she' for Sena) spiritually aware and awake, that's more what i perceive about him. Not that i think he's dumb. Lol!
Quote from: carsch (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15090#msg15090)
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15088#msg15088)
Not to be disrespectful of Stealth Christ (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15087#msg15087), but have you ever noticed that none of the descriptions of the third personality from any source say he's smart? Nowhere. Nada. Zip.
You're right, i don't think that being 'smart' has anything to do with this energy. He's (or 'she' for Sena) spiritually aware and awake, that's more what i perceive about him. Not that i think he's dumb. Lol!
carsch, welcome to the forum. I wonder whether Christ is every person who dies of coronavirus?
If you are not smart, it's hard to be funny. Funny people have to be smart, though not necessarily the kinds of smart that are validated by IQ tests. They have to be able to make creative leaps, they have to be quick thinkers, they have to be good at social observation and make insightful social commentary. I cannot think of a popular comedian who is not smart. But they don't test for that kind of smart.
Hi LarryH, Hi All,
That's an interesting point. It seems to me that most comedians are smart.
What I've been wondering about here is this. Just because nobody ever said that someone was smart, does this necessarily mean that they weren't?
I'm not sure that it necessarily does.
-jbseth
-jbseth
Quotecarsch, welcome to the forum. I wonder whether Christ is every person who dies of coronavirus?
Thank you for the welcome, Sena. An interesting question. And mind me ask what makes you think that. But, if that was the case, could we say the same for all those who died in WWs and from other pandemics?
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15084#msg15084)
The reason I posted it is to express my hope that if and when Jesus Christ returns, she will not come as an uncreative male god.
I'm really enjoying The Nature of the Psyche. Seth goes into a LOT of detail about gender, love, relationships, our natural bisexual nature. At one point he describes all of what we consider natural masculine traits vs feminine, and says these are all false—that mankind created these roles.
"What you think of as (underlined) male ego-oriented characteristics are simply those human attributes that the species encouraged, brought into the foreground, and stressed. Using those actually as guidelines, you have so far viewed your world and formed your cultures... Your gods became masculine then; competitive. You saw the species pitted against nature, and man pitted against man. You consider the Greek tragedies great because they echo so firmly your own beliefs. Man is seen in opposition in the most immediate fashion with his own father. Family relationships become a mirror of those beliefs, which are then of course taken as statements of fact concerning the human condition. You thus have a very polarized male-female concept."
—NotP Chapter 5: Session 772, April 19, 1976
https://findingseth.com/q/book:notp+masculine/
https://findingseth.com/q/book:notp+male+roles/
I don't think of Jesus as having been uncreative. His ideas and teachings seemed to go against what was generally accepted and he thought outside the box. I also think it is possible to be raised as a male or female child and not embrace all of what we've been taught as inherent gender characteristics. While I'm heterosexual in this lifetime, I was a bit of a tomboy growing up, had my dolls and kitchen toys and miniature sewing machine, but also helped my dad fix things around the house and yard, had male and female friends all my life, felt more at home exploring the woods than learning how to correctly apply makeup. I have a natural understanding of basic everyday math and mechanics so I can repair or make just about anything, and yet paint, garden, sew, love to cook, have a nurturing personality. Turns out my son is the same way for the most part—a regular rough and tumble boy growing up, covered with scars from skateboarding accidents, but always gentle with animals and small children, was never in a fight. He excelled in math and science, but works as a chef. He's also nurturing, takes good care of his girlfriend, is creative. Without the stereotypical traits of male aggression. I think some societies are moving away from gender roles. That could be the roof of what's called "toxic masculinity" that's been in the news the past few years. It seems humans can't take steps in the right direction without overcorrecting at first.
In NofP, Seth goes on to talk about how, because of our beliefs that these gender characteristics are real, that both genders deny and are afraid if they have leanings that don't fit within the gender boundaries, and end up causing all sorts of illnesses in order to punish themselves. He also talks about how we observe nature to understand what is real and correct behavior, but since we are carrying our presuppositions with us and the environments we use for observation are not natural, we end up interpreting nature through our own filters.
Anyway, I have no problem with the returned Christ personality being male, or female, or any other gender (I understand there are more than 100 now). :)
As far as Easter/Eostre: Many years ago I read the book
Don't Know Much About the Bible. I think it was that book that said during early Christianity, the religion was spreading into Europe and looking to get more followers. There were the Pagans, with their special celebrations already set up. Supposedly the Christians adopted, or closely enough, the dates of the Pagan holidays in order to reach a wider audience. Such as Christmas, around the Winter Solstice celebration. From what I've read, some scholars think Christ would have been born in March, not December. And Easter, there was the goddess Eostre, a fertility goddess and a god of dawn and light (rebirth? renewal?). And what are better symbols of fertility than eggs and rabbits and chocolate? Well, maybe not the chocolate. And words we use now, such as oestrus, estrus, estrogen are related.
Here's just two of many interesting links:
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism
https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-pagan-goddess-behind-the-holiday-of-easter/
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15087#msg15087)
I say he's Stealth Christ.
That about covers it, if you read Seth's own hints about this mystery person. He nor no one else knows who he is, why he's here, what he's going to do.
@carsch, any idea how supposedly one unknown person could change humanity for the better, single-handedly? The Elias explanation makes sense to me in that Seth had mentioned one of the reasons that the Christ personality was manifested in more than one person was because one person couldn't handle all of that powerful energy. It would help speed up the progress if multiple counterparts could coordinate it all. I like the symbolism of 12, such as in the 12 apostles.
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15099#msg15099)
If you are not smart, it's hard to be funny.
I've always associated a sharp wit and sense of humor with intelligence. Seth for instance. I'm still amazed at Robin Williams, he could spout the most amazing stream of consciousness wit at such a speed that you really have to concentrate to not miss anything.
Well, Happy Eostrus everyone, lol. It's snowing here today and I have six chef's aprons to make for my son. Sorry this was so long.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15104#msg15104)
And Easter, there was the goddess Eostre, a fertility goddess and a god of dawn and light (rebirth? renewal?). And what are better symbols of fertility than eggs and rabbits and chocolate? Well, maybe not the chocolate. And words we use now, such as oestrus, estrus, estrogen are related.
Hi Deb, Hi All,
I always thought that it was interesting that Jesus was said to have died and was resurrected in the spring. The time where flowers are blooming and much of nature is coming back to life. Is it possible that this was intended to be taken symbolically and was just an analogy or a metaphor?
Also, it is my understanding (and this could be wrong) that the reason why some scholars think that Jesus was born in the spring has to do with the Gospel of Luke, where we are told that when Jesus was born, the shepherds were in the fields. I believe the story is, the shepherds would have been in the fields in spring, but not in winter.
Anyway, the eggs and chickens and rabbits, etc. are all good, but don't you take away that chocolate. :)
(I love chocolate)
-jbseth
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15104#msg15104)
And what are better symbols of fertility than eggs and rabbits and chocolate? Well, maybe not the chocolate. And words we use now, such as oestrus, estrus, estrogen are related.
Deb, Easter is clearly a female festival, except for the male rabbits. May Day may be a male festival (dancing around the maypole).
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15099#msg15099)
Funny people have to be smart, though not necessarily the kinds of smart that are validated by IQ tests.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15101#msg15101)
Just because nobody ever said that someone was smart, does this necessarily mean that they weren't?
I'm not sure that it necessarily does.
Quote from: carsch (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15090#msg15090)
Not that i think he's dumb. Lol!
Hi LarryH, jbseth and carsh,
I totally agree with you all, which is why I said:
Quote from: Jack (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15088#msg15088)
...but still, nothing about being all that smart, which is not to say he's not smart, but it's not discussed.
@LarryH, I love the way you put it. I once knew a guy who was a member of MENSA. He seemed to be a good guy, but had no discernible sense of humor. I have a brother who has a High School Equivalency Certificate (a GED) and didn't pursue further education. He's very smart, has 2 patents, has invented something he manufactures and sells to some large corporations, and he can do pretty much anything he sets his mind to. He's one of the funniest people I know - lightning fast mental reflexes. So, yes, funny smart and IQ test smart may or may not coexist.
Quote from: carsch (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15066#msg15066)
Until a few years ago, he's been living and experiencing his life like anyone else.
@carsch,
What happened a few years ago? Did he join a cult?
(Just kidding about the cult thing, couldn't resist.)
But seriously, whatever this change was sounds like it had a significant impact, since before the change he was "experiencing his life like anyone else", and I assume after it he was not.
If you receive(d) anything regarding this change, I'd be curious what it might be if you'd like to share it.
Ahah, the cult! :D He has presently chosen to focus more on himself and what he's feeling has been his chosen call.
Quote from: carsch (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=15114#msg15114)
Ahah, the cult! :D He has presently chosen to focus more on himself and what he's feeling has been his chosen call.
Thanks for sharing what you picked up on this
@carsch.
Hopefully his "phone" is ringing really loudly on his chosen call.
On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if you've seen the "Welcome & please say hello" topic, which is only viewable after logging in, but if you feel like introducing yourself a bit more, here it is: Welcome & please say hello (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?board=38.0).
Quote from: Deb on September 12, 2018, 08:57:38 AMSince we don't have enough Christ topics ( (https://speakingofseth.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) I thought I'd start yet another one. If any of you have seen other "signs" of Seth's prediction, please share.
Wow I just saw this thread
Now that its on my radar I will definitely come back to this!
Thanks for starting this thread! Someone was bound to lol
Quote from: Sena on April 11, 2020, 01:57:04 AMI don't know the story behind it. The reason I posted it is to express my hope that if and when Jesus Christ returns, she will not come as an uncreative male god.
Too cool
```````````````````````````````````
Just to remind everyone posting here we also have these threads:
Return of Christ
https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,669.0.html
Seth on Jesus
https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,1277
SEARCH CHRIST
https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?action=search2
Loads of information there!
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Signs and Wonders lol
Evidence that religion is in shambles:
Churches turned into something else - check
Christian music in church words changing from LORD, SAVIOUR, JESUS, CHRIST, GOD to the word..... "Him" !!! who the hell is him?!?!?! - check
The Pope telling everyone to trust an injection not GOD - check
The pope preaching religion wont back you when you claim "no for religious reasons" - check
The pope preaches from the HEAD PIT OF THE VIPER - check
(go on! look where he preaches from and look what is to his backside forcing all those people to look at that and they willingly are BLIND and look!)
Those blue bloods kiddie diddling! Doing NOTHING about the HARM THEY CAUSE! - Check
DOWN WITH BLUE BLOODS!
Ive got another list but its too disgusting to share! - check
Satanism is on the rise! LOL - check (How weird is this?)
Religion being used as an excuse to commit HORRORS OF THE WORLD - check
(of course thats been going on for how long now ??????)
Religion discounting Neville Goddard - check (and continue to LIE LIE LIE LIE purposefully! or IGNORANTLY of Spiritual knowledge)
( !!! You will never find the body of Jesus because :
"Dont you know Christ is WITHIN you!"
"The kingdom of God/All That Is IS WITHIN YOU"
"YE ARE AS GODS"
"I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE"
"In my fathers house are many mansions")
You are JESUS
You are the GOD OF YOUR UNIVERSE
You are life!
You are soul!
You are a portion of All That Is , Ever Was, Ever Will Be!
God's name is I AM THAT I AM
"Tell them I AM has sent you!"
DOWN WITH THE BLUE BLOODS!
Satan is the doubt that denies you your Godliness!
Thats part of you!
You dont need God/I AM / ALL THAT IS, here I will give you all the kingdoms of the world, come with me muahahahahahahaha
I AM THE GOD OF MY UNIVERSE how could Satan EVER give me what is ALREADY MINE. and believe you me my imagination knows this to be true even more so now! What does your imaginative power, your DIVINE HUMAN IMAGINATION say to the doubter in your thoughts? Does any part show up acting like a prosecuting attorney? lol
Merely a part of you not disciplined ! "Tell your thoughts what to think" Seth says.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
It is of my belief atm that Jesus is the Imagination. Neville teaches this.
Consciousness is God. Neville teaches this.
Jesus is the Sacred Feminine
Consciousness projecting into creation womb for LIFE is sacred masculine.
This is what Neville teaches
To me this has helped me more than I can even begin to express when concerning the Seth material and Neville.
I am not a fan of religion at all. Never have been. Maybe when I was tiny and was forced to go to church but I never read the bible unless we played games in competition for the candy lol
Seth says Christ is the Inner Self and the 12 aspects orbit the inner self.
Neville teaches about these 12 disciples being the 12 states of mind to discipline.
Neville teaches about the spiritual history of humanity.
Why do I fall for such nonsense some might ask. Experience thats what.
Never heard of the man when I discovered Seth. NLP practitioner training followed and combining the two with my learned ways of words and the strange path my life as led me on and toss in some UFO experiences .......I began having the most real and unexplainable spiritual dreams ever known to me. It all started with the word "Cephalopod". lol
very into the Seth material at the time, I awoke one morning with a feel I understood better about camouflage One word came out of my mouth as soon as I awoke from sleeping. That word just bolted from my lips.
Next came a series of words in following mornings I wont mention here because they are too personal to me.
Then with that year and following years came a series of dreams I could not explain. They got me furious! They were all biblical! I dont do ..... "biblical". I fought and fought and fought this! I was really beside myself on this one.
It would be years later that I found Neville Goddard after very frustrating experiences.
You ever have a dream where you could swear it was so real .... more real than physical reality? That is what these are like only..... they are so personal and so individuated and so unique that my very soul ... the heart and core of me was living these experiences.
After the words..... there was a baby. I called it my ufo baby LOL because wtf?!?!?!
Little did I know it was the birth of my inner being. I watched myself grow up a bit more.
When I found Neville I felt as I did when I found Seth!
I could not believe this! Everything I experience Neville is talking about!
How is this possible? I am not religious!!!! Why me? etc etc I asked every question under the sun lol
The way it is worded in the bible is just SO PERSONAL to each person! I am so amazed that this can even be written this way it had to be "divinely inspired"! How did Jane write those books?!
Could you write something like that? lol
So here I am knowing things......its hard enough talking to someone I can literally physically touch about the Seth material..... now this?!?!
I fought this at every turn as well. My My vida loca.
I still fight it lol though not as much as I am always equally amazed that putting Seth and Neville together for ME has been such a game changer.
No Jesus is not a body as one would think of like you and me. Jesus is you is in you and is your DIVINE POWER on Earth!
It is "You create reality with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and heart!"
That is God that is consciousness, that is Jesus!
" I and the father are ONE!"
Neville teaches that every place, every name, every situation in the bible is a state of mind.
````````````````````````````````````````````
You guys have some really great thought provoking replies to this topic.
Probable realities perhaps do not have a Jesus but they have something like it!
Jesus is merely a word people attached to this concept as a teaching tool I think.
All over the world there are NAMES for this names for that.
Words are merely teaching tools.....symbols of a multi dimensional existence!
Jesus ends with the word US, In its center is EASE and a supportive letter J as a symbolic tool to help someone walk. Does it surprise you they refer to this as a crutch or a cane?
The sound starts with a GEE sound
The metaphor is not lost on me. Heck they decorate them at Christmas time with the red and white colors of POWER and ELECTRICITY.
Christ to me says CHI RISE T meaning..... You lift the cross you bear no one else can do it for you! And yeah YOU CRY for cry is T, you cry when you feel the weight of the burden of the world of rock bed reality. SEE OUR WISE TALE = CRYSTAL = CHRIST ALL = Are we clear now? Crystal!
What is a letter T but an Ankhor, Anchor.
The cross we bear to bare.
We carry life to full term of value fulfillment.
We ride the boat of a million years baby. Woohoo
"Kindergarden is coming to a close!" - Seth
....a much KIND er garden to live in....
Love is God , Love is the key , Love is the
glue. IT forms the basis of ALL life! Without love there is no psychic
hold!
Both Seth and Neville say this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxZvDYWI_80
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I highly recommend Barrie Gellis Online Seth Conference 2021 presentation.
He quotes from the Seth video and it says what Neville says.
Seth Video (Class June 4, 1974): -The MESSAGE is given in
DIFFERENT terms, and YOU give the message to
YOURSELVES, for YOU ARE the message. The medium is
NOT the message - YOU are the message. If only we can
show you YOURSELVES enough, then you will TRUST
yourselves enough to EXPLORE those dimensions of YOUR
OWN GREATER reality that NO one else can ever know of.
"THERE are JOURNEYS OF CONSCIOUSNESS that no one
can take but YOU. and yet as you take them, you take steps
in other terms FOR OTHERS, and you leave MARKS for
your brothers and sisters to follow in their OWN
EXPLORATIONS - CARDS that say. "I have been here. The
place is SAFE. I leave you a sign of PEACE.
````````
"Your BEING, alone, is IMPORTANT and has VALIDITY BEYOND any PHILOSOPHY. THAT is the message that you are trying to give to YOURSELF. You are each trying to rediscover for YOURSELVES, in YOUR terms now, after centuries of myths and distortions, the VALIDITY of your OWN beings. I ask you NOT to trust the validity of MY being, which is NONE of your concern. but to TRUST the VALIDITY of YOUR being, which is VERY MUCH of your concern."
Seth
Seth Class, 8-18-70: "You are NOW dwelling in physical reality. IT BEHOOVES YOU TO HELP OTHERS. When you TAKE from others, you TAKE from yourselves. When you GIVE to others, you GIVE to yourselves."
Seth (Session 64): "...when it is POSSIBLE it is not only wise but ADVANTAGEOUS to help any living creature, REGARDLESS of its stature in your scheme of things...
``````````````
You are the sender and the sent. - Neville