The Bible was compiled from several earlier ones

[Mark M]

"(Long pause.) The Bible is a conglomeration of parables and stories, intermixed with some unclear memories of much earlier times. The bible that you recognize — or that is recognized — is not the first, however, but was compiled from several earlier ones as man tried to look back, so to speak, and recount his past and predict his future.

"Such bibles existed, not written down but carried orally, as mentioned some time ago, by the Speakers. It was only much later that this information was written down, and by then, of course, much had been forgotten. This is apart from the fact of tampering, or downright misinformation (long pause) as various factions used the material for their own ends."

—WTH Chapter 1: January 25, 1984

Cf. Documentary Hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

[Deb]

Yep, no surprises there, the old testament and the new one being written after many years of oral tradition would mean a lot of distortion of the original stories. Apparently the OT was written between 1200 and 165 BC while Judaism goes back nearly 4,000 years. I think the NT was written years after the "Jesus" story by "various Christian leaders" and not necessarily the disciples as people think.

It's no secret that a lot of the stories in both were adapted from previous religions, myths from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, paganism (Easter, Christmas), etc. Also the NT was heavily edited, probably a few times, having large chunks removed (apocrypha) because they didn't fit the official narrative at the time.

I can't find the quote right now, but I remember Seth saying the materials he was providing have been repeatedly given by Speakers since the beginning, but people have the tendency to clothe or embellish the information until it's no longer recognizable. And so the Speakers' work is never done.

[Mark M]

The oldest NT writings are actually Paul's epistles about half of which critical scholars regard as forgeries, not written by Paul.

The oldest Gospel of the NT 4 is considered to be Mark and was written about 30 years after Christ.

Correct, no gospels that we have were written by the disciples who likely were illiterate.

The story of the woman taken in adultery (let he who is w/o sin cast the first stone) is not in the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel it ends up appearing in, I think John.

John is seen as the latest of the four and has Jesus talking in virtual speeches instead of little sayings and parables.

"But that knowledge has been taken into various religions and doctrines that have grown up about it until it is almost unrecognizable. Bits of it appear here and there, scattered, distorted, and misleading. It comes naked, and everyone must put clothing on it. This means that it usually ends up as either nonsense or armored dogma."

—UR2 Appendix 23: (For Session 724)

[chasman]

'I can't find the quote right now, but I remember Seth saying the materials he was providing have been repeatedly given by Speakers since the beginning, but people have the tendency to clothe or embellish the information until it's no longer recognizable. And so the Speakers' work is never done.'

hi Deb,
    I searched and found this. it says paragraph 69:


"SS Introduction book rob chapter students mine
In what terms? Quite honestly, I don't know. The closest I've come to explaining my own views was in a short intuitive statement I wrote for my ESP class, as I tried to clear my ideas for myself and my students as well. Rob had told me about the "Speakers", as Seth calls them in this book — personalities who continually speak to man through the ages, reminding him of inner knowledge so that it is never really forgotten. This evocative idea inspired me to write the small piece which I am including here. It points up the framework in which I think Seth and others like him may exist."
—SS Introduction

[strangerthings]

The Story of the Inner Self.

The Inner Self of course is you. You are your inner self.

Our minds, chatter, parts of self incongruent or still in the wilderness....

The bible ... is addressed to the imagination ... to your creative power.

It isnt physical history and it never claimed to be. It is spiritual history of the inner self (entity) and ego.

Edited in some parts and mistranslated in many others.

Neville Goddard helped me immensely when I started having particular visions and dreams.

And yes they are ancient and edited.

This topic is very much discussed here. I would write more but I already have posted quite a bit of my replies elsewhere.

[Mark M]

I just find it all a pretty boring book, all in all.

But:

The Bible is a language that you no longer understand. Words used told a story, yet certain words had a different meaning than the literal interpretation of the word. Certain key words in other words, if you will forgive me, were highly symbolic, and if you read the Bible along one surface line then you read a story highly ambiguous, called by many, but if you understood the meaning of the Word, as divorced from the literal interpretation of the Word, then you read an allegory and the allegory was highly important.

It is too late this evening to go into the allegory of the Bible. I have, to some extent, done some work on this in my own book, thus far. People in the Bible often were the personification of certain human characteristics. If, for example, a point were to be made along these lines, the following could happen— Say that you wanted to express the human characteristics that can lead to disaster, that can lead a man to betray another. Now, you are familiar with morality plays so in our story we take the term deceit and we give it a name and we make a person out of deceit and we call it, for example, Judas.

And so, if you are very innocent and a child, and you read our story, you have a pageant of characters. But if you look beneath you see that there is much more and that the story is merely the coating. It gives you suspense and Ruburt would say it gives you a great story line and while you are reading the story, however, you are automatically taking in the inner truths that are within it whether or not you are consciously aware of what you are doing. Now, this is only a partial, very partial, explanation for something that you are.

(To class member, [Gert:] "Then there is, according to present-day interpretation, no need for baptism to remove this so-called original sin?")

There was no original sin to remove.

—Seth, from: ESP Class Session, December 22, 1970

[Deb]

I just find it all a pretty boring book, all in all.

My family tried to raise me Catholic, but it never stuck. Most of it didn't make any sense to me, even as a small child. Seth's talking about Jesus et al. was interesting to me at the start because it was a different take on the stories. But I'm over it, lol.

[inavalan]

I just find it all a pretty boring book, all in all.

My family tried to raise me Catholic, but it never stuck. Most of it didn't make any sense to me, even as a small child. Seth's talking about Jesus et al. was interesting to me at the start because it was a different take on the stories. But I'm over it, lol.

The Bible, as any dogma or guru's quote, shouldn't be read to understand what the author said, but to interpret a customized symbolism, that you actually get directly from your inner source of knowledge and guidance (Seth like).

For example, Carol K. Anthony uses the I Ching in this way. She draws a hexagram, then in an altered state of consciousness she interprets it. She uses the I Ching as a conduit (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conduit).

(e.g. )

The Bible, and almost anything else can / should be used in the same way, and there is no wonder that different people get different answers / guidance from the same verse, and that even the same person can get different pointers from the same verse at different moments in time.

[Sena]

For example, Carol K. Anthony uses the I Ching in this way.

inavalan, weclome back to the forum, and thanks for introducing us to Carol K. Anthony.

[inavalan]

For example, Carol K. Anthony uses the I Ching in this way.

inavalan, weclome back to the forum, and thanks for introducing us to Carol K. Anthony.

Thank you, and you're welcome. I mentioned her only to make a point about symbolism' interpretation.

[Deb]

The Bible, as any dogma or guru's quote, shouldn't be read to understand what the author said, but to interpret a customized symbolism, that you actually get directly from your inner source of knowledge and guidance (Seth like).

To me the bible stories are fables, to teach moral lessons, mixed in with some fear mongering to keep people in line. But yet a lot of people take the bible literally. Lots of harm has been done as a result of that—and not just the bible but other "holy books" as well.

[strangerthings]

@Mark M

"The Bible is a language that you no longer understand. "

Do you always think like this and blurt that kind of stuff out?

You haven't an iota what I understand.

That's like telling someone how they feel.

Ciao!

[Mark M]

"The Bible is a language that you no longer understand."

—Seth, from: ESP Class Session, December 22, 1970

[Deb]

"The Bible is a language that you no longer understand. Words used told a story, yet certain words had a different meaning than the literal interpretation of the word. Certain key words in other words, if you will forgive me, were highly symbolic, and if you read the Bible along one surface line then you read a story highly ambiguous, called by many, but if you understood the meaning of the Word, as divorced from the literal interpretation of the Word, then you read an allegory and the allegory was highly important."
—Seth, from: ESP Class Session, December 22, 1970

Oops, a misunderstanding about who was saying what. 

The bibles (NT & OT) were written during different times. Communication has to be made understandable, using allusions and words that could be understood at the time the information is given. ALSO, translation issues. The NT was written in Hebrew originally, then translated to Greek, then much later on, English. The NET Bible (New English Translation) scholars went back and compared the Hebrew to Greek, at least what they had on hand, and there were a lot of key words that were either mistranslated or deliberately changed. One error I believe was about Mary being a virgin, where in Hebrew the word "almah" meant either young woman, girl, or virgin. The equivalent "elem" simply means young man.

At least that's what I remember, it's been a very long time since I read the NET. But as far as I'm concerned that's a big issue, since virgin birth is a foundation of the Christian religions.

[Mark M]

"The NT was written in Hebrew originally, then translated to Greek..."

That would be OT. NT orig language was Greek.

[Mark M]

Almah (עַלְמָה‎ 'almāh, plural: עֲלָמוֹת‎ 'ălāmōṯ, from a root implying the vigour of puberty [1]) is a Hebrew word for a young woman of childbearing age; despite its importance to the account of the virgin birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

I believe the King James translators had it meaning virgin and the Revised Standard Version, ca 1952, corrected that per above -- and all hell broke loose because the true meaning rather destroys the prophecy thing about a virgin.

[Mark M]

FROM THE PREFACE TO THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION:

...These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say.

Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for "share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc....

http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsvpreface.html

Hinder there be light!

EVENTUALLY, the Seth material will have word-obsolescence problems.

[strangerthings]

Oops, a misunderstanding about who was saying what. 

The bibles (NT & OT) were written during different times. Communication has to be made understandable, using allusions and words that could be understood at the time the information is given. ALSO, translation issues. The NT was written in Hebrew originally, then translated to Greek, then much later on, English. The NET Bible (New English Translation) scholars went back and compared the Hebrew to Greek, at least what they had on hand, and there were a lot of key words that were either mistranslated or deliberately changed. One error I believe was about Mary being a virgin, where in Hebrew the word "almah" meant either young woman, girl, or virgin. The equivalent "elem" simply means young man.

At least that's what I remember, it's been a very long time since I read the NET. But as far as I'm concerned that's a big issue, since virgin birth is a foundation of the Christian religions.

@Deb

Yes it is the Seth material And I happen to agree with it 100% for many people.

However it was not put that way in someones response.

If I would've had that quoted text from the Seth materials previous to my particular experiences (Neville in particular, Seth is not so blunt but speaks of such) I would've been one of those people not understanding. I didnt have what I have now. Back then? Gobbeldy goop.
lol

[Deb]

EVENTUALLY, the Seth material will have word-obsolescence problems.

While I hate to admit it, I think that's probable. Right now I'm constantly blown away about how pertinent today things are that Seth said 40 years ago, but in linear time 40 years is a drop in the bucket. Language evolves, and along with it the meaning of words and understanding. So once again a Speaker will have to appear and tell it all. Ala the quote you provided (that I couldn't find) from UR2 Appendix 23: (For Session 724), that after a time the understaning becomes convoluted.

We are here to learn. And progress. Even at our donkey-slow rate, progress is made. That's all I ask for. And so my cup is half full.

[Mark M]

I find it embarrassing when sharing a Seth passage with someone brand new to Seth, especially a woman, when it contains words like "mankind" or "he" and not the admittedly awkward "he/she," etc.

[Sena]

The NET Bible (New English Translation) scholars went back and compared the Hebrew to Greek, at least what they had on hand, and there were a lot of key words that were either mistranslated or deliberately changed. One error I believe was about Mary being a virgin, where in Hebrew the word "almah" meant either young woman, girl, or virgin. The equivalent "elem" simply means young man.

Deb, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not there in the Bible. It is a pure invention of the Catholic Church:

The problem facing theologians who want to maintain Mary's perpetual virginity is that the New Testament explicitly affirms her virginity only prior to the conception of Jesus and mentions his brothers, (adelphoi), with Mark and Matthew recording their names and Mark adding unnamed sisters. The word adelphos only very rarely means other than a physical or spiritual sibling, and the most natural inference is that Joseph and Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus.

Further scriptural difficulties were added by Luke 2:7, which calls Jesus the "first-born" son of Mary, and Matthew 1:25, which adds that Joseph "did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn son."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

[inavalan]

I think that everything in the Bible is symbolic, in such a way that the exact words, even the exact elements of the story don't matter individually. It matters what every reader understands by himself. It doesn't matter what others interpret to mean.

On another forum I posted some comments on a "Gospel of Thomas" thread. This is an example of my interpretation of verse #113:

(113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

113.1> > Said-they to-him, viz-his-disciples, this: The-kingdom,
113.2> she-is-coming on-which day? > She-is-coming not in-a-
113.3> -look outward; >they-will-be-speaking not this- " Beho-
113.4> -ld, that-side" or "Behold, that-one"; > Rather, the-kingdom of-the-father, she-is-spreading out upon-the-earth, and
114.1> men look not upon-her.

So, the Kingdom isn't "up there", but "down here", and we just don't see it because we're under a hypnotic trance, induced by our human society, our education.

a.k.a. camouflage ...

[inavalan]

...
Deb, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not there in the Bible. It is a pure invention of the Catholic Church:
...

Regarding the subject of Mary's virginity, from my perspective it doesn't matter if she was or not virgin, it doesn't matter if it was so written in the "original", or not. It only matters what I interpret from it, now.

From this perspective, I interpret to mean that Jesus Christ, the personality, didn't originate as any other regular man, born by a woman as everybody here sees happening, but that he is the materialization of an extraordinary idea. His father is his entity. The Trinity is his entity, his personality, and his inner-guide (Seth like).

[Deb]

Deb, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not there in the Bible. It is a pure invention of the Catholic Church:

Huh, I must have missed the part about her being a perpetual virgin. Virgin birth was supposed to fulfill the prophesy that a messiah would be born, the son of God, to a virgin. Which would certainly set him out from any siblings that came along afterwards, his being a miracle birth. But I never gave it a thought beyond that. Actually, thinking back to catechism, I was so young I'm sure I had no idea what a virgin even was.

I wonder why Catholics insisted on virgin birth and perpetual virginity? It seems to me Catholicism in general has a LOT of hangups around sex, could be that's the reason. Mary being a virgin is what made her clean and pure enough (untainted) to produce the son of God.

[Sena]

I wonder why Catholics insisted on virgin birth and perpetual virginity?

Deb, I think misogyny comes into it. Nobody is concerned about Jesus Christ being a virgin or whether he had a bit of fun now and then.

[Deb]

Unfortunately double standards like that still exist.

[Mark M]

Sena wrote:

"Nobody is concerned about Jesus Christ being a virgin or whether he had a bit of fun now and then."

Yeah, I don't know about that.

While we actually know so little about Christ, maybe he was married, for instance, I think it's presumed he never married, was celibate, and in keeping with this, a virgin.

Paul advocated celibacy and, if one cannot manage that, marriage.

Incidentally, the late Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong speculated that Paul was a closeted homosexual; he finds hints in his writings. I could post some of that.

[Deb]

While we actually know so little about Christ, maybe he was married, for instance, I think it's presumed he never married, was celibate, and in keeping with this, a virgin.

Some people think he married Mary Magdalene. Holy cow, I just looked that up and found this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/the-ancient-manuscript-that-proves-jesus-married-mary-magdalene-and-had-children-a6982836.html

da Vinci might have been one of them, it's been pointed out that the blonde to Jesus's right hand in the Last Supper looked a lot more like a Mary than a John. Or maybe John was closeted too? 

[strangerthings]

Some people think he married Mary Magdalene. Holy cow, I just looked that up and found this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/the-ancient-manuscript-that-proves-jesus-married-mary-magdalene-and-had-children-a6982836.html

da Vinci might have been one of them, it's been pointed out that the blonde to Jesus's right hand in the Last Supper looked a lot more like a Mary than a John. Or maybe John was closeted too? 

Distractions lol

[Mark M]

Whatever da Vinci is intending (such as the Beloved Disciple written of only in the last canonical Gospel of John), as he lived some 1500 years after the events, he apparently is portraying what amount to as rumor/innuendo.

[strangerthings]

Well my interpretation of it is that the virgin birth is you giving birth to yourself your true self your real self the loving self the one that is meek and that every man born of woman will have this virgin birth in due time.

Waking from the dead so to speak

My interpretation of the Bible is pretty much what Neville Goddard says because that has been my experience and as I have stated multiple times I am not a religious person so me going through those experiences was very very shocking to me and it was quite a few years before I found Neville after all those experiences. And funnily enough the bulk of them started when I found the Seth material.

Seth did say Christ is the inner self.

You are as dead now as you will ever be Seth said.

lol

Neville says the same thing

The kingdom of heaven is within you the Christ is within you Jesus is within you God is with in you

Neville asks the question if these are all inside of me then where are they where exactly is this kingdom if it is within me? 

It's your state of mind it's your imagination it's your creative power it's your belief system. It is consciousness.

If you believe you live in hell here guess what you live in hell

If you wear a coat of you so to speak that says and proclaims to the world that you are a loving person and that you are bold and that you have tamed your mind to see the good in everything and to see love everywhere and to feel that in your  bones ... that is who you are.

I also think the story of the inner self and the conscious mind , the ego merging as one and giving birth to its new self is a story told all throughout the ages. I find it in all the mythologies. I haven't come across one yet that isn't like that.

To include the Sumerian creation myth.

Every character in the Bible is a state of mind every word such as place names have a precise meaning.

The upper chambers for example that's your skull that's inside your mind. Golgotha, Calvary... these are all places of the skull.

Heck even the two indentions on either side of your head are called temples. Pillars of the temple.

[strangerthings]

Washing the feet and circumcision: https://www.neville-goddard.com/neville-goddard-books/neville-goddard-your-faith-is-your-fortune/neville-goddard-your-faith-is-your-fortune-chapter-14



Also for example when they are having the last supper so to speak and Jesus says partake of my flesh and my blood etc. etc. The eating of the flesh or the bread is to consume the knowledge like us reading the Seth material or us getting the information from our inner self eating that information to consume that knowledge that were given from within and turn it into a spiritual understanding therefore you would be drinking the blood or the wine.

Turning water into wine would be for me turning the psychological meaning into a spiritual understanding.

Getting water from a stone the stone being your skull.,  The water being a psychological meaning or understanding

Throwing stones at people as punishment is throwing facts at people you know the rational mind the reasoning mind the OLC mind.

You talk about the Seth material to people that are still in an OLC consciousness they will begin to throw stones at you.

The Bible is not meant for a literal interpretation

[strangerthings]

My beloved is my companion my bride my wife so to speak my imagination my creative power inside of me that is my beloved and without it I will never give birth to my real self. I will mate with it not with a human  To give birth to myself


In other words you do not need another to change yourself and give birth to a new you you're not dependent on another you are the only one that makes the weal and the woe in your life you are the Lord of your world. You are the only one that can believe you into Being.

[Mark M]

Here is Seth in Speaks on the Last Supper:

"In the Last Supper when Christ said, 'This is my body,
and this is my blood,' He meant to show that the spirit was within
all matter, interconnected, and yet apart--that his own spirit was
independent of his body, and also in his own way to hint that he
should no longer be identified with his body. For he knew the dead
body would not be his own."

[Mark M]

One of my big-fave Seth quotes:

Seth: "At a conscious level, of course, neither of you realized,
or wanted to realize, the kind of complete repeal and overhaul
that was implied by our sessions, and for some years you
managed to hold many official views of reality along with the
newer concepts, not ready to understand that an entire new
way of thinking was involved, a new relationship of the
individual with reality. So you tried out some new methods
piecemeal, here and there, with good-enough results.

"Of course, an entire reorientation (with emphasis) is instead
implied..."

The Magical Approach, AUGUST 18, 1980

Oops, I meant this for the Seth/distortions topic I started. I'll put it there and also leave it here.

[Sena]

Heck even the two indentions on either side of your head are called temples. Pillars of the temple.

St, I had not thought of that.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/temple

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6664802/

Mystical and religious experiences are hypothesized to be evoked by transient, electrical microseizures within deep structures of the temporal lobe.

May be referring to the divine origin of human consciousness.

[Mark M]

DMT occurs naturally in the body in minute amounts.

"One of our volunteers likes to say 'You can still be an atheist until (a dose of)
0.4 (mg/kg of DMT).'"

From:

DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the
Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences by Rick Strassman MD