The return of Christ personality

[Deb]

I'm just about Seth-saturated at this point. I opened some sort of Seth flood gate recently. I don't know if anyone else here looks at forum stats, but this topic has had 20,444 views and 216 replies. Soon to be 217.

Anyway, please take a look at these:

Seth on the Christ: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1277

And more importantly a new board, Unpublished Sessions: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?board=52.0

More information on what Seth had to say about Jesus the Christ and beyond. @Joelr there may be some answsers for you.

[Joelr]

Welcome Joelr,

It's difficult to argue with linear time. Particularly when we are absorbed by it. Some of the statements seem to be cemented in history so therefore must be correct, and if Seth mentions anything that doesn't follow what has been discovered then he is wrong.
Perhaps historical data has not caught up with him yet? Ever wondered why so many 'Lost Gospels' and 'Lost Scriptures' and 'Lost this and that' have been discovered? Maybe they haven't been 'discovered' but created by us in the present moment to fit the needs and beliefs we share en masse at the moment. Seth always mentions that there are no closed systems of consciousness, that includes our future and our past. Besides, historians are constantly changing their views on the past, ironically, without even noticing that they just might be actually changing the past.

Some good answers to think about.

What you say above I get, applying Seth type philosophy to the issue and invoking an ever-changing past. While it could be a type of solution, my main thing with that is sometimes Seth does give specific historical data. So if his history becomes out dated one can just say "the past must have changed". But why give specific events from the past if it's so slippery?

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

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

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

Right but then did Mormonism, Thor, Hercules, Roswell, and every other supernatural mythological character also "happened at another level of actuality, and were inserted into your time framework "?

What about every work of fiction ever created?
Back then people just assumed there had to be some type of god and whatever story was in vogue and gained momentum worked. This sort of psychic well that according to Seth the Christ drama sprung from seems a bit much.
Seems more like Jane thinking religion has a deeper reality than it actually does. I'm not trying to debunk everything Seth says on religion though. I might just be typing here for the sake of making a counter point?

Now if Seth said the Christ drama was a psychic event that was spreading through biblical times from culture to culture and named some examples like Romulus and Osirus that might have been something.

But the Seth quote above is interesting, it makes sense about it not happening in physical reality. If that was all he said it would seem reasonable.

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

Well if you were channeling an entity who was describing the history of music in Europe and didn't mention Bach it would be sketchy. Especially if it were post-Bach but before he was well known for his contributions (Bach wasn't famous at all, a later composer became his champion then people caught on).

Like you said he does mention the Speakers as if they are concrete history. It's examples like that that make me feel he might have been more specific with Christianity. I mean he called one gospel a "forgery"? They ALL start with "as told to me by...." That's also very specific.
Wouldn't it be weird if Seth called one of the Hercules gospels a forgery?

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

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

They are good quotes, I'm not sure what to say about that. The Christ story as it were is so far removed from any idea of "god" that Seth ever presented that I'm actually surprised Seth wasn't just like " it was just a bunch of fiction people believed, end of story..."
The redeemer demigod is there to get you out of the big trouble you're constantly in with the mean sky-father god whom is pissed because he hates sin.
The sky god has accepted the torture and death of the demigod as a stand in for the punishment you all should receive for "sins".
In Judaism it replaced the temple (which had just fallen anyways) where you would go daily to try and achieve sin forgiveness.
It's like if Seth came 1000 years from now and was saying all that stuff but about Roswell or Mormons?

Maybe Jane had personal ideas that she couldn't get past?

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

For me the more I learn the more I have to examine my beliefs. If something no longer serves me I have to let it go. Sometimes it's painful but it's better for me in the long run. It's just a personal thing.

So if I examine my beliefs in Seth and something points towards it not being actual channeled information I'm just labeling that as a "problem". It's not really a problem but more a belief.
Without expanding on that  - right now I'm just throwing around some thoughts and taking in others opinions. I doubt I'd ever write Seth off as a complete fake.
The rest of the New Age field, probably, but Seth is unique. I also tried to find out what Jane might have been sourcing for material to see if she was drawing concepts from somewhere else. There is some Jung, Quimby (New-Thought guy from the 20's) and people like that who have similarities but nothing close to the level Seth is on at all.

So Seth did attempt to describe a level of quantum physics that we are yet unfamiliar with. He definitely seemed to be trying to pass along more physics knowledge, as detailed as he could say. When I say he should have attempted to unify quantum mechanics with gravity (or something similar) i think of it like this - if Seth was speaking to someone in the 1800's and wanted to give them something simple just to show without a doubt he was whom he says he could have simply said any of the following:

light comes in particles AND waves
all subatomic entities are particles and waves
mass and energy are equivalent
gravity is curvature of spacetime
space and time are connected
when you move time slows down
the universe is expanding
most of the mass in the universe is invisible
all mass contains a huge amount of energy
there is no absolute timeframe/time is relative
when accelerating time is not relative
the universal expansion is speeding up
or whatever.....

Seth did talk about the future and I know there are probable futures but there are things that will remain the same throughout our "camoflague reality". I feel like he could have put forth some future physics in just one sentence. Because he was trying really hard to describe the next level down of physics and he even mentioned wave/particle duality but he came up with a very un-impressive talk on "EE particles" that didn't explain anything but added another layer of particles?
Just give me one sentance!

He did have some very impressive things to say that have ended up showing up in modern physics since. Nothing definitive like I was talking about but some ideas have become known science. One for example is the idea of changing the past which we can do at least to individual particles in the quantum eraser experiment.

[Joelr]

Good'morn'n Joel and everyone 

Is Seth wrong? I don't think so, it's that I don't understand something yet. 

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

I am familiar with Santos Bonacci's work and I like it for the most part because it is more to my 'Understanding'.
I Love the sky and stars like a Sailor! but that's in my social memory. I myself, would have to agree that History is a lie agreed upon. 

Here are a few paragraphs from 'The Devil's Pulpit" by Rev Robert Taylor Pg. 204 Starting at "It never being to be forgotten,"

https://archive.org/stream/devilspulpit00tayl#page/204/mode/2up[/url

It's highly possible that when it comes to Seth it could just be a lack of understanding because he is complex.

But religious people will say that sometimes as well "God is mysterious, not for us to understand..." when they encounter something they might not agree with or rings as a false concept.
Seth wanted to be understood and he tried to speak plainly.

I'm just saying it could be mis-understaning but I'm also giving the situation freedom to be something else, like Jane was wrong. On some level, - mis-translation, her subconscious influenced the text, her husband Robert Butts influenced the work...?



The internet is by far making people much much more informed. There may be fake news and bad science going around but overall people are taking in more information and it's a positive development in the long run.

[Joelr]

I'm just about Seth-saturated at this point. I opened some sort of Seth flood gate recently. I don't know if anyone else here looks at forum stats, but this topic has had 20,444 views and 216 replies. Soon to be 217.

Anyway, please take a look at these:

Seth on the Christ: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1277

And more importantly a new board, Unpublished Sessions: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?board=52.0

More information on what Seth had to say about Jesus the Christ and beyond. @Joelr there may be some answsers for you.

Thank you.

Seth speaks of mostly general stuff, and mentions a few times that Christ is the story of 3 different men who lived at that time. This raises more questions for me. The gospel stories are very thick with mythological cliches and literary devices and parables that seriously suggest it's not about the lives of any actual persons.
40 days in the desert, Carpenter Earth-god, sermon on the mount, 12 apostles, miracles, it's all mythologies passed on through cultural diffusion. 

Did one of these 3 men "wither" a fig tree? Did one of them curse the fig tree for not bearing figs out of season? No. The story is an allegory for God's abandonment of the temple. Jesus is God and the fig tree is the temple. Jesus curses the fig tree and says "now you pray to me". The temple is no longer needed with Jesus here.

This is a story within a story, Mark was not writing history at all, these are allegorical parables. The entire gospels are written this way.
Jesus is actually the new Moses and Elija and the gospels tell stories that teach followers how to live as a missionary - argue with doubters, family, miracles, they explain rituals and invent a pedigree so no one else can claim revelations.
They co-opt the baptist cult by having John baptize Jesus and so on. Every story is there for a reason, some are impossible to flush out without help from scholarship but they are not historical tales.
They are pieced together from other stories and since it's Judaism they went ahead and used an already known angel named Jesus.

I'm sure that in the 1960s the idea that Jesus was actually complete mythology, that he wasn't even a real man, would have never occurred to Jane. She did say "I know this idea will upset Christians" about some of the things she was coming out with but the mythicist ideas were too controversial to be spoke of anywhere back then.

Not everyone in scholarship accepts the mythicist theory yet however, so I can't say this is the standard belief in the field right now.

[Deb]

Seth speaks of mostly general stuff,

Yes, Seth was not extremely specific, but then Jane was admittedly uncomfortable with him talking about religion and she could control how much information came through on certain topics. She even would hold back personal information that she was afraid would upset Rob. Again, I wonder how much of Jane's religious upbringing affected the messages around that topic.

A lot of the time Seth was responding to questions asked of him by Rob and Jane, class members, people that came to him for consultations, so there are more details on some topics, less on other. Seth did want to write an entire book on Jesus/Christ. Jane resisted that. I wonder how many more books, how much more information, would have come out if Jane lived another 20 years.

[Joelr]

Seth speaks of mostly general stuff,

Yes, Seth was not extremely specific, but then Jane was admittedly uncomfortable with him talking about religion and she could control how much information came through on certain topics. She even would hold back personal information that she was afraid would upset Rob. Again, I wonder how much of Jane's religious upbringing affected the messages around that topic.

A lot of the time Seth was responding to questions asked of him by Rob and Jane, class members, people that came to him for consultations, so there are more details on some topics, less on other. Seth did want to write an entire book on Jesus/Christ. Jane resisted that. I wonder how many more books, how much more information, would have come out if Jane lived another 20 years.

I would guess that not much more significant work would have come from Jane/Seth because that last (or late) book "The Magical Approach" or whatever, was markedly different. And by different I mean not at all as good. Didn't seem like a Seth book.

[Deb]

Do you suppose that was because she was dying and very much done with it all? If she had not lost steam, there may have been many good things to come.

I read half of the first volume of The Personal Sessions the other day, it seems like there were more than a few nights where Rob pushed Jane to have sessions even though she was tired or not in the mood. Maybe she burned out.

[myststars]

If i would have my gf/wife channel vocally i may have done the same with the mind a couple years ago.There is a saying in my country: "if i gives you a finger you take all my hand." The lack and the desperation may make the one that is not channeling to push the other too much.To transcend the lack mentality is a very challenging task imo for humanity.One must first go through life as a human and get some extreme circumstances that derail so much that you go to spirituality and then you have to trust completely differently how things manifest in ones life.I invested a BIG amount of time in spirituality.Fortunetly the new kids come more or less much more open out of the box so the job will be much easier for them than it is for the 50 year old or even 40 year old.Also they will see that the society globally colapses and the old structures where the 60 years feels confortable are challenged and collapsing.The buying into the the current humanity structure may not be so entrenched like it was in the past.

[transient amnesia]

...

[Deb]

The lack and the desperation may make the one that is not channeling to push the other too much.

The similar expression in the US is to give someone an inch and they take a mile. Reading about how Rob pushed Jane to do personal sessions made me feel a little sad for her. The information that was so important to Rob had to do with a certain body appendage that had developed a slight bend (they don't call them the Personal Sessions for no reason!). Nothing life threatening, nothing spiritual, but important enough to Rob (male priorities, enough said) to push Jane for information from Seth over the course of several sessions. There were a few times she ended up lying down on the sofa while speaking as Seth because she was so worn out. Not a very empathetic Rob.

But... I feel the personal sessions are very important even though the information was very personal and specific to Jane and Rob. Seth goes into deep detail regarding the beliefs and thought processes that caused whatever manifestations they were dealing with at the time, very clear examples of the how seemingly unrelated beliefs can manifest as physical problems. Such as for Rob, his manifestation had to do with his beliefs about a variety of things. Good information for the rest of us doing belief work to see how different beliefs work together even though they don't seem directly related to each other or the manifested problem. Delving into our beliefs can't be a linear process.

[usmaak]

I just finished reading the religion chapter of Seth Speaks again.  I have to say, every time I read that stuff about the Christ personality, the return of Christ, etc..., I just roll my eyes.  It's like I can't even help myself.  All of my disdain for religion aside (and believe me, there's a lot), it all just seems so pat.  The author of the Seth Material lived in the US.  The primary religion is the US is Christianity.  Of all the religions in the world, of which there are so many, it just happens to be return of a Christ personality.  I mean WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!

I almost skipped the religion chapter this time through, but I try to never skip because I never know if I might get something out of it.

As far as the bible and Christianity in general, how are we to know that any of it actually even happened.  2000 years from now, is someone going to pick up a work of fiction like The Stand (my favorite book) and consider it to be a factual account of life 2000 years ago?

Religion... Sigh...

[voidypaul]

You have the same attitude to Christ and religion that most people do Usmaak and it's not surprising in this day and age of scientific materialism and screwed up pseudo religion but it is a mistake to believe that religion is Just what the old religion and science says it is .
Religion is mans connection to ATI in which we all can share.
Christ or Jesus was more advanced than Seth is now and he freely admits it . So it will be more like having a more advanced Seth in the flesh amongst us and as far as I am concerned I really look forward to hopefully meeting with this personality who will be working on an entity level and who will show us the inherent divinity within each of us.
Peace , Paul

[Joelr]

I just finished reading the religion chapter of Seth Speaks again.  I have to say, every time I read that stuff about the Christ personality, the return of Christ, etc..., I just roll my eyes.  It's like I can't even help myself.  All of my disdain for religion aside (and believe me, there's a lot), it all just seems so pat.  The author of the Seth Material lived in the US.  The primary religion is the US is Christianity.  Of all the religions in the world, of which there are so many, it just happens to be return of a Christ personality.  I mean WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!

I almost skipped the religion chapter this time through, but I try to never skip because I never know if I might get something out of it.

As far as the bible and Christianity in general, how are we to know that any of it actually even happened.  2000 years from now, is someone going to pick up a work of fiction like The Stand (my favorite book) and consider it to be a factual account of life 2000 years ago?

Religion... Sigh...

That's a good point. I already thought the Jesus stuff that Seth gives is very sketchy but with that in mind it's just absolute rubbish.
I've been studying the historical aspects of early Christianity and there were a whole bunch of dying and rising "forgive your personal sins" redeemer demi-gods before Jesus - Romulus, Inanna, Zalmoxus etc...
For more on that see PHd Richard Carriers lectures and debates on youtube, I'm not the expert.


It was just a copy-cat Jewish version of the popular religion moving through that area. Seth also said one gospel was "fake" but they ALL start with the Greek kata memori "as told to be by", scholarship also believes they were all copied from Mark and that Paul was originally referring to a celestial Jesus, an angel who was already in Jewish lore.
Again, Richard Carrier is the expert, but Jane didn't have access to this history (or didnt' do research) and I just can't believe any of that Seth stuff on religion is even remotely close to anything legit.

It's hard to explain in one post. You would have to read Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Gospels and listen to some Carrier lectures.
What happened historically was not what Seth speaks of. Pagels shows that the Gnostics were at least half of early Christianity and some of the Gnostic scriptures talks about Jesus teaching more spiritual ideas, more like Buddhist or Hindu stuff.
It's actually more Seth-like stuff then traditional gospels. So if that's the case why the hell wouldn't Seth talk about that???

If you read that book along with what the historicity field is saying, Carrier and Robert Price, the Seth material on religion sounds so made up. Just totally bogus. It's a bummer to me but what can I say?

It's actually ruined the whole Seth thing for me it's so bad? It's disappointing but I have to be open minded and if that material is false how do I know about any other Seth stuff?

[Sena]

The author of the Seth Material lived in the US.  The primary religion is the US is Christianity.  Of all the religions in the world, of which there are so many, it just happens to be return of a Christ personality.  I mean WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!

usmaak, I take the Seth statements on Christ with a large pinch of salt. Although Seth said that he had been a minor Pope in a previous existence, I don't think he is infallible.

[Sena]

I've been studying the historical aspects of early Christianity and there were a whole bunch of dying and rising "forgive your personal sins" redeemer demi-gods before Jesus - Romulus, Inanna, Zalmoxus etc...

Joel, I wouldn't say that the Seth statements on Christ are absolute rubbish. There may be a valid symbolic meaning. If Christ was the Son of God, then every human being is equally the Son of God.

Seth says something like this:
"In this model, changes of form are the result of creative syntheses. This model is seen to have its origin (long pause, eyes closed) within a vast, infinite, divine subjectivity—a subjectivity that is within each unit of consciousness, whatever its degree. A subjective divinity, then, that is within creation itself, a multidimensional creativity of such proportions that it is itself the creator and its creations at the same time."
—Dreams Evolution and Value Fulfillment, Volume 1 Chapter 4: Session 897, January 21, 1980

"[All That Is] did not separate itself from those worlds, however, for they were created from its thoughts, and each one has divine content. The worlds are all created by that divine content, so that while they are on the one hand exterior, they are on the other also made of divine stuff, and each hypothetical point in your universe (pause) is in direct contact with All That Is in the most basic terms. The knowledge of the whole is within all of its parts—and yet All That Is is more than its parts."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 1: Session 883, October 1, 1979

"The infinite ranges possible to human capabilities would be explored — and those who chose that route said, quote: "We will trust that our creativity will find its own way, and if there are nightmares we will waken from them. We will even learn from them. We will dare to push aside the dimensions of being into those realms in which only the gods have gone before — and through our utter vulnerability to experience, discover the divinity that gives our humanity its meaning. And (whispering) through the compassion that we have learned, will we be able to understand the divine errors that gave us the gift of our birth. Souls and molecules each are learning, each are forming realities, each are a part of a divinity in which each counterpart has a part to play.""
—The Unknown Reality Volume 2 Section 6: Session 733 January 27, 1975

Seth's reference to "divine errors" is quite interesting. The Christian God would be regarded as free from error.

[Deb]

It's actually ruined the whole Seth thing for me it's so bad? It's disappointing but I have to be open minded and if that material is false how do I know about any other Seth stuff?

While the majority of the Seth materials makes complete, deep down sense to me, this one topic of Jesus/Christ Personality/Religion has bothered me because I feel there is some contradictory information. There are times when it seems Seth says Jesus was a real flesh and blood human that walked the earth and other times where he's indicated that Jesus was only a symbol, a metaphor, not a real human. I've resolved that to a degree in my mind by realizing that while Jesus the man could certainly have existed, the myth of who and what he was was manufactured by Christianity over the centuries and injected with a lot of mythology from other cultures. There's no question of that in my mind. And the fact that I have little to no interest in religion, I've laid my concerns to rest.

I feel there is a focus on Christianity in the books because at lot of what Seth talked about was prompted by questions from Jane, Rob and others. It was of their interest, I really don't feel religion was all that important to Seth. Jane was brought up as a Christian, it began for her at an early age and was drummed into her head. She could never overcome it. Also, both Jane and Seth admitted that Jane could control what information came through her: if it was information that would upset her core beliefs, she could prevent it from coming through. My guess is she could also cloud the information that did get through, depending on how she felt at the time. My feeling is that this is the one topic that had the most opportunity for distortion, because of her deep seated beliefs about Christianity. She appeared to be more objective around other, less emotional topics. And while yes, there could be some distortions in all of the materials, Seth did say that with Jane there would be less distortion than with anyone else.

Here's the pinch of salt (or salt lick, if you prefer):

"Do not place the words of gurus, ministers, priests, scientists, psychologists, friends — or my words — higher than the feelings of your own being. You can learn much from others, but the deepest knowledge must come from within yourself. Your own consciousness is embarked upon a reality that basically can be experienced by no other, that is unique and untranslatable, with its own meaning, following its own paths of becoming."
—NoPR Chapter 22: Session 677, July 11, 1973

Although Seth said that he had been a minor Pope in a previous existence, I don't think he is infallible.

From what I remember about Seth being a pope, he was a bit of a monster in the morality category.

[usmaak]

It's actually ruined the whole Seth thing for me it's so bad? It's disappointing but I have to be open minded and if that material is false how do I know about any other Seth stuff?

This is actually something that I've gone back and forth about over the years.  When someone lies to me, it puts the veracity of everything else they've ever said to me into question.  I'm not comparing this information to an outright lie, just saying that if it's false or highly distorted, it makes me wonder what else is false and distorted alongside it.  There have been times where I've firmly believed and there've been times when I think that Jane Roberts must have been schizophrenic with her husband playing the part of complete enabler.

Some of the Seth subjects that just don't "feel right" to me:

- Many of the subjects about the "after life", like how there are classes to help and stuff like that.  Maybe I'm just applying my current reality filters to it, but it made it seem like going to school and long meetings.  It seems too structured, and that structure seems a lot like how many live their lives today.  I have had enough school and meetings up to now in my life.  I'd hate to think that what comes next is just another thing to throw on my phone, to make sure that I don't forget to show up on time. 
- Speakers.
- Sumari.
- Seth II
- Atlantis
- Astral Projection

That said, there are a lot more things that ring true with my feelings than those that don't.  But there is no way that I've found to prove that any of it is true.  Like religion, for me, it comes down to faith.  Sometimes I have a lot of faith, and sometimes I find myself lacking.  I guess everyone finds out for sure, once they move on from this reality.  I have always admired the persistence and belief in those that are true believers in anything.  It must be a relief to believe in something so much that it gives you peace.

I have to say that I sure am glad that I found this group.  I only personally know of one other person that's ever read Seth.  She and I do not talk much anymore and based on our conversations, she's likely not into it any longer.  It's nice to be able to talk with people who understand what I'm talking about.

[Joelr]

"The infinite ranges possible to human capabilities would be explored — and those who chose that route said, quote: "We will trust that our creativity will find its own way, and if there are nightmares we will waken from them. We will even learn from them. We will dare to push aside the dimensions of being into those realms in which only the gods have gone before — and through our utter vulnerability to experience, discover the divinity that gives our humanity its meaning. And (whispering) through the compassion that we have learned, will we be able to understand the divine errors that gave us the gift of our birth. Souls and molecules each are learning, each are forming realities, each are a part of a divinity in which each counterpart has a part to play.""
—The Unknown Reality Volume 2 Section 6: Session 733 January 27, 1975

Seth's reference to "divine errors" is quite interesting. The Christian God would be regarded as free from error.

Yes, when you read the actual Seth words it does make more sense.

[Joelr]

[
Here's the pinch of salt (or salt lick, if you prefer):

"Do not place the words of gurus, ministers, priests, scientists, psychologists, friends — or my words — higher than the feelings of your own being. You can learn much from others, but the deepest knowledge must come from within yourself. Your own consciousness is embarked upon a reality that basically can be experienced by no other, that is unique and untranslatable, with its own meaning, following its own paths of becoming."
—NoPR Chapter 22: Session 677, July 11, 1973

Although Seth said that he had been a minor Pope in a previous existence, I don't think he is infallible.

From what I remember about Seth being a pope, he was a bit of a monster in the morality category.

Yes I get that it could be a mis-translation because Jane was Christian.
I forgot Seth said he was a pope, that's just tough to swallow.

The Seth text is brilliant. I've never read any Jane authored books, does her writing style stack up in any way? In other words could Jane be making Seth up or is the quality of her personal work too far below Seth?

[Joelr]

This is actually something that I've gone back and forth about over the years.  When someone lies to me, it puts the veracity of everything else they've ever said to me into question.  I'm not comparing this information to an outright lie, just saying that if it's false or highly distorted, it makes me wonder what else is false and distorted alongside it.  There have been times where I've firmly believed and there've been times when I think that Jane Roberts must have been schizophrenic with her husband playing the part of complete enabler.

Some of the Seth subjects that just don't "feel right" to me:

- Many of the subjects about the "after life", like how there are classes to help and stuff like that.  Maybe I'm just applying my current reality filters to it, but it made it seem like going to school and long meetings.  It seems too structured, and that structure seems a lot like how many live their lives today.  I have had enough school and meetings up to now in my life.  I'd hate to think that what comes next is just another thing to throw on my phone, to make sure that I don't forget to show up on time. 
- Speakers.
- Sumari.
- Seth II
- Atlantis
- Astral Projection

That said, there are a lot more things that ring true with my feelings than those that don't.  But there is no way that I've found to prove that any of it is true.  Like religion, for me, it comes down to faith.  Sometimes I have a lot of faith, and sometimes I find myself lacking.  I guess everyone finds out for sure, once they move on from this reality.  I have always admired the persistence and belief in those that are true believers in anything.  It must be a relief to believe in something so much that it gives you peace.

I have to say that I sure am glad that I found this group.  I only personally know of one other person that's ever read Seth.  She and I do not talk much anymore and based on our conversations, she's likely not into it any longer.  It's nice to be able to talk with people who understand what I'm talking about.

I studies the Nature of Personal Reality like a textbook. I had about 20 paperclips inserted on key exercises to re-read.
I practiced all the suggestions along with visualization and meditation.
Did it work? Well, what I was visualizing on for a year or so manifested in a very deliberate and surprising way, in what would be a large coincidence. But I also know very well about confirmation bias so how can I say for sure?

At the time I was convinced but the The Secret came out and suddenly everyone was "manifesting" this and that and going to win the lottery and cure illness and all those "guru" people in the movie became rich and famous and wrote books - Vitale, uh, the guy who had a member die in Arizona during hot meditation, and so on. There were a whole bunch of manifesting experts and they all knew exactly how reality worked and it was just a mess.
Everyone was writing books and copying the same material. Even Deepak Chopra was like "uh, slow down people, it's not that simple..."
And don't get me started on Ester and Jerry Hicks......oh my god..

A lot of people were hurt trying to cure illness without medicine, or disappointed when they didnt' win the lottery or create this or that. It was a huge mess and the whole thing turned me off to metaphysics in a serious way.

A lot of these people posted on a forum called Personal Development For Smart People and the buzzword "personal development" was a big thing.
There were so many mis-lead people on that site who were "experts" on creating your reality and were going to win the lottery, channel Jesus, etc.....

I had to explore the skeptic side of things and I found a lot of stuff that was disappointing. It turns out every psychic who was tested in any way or any ESP abilities ever have done exactly the same as random guessing.
Also there is a guy in the UK, Derren Brown who as part of his videos he debunks psychics. He even went to a psychic school in Arizona and got his degree and completely fooled all the teachers that he was the best psychic ever. But he secretly admits to the viewers that he's using tricks, psychology, NLP, and illusion.

I thought at least one person would be able to demonstrate some type of ESP one time, ever? There is another guy who offers a million dollars to anyone who can show psychic abilities, James Randi.

The Seth stuff is awesome. I just don't know why psychic abilities can't ever be shown to be real, even a little?

[Deb]

Well, what I was visualizing on for a year or so manifested in a very deliberate and surprising way, in what would be a large coincidence. But I also know very well about confirmation bias so how can I say for sure?

Yep, I get it. How can we say for sure whether something is proof or coincidence or us looking for confirmation of something we want to believe? On the other hand, we will dismiss things staring us in the face using the same bias. Eventually some of us get off the fence and pick a side, so to say.

"Why then do you insist that an inner experience such as telepathy or premonition does not exist because you cannot hold it in both hands?"
—TES1 Session 26 February 18, 1964

You gave me an idea to start a new board, 'Proof ofTelepathy?'. We all have experiences, coincidences, big and small that we can't explain. They appear to be telepathy--if we accept them as such and not reject them as coincidence. Sometimes the nature of the incident is too unique to write off as coincidence. More here (click on my name):

I'm the type that will take anything anyone else says with a grain of salt, preferring to examine my own personal experiences and then decide whether what's happened could be proof or simply coincidence.

I've never read any Jane authored books, does her writing style stack up in any way? In other words could Jane be making Seth up or is the quality of her personal work too far below Seth?

All you need to do is read some of the book intros to pick up on Jane's voice. Or listen to YouTubes to compare her speech and personality compared to when she was speaking for Seth. But... as Seth was using Jane's stored vocabulary to communicate... Jane had her own style of writing, a little more informal and conversational, but still very intelligent and professional.

I can't tell you to believe whether it was real or not. I tend to be a skeptic, and in the beginning had a very hard time believing in channeling, even while the Seth materials made more sense to me than anything I've ever come across before. But there have been times when I have had access to information, a Knowing, solutions that came from -- I don't know where, certainly not my brain or memory. So with that in mind, I can accept that there is more "out there" than meets the eye. At some point I decided that Jane was pulling knowledge from someplace outside of herself. Easier to accept because I've done it myself (in small ways).

[usmaak]

Everyone was writing books and copying the same material. Even Deepak Chopra was like "uh, slow down people, it's not that simple..."
And don't get me started on Ester and Jerry Hicks......oh my god..

A lot of people were hurt trying to cure illness without medicine, or disappointed when they didnt' win the lottery or create this or that. It was a huge mess and the whole thing turned me off to metaphysics in a serious way.

A lot of these people posted on a forum called Personal Development For Smart People and the buzzword "personal development" was a big thing.
There were so many mis-lead people on that site who were "experts" on creating your reality and were going to win the lottery, channel Jesus, etc.....

Similar experience here.  I've been reading Seth since the 80s and I was VERY excited when I saw this stuff go mainstream.  I imagined the world finally awakening to more of what's possible.  I'd long since soured on religion and did not like the direction that it takes the world.  So I went out and bought a whole bunch of books.  I bought books from Abraham-Hicks and Wayne Dyer.  I bought The Secret.   I bought all of the Conversations with God books.  I bought so many others that I can't even remember. With the exception of a couple, all of them have long since ended up being sold to various book resellers for a LOT less than I paid for them.  Most of them didn't even get read because I quickly saw that they offered nothing new and were purposefully (IMO) misleadingly, to make money for the authors.  They played on people's difficulties, making it seem like all people needed to do to have what they wanted was to act like they already had it.  If you think about it, it was a genius plan.  Sure, there'd be some people who never got what they wanted, but those that did would be shouting from the rafters about how they were miserable before The Secret and living the life of dreams after.  Those would be the stories that people would pay attention to.  I watched The Secret video and then saw all of the people they featured on it putting out their own books.  The Secret made a lot of millionaires, but unfortunately it was only those that wrote books on it that saw that windfall.

It turns out that "going mainstream", at least in this case, was just a big money grab for some authors.  This is one of the reasons why the whole return of the Christ personality irks me.  To me, it presupposes a certain level of mainstream awareness and, dare I say, maturity, and people just don't seem to be there.  They are still thumping the bible and telling everyone that they're going to hell if they don't believe a certain way.  Here we are in 2018, and mainstream religion still holds major sway in how everything works.  If a new Christ figure were to be born, I wouldn't be surprised to see said Christ figure assassinated as a heretic.  That's just where humanity seems to be at this time, and it doesn't seem like we're moving forward.  Seth said this would all happen by 2075, and we are a heck of a lot closer to 2075 now, than we were in 1971, when the religion chapter showed up in Seth Speaks.

My wife was just reading me a story about this teacher who introduced meditation to his classroom, in an attempt to teach mindfulness to his students.  He was shut down because some good, god fearing Christians figured that meditation was a path to hell.  It'd probably be the same thing if one of the gym teachers tried to teach some yoga.

[chasman]

enjoying immensely all of this.
thank you to all who posted.
everyone.
it gets a rise out of me, whenever I think of the term "god fearing".
I much prefer a God thats a cool woman or guy.
not someone to be feared. someone who loves us, and wants us to not be afraid.

[usmaak]

enjoying immensely all of this.
thank you to all who posted.
everyone.
it gets a rise out of me, whenever I think of the term "god fearing".
I much prefer a God thats a cool woman or guy.
not someone to be feared. someone who loves us, and wants us to not be afraid.

You can't keep the masses in line if they don't fear the deity.

[chasman]

fascinating concept.
so put that together with that religion is the opiate of the people.
whatever. brutal. tough room. tough planet.
people so happy to fight and make war. over and over.
and fighting in the name of God. our God's better than your God. he's the real God. not the fake God, idol, fake news God........yada yada yada......
we're a Christian nation, right ? the U S is, isn't it?
but we will honor you and tell you what a good person, a good soldier you, and we will train you, we will teach you to kill people.
and then tell you, you are so brave, so courageous, such a hero.
but we're a Christian nation right?
oh wait a second. wasn't there some commandment about not killing people?
hmmmm, oh but its ok, its a necessary evil. God will say its ok, because the President and the Generals, and the American people said its ok, you're a hero.
there's no hypocrisy here. is there? or am I one who's seeing clearly, and yes there is hypocrisy here. it is utterly wrong to kill people.
Jesus killed how many people?
oh yeah, none that I know of. historic  or mythical, real, or fake Jesus, I just do not remember him being much of the killing type.
I think that God is someone we should love and admire. the Creator should be a good woman or man.
our friend and ally. our true friend. this is not a God to fear. this is a God that is utterly, totally cool and good, and not scary.
a God that you would want to hang out with. a God who treats you good. all the time. a God who encourages you, and who is caring, loving in toto.

[Sena]

My wife was just reading me a story about this teacher who introduced meditation to his classroom, in an attempt to teach mindfulness to his students.  He was shut down because some good, god fearing Christians figured that meditation was a path to hell.

According to devout Christians, meditation opens the mind to the Devil. That is why they keep repeating prayers, both mentally and aloud. "An idle mind is the Devil's workshop."
This perhaps brings us to another topic - prayers and mantras. I find it useful, when faced with a stressful or potentially dangerous situation, to mentally say to myself "Living a safe Universe". This is probably a mantra rather than a prayer.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mantra

[Deb]

so put that together with that religion is the opiate of the people.

Oh Chasman, you don't often post but when you do it's always good.
Yes, Marx was right. I've always seen religion as a crutch. I really don't understand why so many horrendous things have been done in the name of religion. And not just Christianity.

I spent some time yesterday revisiting Seth Speaks, return of the Christ, and the whole religion thing. I have plans for another "Seth On" topic based on what I read.

I'm always amazed by how much more I get from Seth on re-reading passages. It grows as I do.

[chasman]

thank you Deb.
you are very kind.
your posts are always a joy to read.
and I look forward to your next "Seth on" topic.

[transient amnesia]

...

[Joelr]

[
Yep, I get it. How can we say for sure whether something is proof or coincidence or us looking for confirmation of something we want to believe? On the other hand, we will dismiss things staring us in the face using the same bias. Eventually some of us get off the fence and pick a side, so to say.

"

Putting Seth aside for a minute, psychics are a different story.
My opinions on psychics come largely from Derren Brown who is a illusionist, mentalist and other such things but he admits it's all trickery.



In this one he goes to Sedona the psychic capitol of the US and attends the Sedona Creative Life Center http://www.sedonacreativelife.com/ a pretty serious new-age school. He blows away the staff psychics and they all believe he's an amazing psychic!


He debunks a cold reader here:


One thing I noted in the video where he follows the cold reader around as the reader contacts dead relatives, and they make a big point of this, is besides debunking the entire thing we actually see a reading where the reader has almost all misses but by getting one small hit here or there the impression the person is left with afterwards is that the psychic was amazing and couldn't have possibly known and was always correct.
Their minds somehow disregarded all the misses and just focused on the hit. Confirmation bias.

Again, it's a lot of information to explain, if anyone is interested in seeing full-time professional psychics investigated by someone who knows the tricks then these videos would be interesting.

In another video he chooses 5 psychics in the London area and visits them telling then he is the owner of a restaurant and he gives them all his card and tells them he will return on another day for a reading.
The card has a website for the restaurant and has a "history" page that tells of it's past that included a murder in the 1800's and how a ghost is reported being seen often.

The card, the ghost and the murder are all fake, made up just to see if the psychic uses the information.
All 5 times each psychic reports that they feel a terrible act was commited at the restaurant and the spirit is still wandering around. So they all looked at the website and that's the extent of their psychic powers.

I know it's only 5 people but then watch the episode in Sedona. There are other videos he's done as well including an astrology episode where he learned astrology and did readings for an entire classroom. He handed them each a reading written on paper.
The majority of the people were astonished at how accurate the readings were.
Then he had everyone switch papers and it turned out they all said the same thing.

I feel like there should be some type of confirmation that psychic abilities are real, if they only produce results equal to random guessing then what would be the use of saying they exist?
Like how no one predicted 9/11. That seems like an issue.

You're right about the random number generator type tests, they never show any skew towards esp.

I know some people will say "you can't test psychic abilities with science" but that doesn't work for me.
I feel like if it can't be quantified neither can giving a quantifiable prediction so it's a wash.


Actually Derren Brown isn't just a debunker he does some AMAZING tricks, mind reading, he's better than David Blaine

[Deb]

I really don't understand why so many horrendous things have been done in the name of religion. And not just Christianity.

I recently found something that comes close to an explanation for me, other than the obvious one that people will defend their belief system (or religion) as being right and everyone else is wrong. I recently read a book by Mark Manson, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck (very enjoyable, the opposite of the "you are special" of new age teachings, maybe a balance check, mostly saying that when people think they are perfect the way they are they begin to feel entitled and stop trying to grow and improve). Mark talked a little about Ernest Becker and his book Denial of Death. Among others, Manson mentions Jesus (a symbol of denial of death) being immortalized by the Bible. The Bible does have a recurrent theme of resurrection and immortality, now that I think about it, a great way to get more followers of Christianity by promising immortality to those fearing death.

"The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism. Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, by focusing our attention mainly on our symbolic selves. This symbolic self-focus takes the form of an individual's "immortality project" (or "causa sui project"), which is essentially a symbolic belief-system that ensures oneself is believed superior to physical reality. By successfully living under the terms of the immortality project, people feel they can become heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal; something that will never die as compared to their physical body. This, in turn, gives people the feeling that their lives have meaning, a purpose, and are significant in the grand scheme of things.

"Becker argues that the arbitrariness of human-invented immortality projects makes them naturally prone to conflict. When one immortality project conflicts with another, it is essentially an accusation of 'wrongness of life', and so sets the context for both aggressive and defensive behavior. Each party will want to prove its belief system is superior, a better way of life. Thus these immortality projects are considered a fundamental driver of human conflict, such as in wars, bigotry, genocide, and racism."

I know some people will say "you can't test psychic abilities with science" but that doesn't work for me.
I feel like if it can't be quantified neither can giving a quantifiable prediction so it's a wash.

You've Googled "scientific proof of telepathy" ?  There seems to be a lot of articles to look at. From sources like Yale Scientific, Smithsonian Magazine...

Jeez, this topic has veered so far off course I'm not sure there's a way to split off posts to get us back on topic... I'll have to think about that. 

[Joelr]

You've Googled "scientific proof of telepathy" ?  There seems to be a lot of articles to look at. From sources like Yale Scientific, Smithsonian Magazine...

Jeez, this topic has veered so far off course I'm not sure there's a way to split off posts to get us back on topic... I'll have to think about that. 

Yes I just read all those articles. In 2 cases it's not ESP in the sense we think of it, it involves technology reading brainwaves and then sending information to someone else through a headset. It's not 6th sense psychic powers type stuff.

In one article it just gave a summary of experiments a man has been working on for many years but the findings are interperative and not conclusive.

Then the child who has "telepathy" can only do it with his mother, it's very sketchy.

Then articles by Dean Radin who I'm not sure I trust, he makes his living selling new-age stuff.

This is what I mean, whenever you take time to see what's up with ESP studies the findings and results are either disappointing or sketchy.

James Randi has offered 1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate ESP at his institute.
If you google the James Randi challenge there is a video of someone actually passing the test and proving ESP but it's a video posted on April 1 and is a joke (just so you don't watch the whole thing for nothing).

I hear people say that psychic abilities cannot be tested in a lab or be tested by a scientific method and that's why there are no definitive results but that really doesn't make sense.
If you can't get definitive results with testing then you can't get results with any method which leaves psychic powers as reliable as random guessing.
Which also means it's redundant to even say it's a real thing. If it's as good as guessing then it IS guessing.

Lynn Mctaggart mentioned lots of positive results in her book The Field but upon further investigation I found that lots of those stats were interpreted incorrecty and there was a bit of fudging going on.
Another big problem is people do experiments with supposed amazing results, like that water guy, Emo something....where water responds to emotion. Those experiments have been reproduced many times and they never work for anyone else.

Same with The Intention Experiment by Mctaggart and Dr William Tiller who did these fascinating experiments with imprinting intention onto these devices, I even bought his book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Tiller
He claims he's proven intention can effect matter and that scholarship wont' accept his work.
This was 10 years ago and any attempts for other teams to reproduce his work hasn't panned out so I don't know?

I've followed many of the critiques of his work and have realized he's a bit nutty. He claims to have discovered "subtle energy" which is related to the spiritual world. He's also using lots of buzzwords "we are spirits using a physical body", and has lately gone fully off the rails with his new-age babble.

Tiller was another person who gained momentum right after The Secret and What the Bleep Do We Know? came out.
Tiller was actually in What the Bleep so that got him going.

All of those authors, Joe Vitale, Radin, Michael Beckwith, Dooley, etc... all wrote books about the Law of Attraction that was promised to change your reality however you wanted it to.
James Arthur Ray was a self proclaimed master of LOA, he spoke a lot in the Secret, then he went to jail for 2 years after some of his guests died during hot meditation.


The whole scene is just embarrassing. It ruined new age for me.

[transient amnesia]

...

[Joelr]

Interesting connection,

Seth said:

"Christ, the historical Christ, was not crucified. - You will have to give me time here. (Pause.)

He had no intention of dying in that manner; but others felt that to fulfill the prophecies in all ways, a crucifixion was a necessity. Christ did not take part in it (Pause.) There was a conspiracy in which Judas: played a role an attempt to make a martyr out of Christ.  The man chosen was drugged-hence the necessity of helping him carry the cross (see Luke:23) and he was told that he was the Christ. He believed that he was. He was one of deluded, but he also himself believed that he, not the historical Christ, was to fulfill the prophecies. "


I recently found this in one of the Nag Hamaddi scrolls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Treatise_of_the_Great_Seth

Second Treatise of the Great Seth is an apocryphal Gnostic writing discovered in the Codex VII of the Nag Hammadi codices and dates to around the third century. The author is unknown, and the Seth referenced in the title appears nowhere in the text. Instead Seth is thought to reference the third son of Adam and Eve to whom gnosis was first revealed, according to some gnostics. The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance."

Those who believe Jesus to have died on the cross are said to believe in "a doctrine of a dead man." All those without gnosis - including those who had what would become orthodox beliefs, as well as the figures of Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, the prophets, and Moses - are all referred to as a "laughingstock." The text shows the derision which the gnostics felt towards those who did not realize their supposed "truth"; that the biblical text was false (in at least certain important respects) and that the God of the Jews was not the true God. Only the gnostics have access to the "truth".

The Treatise of the Great Seth is written from the first-person perspective of "Jesus".

Some Gnostics believed Jesus was not a man but a docetistic spirit, and therefore could not die. From the translation by Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons:" (end quote)


One of the Nag Hamaddi was given to Jung in 1961 but that was codex 1. I know Jane was into Jung. This text was from codex VII which according to Wiki was not translated until 1977, after Jane wrote that Seth stuff (I think?) So I don't think Jane would have seen this codex.

Obviously Seth does not claim to be related to Gnostic text (as far as I know?) but it is an interesting coincidence as they both are saying the same thing about the crufixion being someone other than Jesus. I admit it's just one point so it could just be a coincidence and "Seth" isn't that uncommon of a name (Adam and Eve's 3rd son was Seth) but still.....


Wait, did I just find a Seth connection that no one has ever known before? Or am I getting ahead of myself?

[Sena]

Joel, I think Joseph Atwill is more plausible than the Great Seth story:

"American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October 2013 to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. ....

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

[Joelr]

Joel, I think Joseph Atwill is more plausible than the Great Seth story:

"American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October 2013 to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. ....

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

Ugg Atwill, beware of crank theories. Read Richard Carriers review post before taking Atwill serious.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664

"Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university......"

[Sena]

Joel, I think Joseph Atwill is more plausible than the Great Seth story:

"American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October 2013 to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. ....

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

Ugg Atwill, beware of crank theories. Read Richard Carriers review post before taking Atwill serious.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664

"Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university......"

"Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists, was published November 12, 2015, with foreword and afterword by Richard Carrier."
"Per any evidence outside of the New Testament, for Jesus's existence, Carrier writes;

There is no independent evidence of Jesus's existence outside the New Testament. All external evidence for his existence, even if it were fully authentic (though much of it isn't), cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels. None of it can be shown to independently corroborate the Gospels as to the historicity of Jesus. Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives."

"Carrier asserts that originally "Jesus was the name of a celestial being, subordinate to God, with whom some people hallucinated conversations"[87] and "The Gospel began as a mythic allegory about the celestial Jesus, set on earth, as most myths then were"[87] (see Jesus in comparative mythology). Stories were created that placed Jesus on Earth, in context with historical figures and places. Eventually people began to believe that these allegorical stories were real.[87][89]

A celestial being, subordinate to God:
Carrier notes, "Jesus was originally a god just like any other god (properly speaking, a demigod in pagan terms; an archangel in Jewish terms; in either sense, a deity), who was later historicized."[4] (I would be inclined to agree with this)
Hallucinated conversations:
Carrier gives as example Joseph Smith—the founder of Mormonism—who declared that he had conversations with the Angel Moroni."

"Reviewing On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Christina Petterson of the University of Newcastle, Australia, in the academic journal Relegere, says Carrier's methodology is "tenuous", that she was "shocked" by the way he uses mathematics,and that Carrier uses statistics in a way that seems designed "to intentionally confuse and obfuscate". Petterson says that statements in the book "reveal Carrier's ignorance of the field of New Testament studies and early Christianity"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier#Jesus_ahistoricity_theory

Slanging matches appear to be the rule in Jesus studies.

Joel, you and Carrier may well be right about Atwill. I am personally not inclined to take Jesus seriously.
The gods of Candomblé are probably as credible as Jesus.

[Joelr]

"Reviewing On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Christina Petterson of the University of Newcastle, Australia, in the academic journal Relegere, says Carrier's methodology is "tenuous", that she was "shocked" by the way he uses mathematics,and that Carrier uses statistics in a way that seems designed "to intentionally confuse and obfuscate". Petterson says that statements in the book "reveal Carrier's ignorance of the field of New Testament studies and early Christianity"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier#Jesus_ahistoricity_theory

Slanging matches appear to be the rule in Jesus studies.

Joel, you and Carrier may well be right about Atwill. I am personally not inclined to take Jesus seriously.
The gods of Candomblé are probably as credible as Jesus.

Carrier wrote a piece about that review where he pointed out she admitted to not understanding the math and had no actual criticisms of his book. In his archives there is a page that lists all the reviews for each of his books and he writes about them sometimes showing the criticism is just apologetics and absurd and sometimes stuff needs further explaining, anyway.....for the life of me I cannot find that page. I have links to individual review discussions they are under "archives" but I can't find any parent archive page and searches don't work under "review responses".
.

So the hell with it, if Carrier doesn't want to organize his blog so people can actually find stuff then I can't go any further with that. It's a page with every review of every book and a link to a response and it's just IMPOSSIBLE to locate?? Lame?

[Joelr]

"Reviewing On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Christina Petterson of the University of Newcastle, Australia, in the academic journal Relegere, says Carrier's methodology is "tenuous", that she was "shocked" by the way he uses mathematics,and that Carrier uses statistics in a way that seems designed "to intentionally confuse and obfuscate". Petterson says that statements in the book "reveal Carrier's ignorance of the field of New Testament studies and early Christianity"."

Ok here it is:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12038

this is a response by Carrier to Christina Petterson's review, he really chopped her up pretty good.

Carrier tends to really bring out anger in people as do all of the atheist/mythicist theory people do.
It's really neither here nor there if you're not a Christian anyways, it doesn't really matter what the exact history was. It's like Hercules and Zeus, who cares how the myth started. But since I was raised christian the historicity stuff is interesting to me.

But the more interesting questions are the metaphysical questions, like what is reality. It's cool that Seth put his model forward. It's a much much more realistic model than religion offers anyways.

[Sena]

Christ believers, Horus believers, Hunahapu believers, are into the same concepts, for their own culture.

ST, welcome back to the forum. Horus is Egyptian, Hunahapu is Native American. There was a post recently about "That Art Thou" (Tat Twam Asi).

[Deb]

I thought I'd toss this into the mix, it's an unpublished session from one of Rob's typed transcript, courtesy of Ron Card on Facebook who has original transcripts with some unpublished sessions. I'll be adding this to the related "Seth On" topic when I get the time.

Seth: "The exploits of the historical Christ were composed of the activities of several men, wound into myth and fantasy – woven into a tale so spectacular, however, that it changed the course of civilization. Christianity is so important precisely because it is not based upon that realm of activity that you call fact.

Christianity gained its vitality because its roots superseded the world of fact, and formed the legend of a man called Christ, who within himself contained the most divine attributes that man could imagine, and gave birth in an historical context to an understandable picture of man's greater reality. Men believed what they wanted to believe, and so from the lives of several men they formed a legend – each believing the legend to be true. One of the men, Paul, was a charlatan. Yet he was a miracle-worker, for he inflamed men's imaginations and in his deception proved the validity of a vision in which he himself did not believe.

Now, the story of Paul comes down to you, and the story of his miraculous conversion — yet there were numberless unknown others as "legitimately" struck by God — awakened into truth, who followed other Gods, other pathways that were not accepted in your historic line of continuity. None of this contradicts the existence of the Christ spirit — which always existed despite, or separate from, the individual or individuals involved.

There were miracle-workers all over Jerusalem. Rome was dead already, and no fire was burning. That fire became Christianity, but it burned messiahs in its wake. Early Christianity was filled with fire, and only its oriental connections gave it touches of mercy.

The texts were rewritten time and time again. In some ways Paul destroyed more than he saved. It took centuries for the theories to jell."

- Seth's unpublished session 748 for June 2, 1975.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

[Joelr]

That is interesting. But what the history is looking like is that the Jesus story had already been done and was moving through Asia  - Romulus, Zalmoxus, Innanna, and four other pre-Christian gods that we know for sure were before Christ.
They all contained elements of a personal savior demi-god who battled satan/death, died and was ressurected and baptisim into the cult gave a follower forgiveness of sins and entry into an eternal realm. 12 apostles, virgin birth, carpenter demi-god, all that stuff was created with this new model.

The Jewish version was the last version. It's believed that writers of early scripture were looking for a way to re-vitalize Judaisim because the Jesus story is also a re-working of Moses and Isaih but for a new generation, which also included the new updated demi-god myth that was popular. People were tired of going to temple daily so Jesus replaced that need as well. Also the temple was destroyed.

Because of the Persian invasion and other wars the cultures were being mixed. The Seth version seems to give a lot of emphasis on Christ being a sort of original movement - "Christ entity" seems a bit intense being that it's really just mythology.
So is there a "Hercules entity" or a Thor entity or whatnot? If there is a Christ entity then why not an "entity" for every single myth? What about Santa Clause?
Seth's material on Christ seems to be influenced by Jane is what I'm getting at.

[Deb]

The texts were rewritten time and time again. In some ways Paul destroyed more than he saved. It took centuries for the theories to jell.

Blame it all on Paul. Just sayin'.

"CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS is a work of investigative history. It documents and describes Christianity's creation-event, which occurred in the year 49 or 50, in Antioch (present-day Antakya, Turkey), 20 years after Jesus had been crucified in Jerusalem for sedition against Roman rule. At this event, Paul broke away from the Jewish sect that Jesus had begun, and he took with him the majority of this new Jewish sect's members; he convinced these people that Jesus had been a god, and that the way to win eternal salvation in heaven is to worship him as such."

[. . .]

"This book also explains and documents the tortuous 14-year-long conflict Paul had had with this sect's leader, Jesus's brother James, a conflict which caused Paul, in about the year 50, to perpetrate his coup d'état against James, and to start his own new religion: Christianity. 

"Then, this historical probe documents that the four canonical Gospel accounts of the words and actions of "Jesus" were written decades after Jesus, by followers of Paul, not by followers of Jesus; and that these writings placed into the mouth of "Jesus" the agenda of Paul. Paul thus became, via his followers, Christ's ventriloquist."

https://www.amazon.com/CHRISTS-VENTRILOQUISTS-Event-Created-Christianity-ebook/dp/B007Q1H4EG/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

[chasman]

hey Deb,
      you remind me of a term I read years ago...... Pauline Christianity:

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

[Sena]

hey Deb,
      you remind me of a term I read years ago...... Pauline Christianity:

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

chasman, Paul was a nice guy.

"This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." (Paul to the Thessalonians)

http://biblehub.com/esv/2_thessalonians/1.htm

[chasman]

wow. brutal.
Jesus was teaching love.
that quote from Paul does not paint a loving picture.

imagine instead a loving, unconditionally loving God and Lord.
non-judgmental. nurturing. all forgiving. all caring.
those would be the God and Lord for me.

[Deb]

imagine instead a loving, unconditionally loving God and Lord.
non-judgmental. nurturing. all forgiving. all caring.

And that sounds like ATI to me. The Safe Universe.

I don't know, could be due to my lack of religious education (despite the efforts of family and more recently, neighbors), but Paul is starting to sound like a bit if a fanatic to me.

[chasman]

right on Deb.
very good.
thank you.

I have no religion. have not for decades.
born and raised Catholic.
but that was long ago now.
that said, I've said it before, but perhaps its worth repeating.
as for religion, I like what the Dalai Lama said:
my religion is simple. my religion is kindness.

as for God, ATI, I think of the source of all good kind things. the source of love power.
joy energy.
I wonder if Jesus (who taught love), would have been a-pauled (appalled), at what Paul said. lol
when I think of God, I think of wisdom.
and to me, to be kind is to be wise.

[Joelr]

The texts were rewritten time and time again. In some ways Paul destroyed more than he saved. It took centuries for the theories to jell.

Blame it all on Paul. Just sayin'.

"CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS is a work of investigative history. It documents and describes Christianity's creation-event, which occurred in the year 49 or 50, in Antioch (present-day Antakya, Turkey), 20 years after Jesus had been crucified in Jerusalem for sedition against Roman rule. At this event, Paul broke away from the Jewish sect that Jesus had begun, and he took with him the majority of this new Jewish sect's members; he convinced these people that Jesus had been a god, and that the way to win eternal salvation in heaven is to worship him as such."

[. . .]

"This book also explains and documents the tortuous 14-year-long conflict Paul had had with this sect's leader, Jesus's brother James, a conflict which caused Paul, in about the year 50, to perpetrate his coup d'état against James, and to start his own new religion: Christianity.

"Then, this historical probe documents that the four canonical Gospel accounts of the words and actions of "Jesus" were written decades after Jesus, by followers of Paul, not by followers of Jesus; and that these writings placed into the mouth of "Jesus" the agenda of Paul. Paul thus became, via his followers, Christ's ventriloquist."

https://www.amazon.com/CHRISTS-VENTRILOQUISTS-Event-Created-Christianity-ebook/dp/B007Q1H4EG/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

That book is full of speculation and has not passed peer review by the pHD history community. The actual field of biblical studies have pointed out that Mark might have already been written when Paul wrote his letters because Paul references only revelation and scripture.

There is no evidence that Jesus has an Earthly brother except in ACTS which is fiction created by the church to add facts to Jesus's life.

[Joelr]

wow. brutal.
Jesus was teaching love.
that quote from Paul does not paint a loving picture.

imagine instead a loving, unconditionally loving God and Lord.
non-judgmental. nurturing. all forgiving. all caring.
those would be the God and Lord for me.

Jesus was teaching lots of things. In Matthew he said he does not come for peace but with the sword for non-believers and he will cast them into an eternal lake of fire.

Jesus teaching only love is a new-age idea that isn't based in reality at all.

In Mark Jesus sens a disciple to a town and he says:
"Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you.... It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." In other words - Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus taught vengence, death to non-believers, it's ok to rape a slave girl, and many many mean and violent ideas, not just love. Not even close.

Just pick up a bible and read the new testament.