Mathew,

you said:

"Its all about belief. "

That is how i try to look at it myself, but you see even i didnt posted just now i have been reading this board for awhile i though i post my question and i'll find some answer, which thanks to Don i did.


Seems like everyone here most of the time want everything is tested before they can be trusted,
but at the same time the most outlandish ideas are accepted as real and truth.

Basically this generated doubt, and lead me to check on at least what i believe should be able to historically verify  which was the pope, but seems to be nothing but a lie.

I didn't question if jane roberts fake it or not because i don't believe that, for the simple reason,
if she was faking at least  she would of find a person in the history who could of been legitimate.

I'm questioning seth himself, because i would assume he should of known his own reincarnation self.
But apperently didn't.

*freesoul*

Hmmm Seth was the real first "channeled material" and since then, hundreds of others have appeared on internet, including Elias,Kris and Abraham...The channelers charge huge amounts of money and make thousands of dollars each day...I believe that most of these people channeling are dishonest and fake the sessions they have. Anyone with a deep understanding of Seth can do the same.

Quote:


 Not quite.  Edgar Cayce was the first "real channeled material" and was the forerunner of many various channelers.   Many seemed to have borrowed from his example, like Paul Solomon who gave readings exactly like Cayce, but never gave anything which was verified.

Seth, and Seth's verifications are not a hundreth of the amount of verifications and testings that E.C. went through for 40 or so years.  At one point Cayce had a team of skeptical doctors put pins in him and pull back his little nail while he was in "trance" because they thought he was "faking it", and while he didn't flinch or feel a thing when this was happening, he certainly felt it after, and this is just a taste of some of the extreme stuff he went through....  He didn't just have psychologist watch him give readings, he had a big German (who was president of the Harvard psych. depart.) barge into his house and demand that he give a reading, and the guy was absolutely convinced afterwards, and saying "i don't know how you do it, but keep on doing it" and he gave him advice that he was hanging out with the wrong crowd (which at the time he was, like Dr. Ketchum who used Cayce in many respects and occasionally made gambling bets off this source of info and became more or less rich)

 Many, and rightly so, call E.C. the father of holistic health, and in America much of this movement can be related back to E.C.'s influence in some manner.

 Same with spiritualistic phenomena, many, many famous people who have spoken out about their beliefs attribute much to E.C. and his psychic readings.

 Like late famous NDE author and researcher Elizabeth Kubler Ross M.D., or famous actress Shirly McClaine, and more than a few medical doctors and chiropractors give the readings much credit to their understanding and actual treatment of health problems.   Many mainstream doctors are much more closeminded and really only treat [symptoms.  I have much personal experience with this, as well as watching my brother and mother go through this with established and accepted mainstream medicine.

 Edgar Cayce is the single most published subject on record in the Congress Library, with books either directly about him, his life, or relating to his readings in some manner.

 Roberts and Seth came many, many, many years after, and i think if that E.C hadn't been around, then things might be a bit more underground now in the spiritual and holistic health subjects, because so many have researched Cayce's readings and his life and have walked away thinking that this guy was the real deal.

 Cayce's Source said this phenomena and these readings were the "forerunner of the Christ Consciousness in the Earth" and this Source has outlined many of the major trends geologically, politically, spiritually and otherwise in the Earth...

Way before John Major Jenkins and others like Bruce Moen (him more indirectly) were talking about the Galactic Center and the year 1998, and our alignment with it in that year and in the future being indicative of many changes, particulary spiritual, Cayce mentioned this year, time and time again...

 And many i have talked too, noticed how intense and transformative that year was for them, particulary in the spiritual growth department... It was like everything has been amped up since 98' and here is Cayce talking about it like what 60 or 70 years ago, along with talking about a Global Warming trend which would indicate the Earth Changes beginning to speed up.

 

Quote:


Hmm, what about aleister crowleys channeling of aiwass...1904, i believe it was...
The book of the law, by aleister crowley.
A pecular occult oddity.

but even before that the bible seems to be a channeled material.

Just like the ten commandments could be interpreted as moses channeling the god?, heh.  Jeez, the egyptians may of had channeled material way before that...

Spiritualism rose up in the 19th century....before Cayce. I imagine that there were communications or reports of them throughout history. ...like the Oracle at Delphi. The history of this has been suppressed. Here is a short history of spiritualism but I'm sure you can find more...

http://www.isfederation.org/history.htm

Maybe you would find it interesting to visit a spiritualist church. Once I did and the speaker for the day talked about growing up with these goifts but being told by her family that she could not allow them to be...and that her Catholic family didn't like her involvement with the spiritualists regardless of what it meant to her.

Speaking of suppressed history...somehow worrying about the vaidity of a pope's name seems trivial in comparison to looking at the history of that office.  I think of the young Catholic girls who have been shamed because they tried to find love in some guy's arms (and perhaps wound up with a little bundle of joy...) and the adults who acted as if the pope and priests were sanctified in the same breath as that with which they condemned the girls...and to learn in history that there have been popes who had children. What about the crap about thinkin gthe pope has a direct line with god? or is that what makes the double standard O.K.?

An easy place to learn some interesting things about that papacy is found in material on the Medicci family. One of the popes whi had kids was a member of that family...perhaps we sense a biy of politics in the election? So much for god...

Of course, this obvious lack of trueness in the Catholic church doesn't seem to prevent people from embracing Catholicism...

The test for Seth and any other metaphysical material is whether or not it can be lived. Can you live it well enough to drop your medical insurance and not worry? The same questions would be good for Christians....though I suppose if one can't manage to love one's neighbors as much as one loves oneself, it might just mean that one doesn't know how to love him/herself, and not that Christianity is a failure.

Quote:
Hi Don,

With respect to point #2 above, the whole Seth quote is: Quote:

My interpretation of this is that Seth was talking about his original name there, before he became Pope, not his papal name.  Also, he seems to be implying that he may not be remembering it exactly as it was.

There is a similar question about the date.  In session 588 he says he was "a minor pope in the third century," while in the class he says "I was a Pope in A.D. 300."  Rob says about this, "Since Seth gave A.D. 300 in the class session for last May, I personally think it more likely that his papal incarnation followed this date, taking place in the fourth century. ... Some of the reigns were very brief, some of the dates of tenure uncertain or estimated."

So, the points I want to make are:
(1) Seth seems to have said that Plotinus Meglemanious was his original name, not his papal name; and
(2) The time of his papacy could've been any time in the third or fourth centuries.

Also, Seth said a number of times that distortions were always possible in the words Jane spoke, compared to what Seth meant to say, and I think this is one situation where there was probably some distortion.

As to the original question posed in this thread, I don't think Seth's memory of past lives is very important in considering the possible value (or lack thereof) of his overall teachings.  Someone already said in this thread that each person needs to judge for themself whether any particular teaching is worthwhile or not.  Well, Seth himself often told people not to take his teachings as gospel, but rather to choose for themselves any of it that feels valid and useful to them.

Cheers,
Glen

Good points, recoverer.  If anyone makes fun of love your neighbor as yourself, they are not very enlightened. 

What we are left with then, is that inconsistencies don't disprove that Seth was/is an entity, but that there were glaring gaps of misinformation about historical verifiable events. 

What one has to wonder is why listen to one person/being pontificate on an entire meaning of life scenario, and then throw the quotes around as if they were a new bible?  No good reason. 

One thing is for sure; some of these channeled entities or their human interpretors sure do like to talk.  And talk.  And talk.  And some hang on their every word as if it was a golden ray of sunlight.

Ah well.  I did appreciate the Sethian dialogue and concepts.  Still do.  Whether from Jane Roberts or a discarnate essence, I took from it what I would.  So I have some thanks to give for the philosophy.

Matthew