Seems to me that the personality that Jane Roberts channels is totally in traditional character. Quoting from E A Wallis Budge's book "The Gods of the Egyptians" Vol 1, pp122 -126 (more or less)-

"The natural opponent of Osiris was Set, who typified death and destruction, and who was the god par excellence of the desert; and in various forms and told in various ways we have the narrative of the context between the powers of life and death, and light and darkness, and decay and regeneration, which appears in the religious texts of every period. In fact, Set was the opponent in every way of Osiris who ... typified the 'unbroken rejuvenescence of immortal Nature according to the Divine Will and according to eternal laws.' ...

Unfortunately we find nowhere in Egyptian works a connected narrative of the life, acts and deeds, and sufferings and death, and resurection of Osiris, the man-god, but we possess a tolerably accurate acount of them in Plutarch's "De Iside et Osiride". ...

Typhon, the Egyptian Set, and his seventy two comrades made Osiris to lie down in a chest, which was immediately closed by them, and cast into the Nile ... When Isis heard what had befallen her husband, she cut off a lock of her hair as a sign of grief, and then sent it out to find his dead body. At length she traced it to Byblos,... among the branches of a tamarisk tree, which ... had enclosed the chest ...

The king of the country, admiring the tree, had it cut down and made a pillar for the roof of his house; ... the hieroglyphic sign ... tet ... Isis begged for the pillar ... cut open and took out the chest
and her husband's body  ...

... Typhon..,. found the chest, and recognizing the body tore it into 14 pieces, which he scattered u and down throughout the land. ... When Isis heard of this she ...gathered together the fragments ..."

So Set, aka Typhon, seems to be a deceiver whose role is antithetical to resurrection and life. So long as the spiritual Set follows this general description, there is both an historical and also emotional role in which to survive. Since the forces of creation are necessarily primitive to those of destruction (else we wouldn't be here) to keep tearing down reality is a guarantee of job security. The chaos generated is thus the space in which Set operates.

There is evidence that the manner of attachment of entities is to locate a strong emotional pattern that is compatible, so that the affective space is codefinitive of both the host and entity. The entity then has the ability to enjoy that aspect of the host's life, and to make subtle suggestions to influence it by emphasizing certain of the elements of the host's feelings. For an entity that believes its nature to be negative, the story of Set, and all the other similar stories we know, give a fairly well defined space in which to exist, plus a correlated emotional reaction. It might not be much of a "living", but it's better than nothing, I suppose, and it keeps the Set entity (or entities, since we might as well toss in the 72 companions as equally likely) from having to pass through reincarnation by providing a permanent BST in which to be stuck.

For channels like Jane Roberts and a large number of others who believe themselves to be the guiding lights of the universe, their arrogance and negativity to any higher and more meaningful power is sufficient to generalize their own Set-like attitude. This evidently provides the Set spirit(s) a comfortable place to hang out.

While entity eviction is quite easy when the entities are tractable and willing to cooperate, I suspect that Jane Roberts would turn out to be a nearly impenetrable fortress by which to protect and nurture the Set spirit(s) in the name of "enlightenment". This strikes me as quite similar to drug addiction, except that it uses possession and self-aggrandizement as the reward that keeps it all stuck together. (And in contrast, Jesus' challenge to "Take up thy cross and follow me," would mean for Jane to abandon the glory of being a channel etc, returning to her natural state.)

dave

[quote author=Berserk link=1177715919/0#0 date=1177715918]Source: "Seth Speaks" 366-67:

[Seth:] “Christ, the historical Christ was not crucified...He had no intention of dying in this manner; but others felt that to fulfil the prophecies in all ways, a crucifixion was a necessity.”
______________________________________________________________________
There was no recognized Jewish prophecy of a crucified Messiah prior to Jesus’ resurrection.  Rather, Isaiah 53 was retroactively applied to Jesus’s death after His Resurrection so that His crucifixion could be understood as fulfilled prophecy.   [Seth:] “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 (Luke 23)--and he was told that he was the Christ.  He believed that he was.”
________________________________________________________. 

Seth in effect accuses Jesus of using Simon of Cyrene as a scapegoat.  Romans routinely beat their victims within an inch of their lives before crucifying them.  It is this savage beating--and not drugs--that explains the need for help in carrying the cross.

Seth has simply ripped off a universally discredited 2nd century Gnostic version of the claim that Simon--not Jesus- was crucified:

“He [Jesus] did not suffer, but a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry His cross for Him; and this Simon was transformed by Him [Jesus] so that he was thought to be Jesus himself, and was crucified through ignorance and error.   Jesus, however, too the form of Simon, and stood by laughing at them. (Irenaeus AH 24:4).”

According to this absurd Gnostic version, Jesus shapeshifts to make Himself look like  Simon of Cyrene and supernaturally transforms Simon’s appearance to make him a replica of Himself.  Then a cruel Jesus stands by the cross and laughs while Simon suffers a slow agonizing death!  Then notice the deception attributed to Jesus in making it later seem that He had in fact been crucified:  [Seth:] “Christ was a great psychic.  He caused the wounds there to appear upon his own body.” 

Of course, Seth must resort to desperate measures to rationalize how a Jesus who never died made his exit from the stage of history: [Seth:] “His physical presence was no longer necessary, and even an embarrassment under the circumstances.  He siimply willed himself out of existence (368).”  In other words, Jesus just made His physical body go “poof!”  Wow!  The Elias entity
agrees that Jesus was never crucified but contradicts Seth by claiming that Jesus lived into His 40s and moved to Macedonia.  Both claims are breath-takingly absurd. 

In fact, Simon of Cyrene had no prior connection with Jesus and was coerced into carrying a badly beaten Jesus’ cross for Him: “They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry Jesus’ cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21);  Mark notes that Alexander and Rufus are Simon’s sons because at least Rufus becomes a
member of the church at Rome.  Mark composes his Gospel in Rome.   In his epistle to the Romans, Paul greets Rufus in a flattering manner: “Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, and his mother and mine (Romans 16:13).”

So does this nonsense pour out of Jane Roberts’ unconscious or is she a victim of spirit impersonation?   Many second century Gnostics are called Sethians and The Second Word [Logos] of the Great Seth is an ancient Gnostic text.  There seems to be a close connection between ancient Gnosticism and the modern channeling of Seth and Elias.  In second century Gnosticism, Seth was viewed as the ruler of the 3rd heaven and Elias (spelled “Eloaeus,” but pronounced similarlly) was the ruler over the 5th heaven (Epiphanius, Panarion 27.10.1).  Thus, both ancient Gnosticism and modern channeling can claim that Jesus was never crucified and can give an exalted role to Seth and Elias.  This is no coincidence.   I doubt that Jane Roberts and Mary Innis ever read Epiphanius who was not even available in English translation in Jane Roberts’s time.  So I suspect that these modern entities are simply reviving and drastically changing ancient lies about Jesus.   

To see just how blasphemous these ancient Gnostics were, one need only examine their perversion of Holy Communion into a disgusting adulterous sex orgy in which the participants first have sex outside their marriages and then consume the semen and female imissions as substitutes for the bread and wine that normally represents Christ’s body and blook in the Eucharist:

“For the  husband withdraws from his own wife, and says these words to his own wife: `Rise up, make the love (feast) with the brother.’...When have had intercourse out of the passion of fornication, then...the woman and the man take the man’s semen in their own hands,..saying, `We offer thee this gift, the body of Christ...Simlarly, with the woman’s emission at her period; they
collect the mestrual blood which is unclean, take it and eat it together, and say, `This is the blood of Christ. (Epiphanius, Panarion 26.4)’”
*****************
Don,
I'm not defending the "Seth" materials here (they smack of the most
McDonald's-like variety of New Ageism) but what you have to say about the Gnostics, JUST MIGHT be derived from questionable sources.
Take the (admittedly stomach-turning) rituals you mentioned above. Perhaps this was a SLANDER - patently untrue - promulgated by the Literalists - who included such paragons of wisdom and honesty as Tertullian (a certifiable nut-case and sadist) and Eusebius (liar and fabricator extraordinaire) - to smear the Gnostics with...
*Irenaeus wasn't exactly an unbiased authority either, Don.*
Let us not forget that almost ALL current information about early Christianity, has been filtered through several centuries of ROMAN CATHOLICISM, perhaps the most bogus religious enterprise (and ENTERPRISE it is, the most lucrative in human history) ever foisted upon humanity...
Be careful with the sweeping statements about the Gnostics, chief. (OR any other such historical material, for which there is questionable documentation at best.) In your zeal to appear as a wise scholar, you end up looking like an ignorant dunderhead. (And I KNOW you're smarter than that, Don old boy..!)

B-man
P.S. EPIPHANIUS, you call a reliable source...?
Hoo-boy...
Epiphanius was a ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK of the LATE 4th CENTURY, Don. These were the type of people who were busily smashing ancient temples and grand monuments which had stood for hundreds, if not thousands of years... burning libraries, forever destroying irreplaceable knowledge accumulated over 3 millennia (gee, I wonder if a cure for cancer or whatnot was in there? We'll never know NOW, will we?) and sitting atop pillars a'la "Saint" (WTF is a "saint", anyway?) Simeon of Stylites (who among other things, had his adoring crowd of goggle-eyed groupies COLLECTING AND SELLING HIS FECES to raise money for the "cause" as it were. Not too surprising though - consider how ALL Catholic churches have at least one "relic" (i.e., corpse part) on the premises, usually immured somewhere in the altar. (Looking for your barf bag yet..?)
The very people, who gave us the DARK AGES!
Is it much of a reach, to imagine ol' Epiphanius "cooking up" a revolting story - yet, a LIE - about the Gnostics he hated? (they were COMPETING with the Literalists, after all!) All the better to get the IGNORANT MASSES on the Literalist side..!
To imagine people like Epiphanius clearly, I suggest you rent a copy of the 1971 b-movie sci-fi flick "Omega Man" (starring uber-Christian Charlton Heston!) and take a good look at the "plague vampires." Their behavior is likely a good approximation of what those gangs of 4th-5th century monks and "hermits" acted like.
(NOT a coincidence, methinks..!)

blink,

Excellent point.


E.

welcome to the board Richman. I see we have someone who is open minded, well blow me down!

I don't know one way or the other, but I'm not threatened to consider all possibilities, as you say I'm not afraid to explore dimensions of reality where events "could" have unfolded differently than our standard way of thinking about it, alternate realities are very much a part of my belief system and yet both realities could be co-existent, if both are simply movies being projected on screens, and we think we are here, when we are here but only in partial context, we are so much more than our bodies.

always, human nature is threatened by something new. we are creatures who desire our comfort zones. look out for the thought police!

I enjoy looking at all books, all peoples, I think we can get the answers we really desire by going into our private chambers.
well thanks for your post!

As to all the "hatred being vented" ... at whoever ... whether seth or christians or others ... YES ... I see that as a block to being OPEN.

Do you?  (If I am HATING anything my HEART is NOT OPEN to that person and LOVE is not flowing into me from GOD and NOT FLOWING out of me in that moment... so HATE is a block to LOVE ...from my viewpoint) LOVE your enemies means ...not agreeing but ... allowing the LOVE to flow in and out and believing doing that PRODUCES MIRACLES. And walk away from people that are doing stuff you are not into and give others the freedom to follow their heart... if they are ADULTS.

And others can be as OPEN or Blocked as they want.  I practice being OPEN and ALLOW the TRUTH to reveal itself at a deeper level (the Kingdom is Within).

As to your stuff about miracles ... that seth said Jesus did, make wounds appear, ... I think in regular bible Jesus did some miracles too, maybe different miracles.  He could do them , right? It would make sense if He did miracles it would be in LOVE and to Help people and NOT HURT them.

My impression from the Seth tape I listened to was not that the Mission of Christ was LOWER by the way she put it , but HIGHER and more profound.  Like a Being trying to help ants ... gee... how can I convey the Truth to ants in a way that was beyond where they are at , I guess become one of them and show them they are more than ants. And the King Ant and POPE Ant probably would be pissed for revealing what they are doing is "lower" compared to NEW way.

Gee bro ... we are both at OOB website and forum room ...and we are not having this conversation on Religious Christian site and forum room (different crowd )  Peace!