quoting certain Seth passages here on page 366 in Seth Speaks.

First Seth presents us with another way to look at JC versus what got written up in the bible. the way I see it Seth is extolling the virtues of JC and means no disrespect. As well, Seth says pg 328 there will be a 2nd coming (Matthew 24) so that prediction is true I believe. I never believed in the 2nd coming, so I find this incredibly hopeful news that he would actually come back in the flesh and teach once more.
Seth would not inform us of this event unless he was on the same side as JC, so efforts to discredit Seth are hardly worth the energy, my opinion.

We all suspect JC was a rebel rouser, a revolutionist type as well as quite human, with a sense of humor and all those human traits we all have to some degree. Here on pg 328 Seth says JC will return to begin a new religious drama, he will return to straighten out Christianity which will be in shambles at the time of his arrival, and to set up a new system of thought. By that time all religions will be in severe crisis. He will set out to undermine religious organizations (as every good revolutionist knows exactly how to do this) He will not unite religion as I thought was the course to take once; his message will be, as we practice here, what is the individual's relation to All That Is.

He will clearly state methods by which each individual can attain a state of intimate contact with his own entity (I/there) the entity to some extent being man's mediator (HS) with All That Is.

by 2075 all this will be accomplished.

LR speaketh: sounds like fun to me! I'm putting in my reservations to be around and help out!

side note: page 163 talks about ELS being an experiment. We've talked about that here somewhat.
Page 366-368, 409 discuss the crucifixion was false. That JC was so far advanced, that he had no intention of being crucified.

Indeed, as reported by the bible, the man on the cross asked of God "why hast thou forsaken me?"

logically, a man of JC's evolvement would not experience such a feeling of weakness, he would have been quite capable of seeing the writing on the wall, thus shaping his own destiny. what he is said to have done is simply disappear after visiting with the disciples.

I like to think he could transpose his body into light and disappear in that way but I'll have to get back with you on that one!

Also, in my mind, I see Mary knowing all about the fiasco of the false crucifixion. the bible reports her going to the tomb to view her son and discovering the tomb was empty. For one thing, a mother would logically have remained with her son all through the night, not gone home and returned to discover the body later and do that swaddling stuff they did.
and from out of love, she would have never left her son alone on the cross. she would have stayed all night.
So the empty tomb was another story. it is reported by Seth the false Christ was put in the tomb, then later removed and buried somewhere by the group who did not want the authorities to know they not crucified JC. If Mary did not stay all nite, and actually did come forth to an empty tomb later, then she knew full well her son was not in the tomb, and that would have been the reason for not staying all night with JC near the cross.

There is no way we can insist, in all honesty and love for the Christ, that he die for "our" sins. so therefore I say Christianity needs an overhaul, but not JC himself. He is still here as the voice that speaks for God.

die for your own sins. don't make someone else die for you! Christianity teaches you to suffer.
I think I've just about had enough of suffering; I'm ready to experience more deep down joy of the spirit. how about the rest of you?

I just repeat my concerns I've written to Ronny on another thread:

Hi Ronny,
so let's take the "choosing a path" model and have a look at it.

  It remains the problem that when there are entities moving on a path in time, they are different entities than those who, at a branching point, chose another direction, "split off", so to say. Thus it would not be appropriate to speak of "other versions" or "parallel versions" of a person, if we not make the additional assumption that we speak not of our here-now-in-the-physical self but instead of a higher self which is containing all the split-offs of us; between these parts of a higher self then may be a form of information exchange take place, the so-called bleed-throughs. Or we don't allow split-offs, but then, if we keep the already existing path model, we had two types of paths: Those on which an entity is moving, and those which are "empty", we might call them "realized/manifested" vs. "virtual/unmanifested". But there's a problem. It doesn't make much sense to me to speak of those empty paths, as the entity moving on a path seems to be an integral part of the path itself. Imagine a path of a person, but without that person. That doesn't make much sense. So then, we have infinite paths of persons.

The practical value of this model is another question to consider. It would only make a difference if we in any way had access to more than one path at the same time. That's, in my understanding, is what Seth/Roberts called "bleed throughs". Because if access to only one path is possible, it just won't make any difference, we had our one world, and the infinite number of other paths just wouldn't matter to every single I here, now. The very, very most of informations of our other versions on different paths would be totally confusing and meaningless to us, as most paths, would be so different that we wouldn't recognize anything there, the more the longer the branch-off lies back in time.

Also remaining is the question after the circumstances under which branch-off points are set.

There's another funny thing coming from the infinite number of paths. When there is actually an infinite number of paths, meaning an infinite number of possibilities/realities, then there might be an infinite number of paths which are the same, given the possibility that a branch-off can be created, and in the following the differences of the two (or more) paths can be leveled out again. Even when the chances are very little, but not zero, we'd have an infinity of those same-paths.

Btw, the concept of free will doesn't sound very convincing to me, at least when the term is used as it is commonly used. We had a discussion about it here:
http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1189351469/0

Spooky

Dude:

Then why did Jane Roberts Seth say that much of Christ's humor was lost??????????????????????




I Am Dude wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:23am:

Regarding Alysia's post,  as I agreed on another post, at times Jane Roberts Seth seemed to speak well of Jesus, at other times she said things that don't add up.

Regarding whether Jesus would tolerate being crucified, one time I prayed and asked if he was crucified, and in a clear way I received the word "willingly." This word came with a feeling. Jesus was more than willing to fulfill his destiny.

It is hard to imagine that some of his disciples would take part in a scheme to crucify an innocent man in Jesus' place. I know that I wouldn't take part in such a ploy. I figure I should give Jesus's disciples as much credit.

It is also important to consider that Jane Roberts Seth used the gospels to make her case that Jesus wasn't crucified. Therefore, regardless of what translation issues took place, the gospels are admissible evidence. There are numerous verses which show that Jesus was well aware that he would be crucified. Why would he have such an awareness if a deluded drugged man was crucified in his place?  Jane Roberts Seth claim that Peter denied Jesus three times because somebody other than Jesus was caputured.  Why would Jesus tell Peter that he would deny him (Jesus) three times, if Peter ended up denying somebody other than Jesus?

It sure seems to me that Jane Roberts Seth went out of her way to twist the meaning of what the gospels say.  If a person doesn't choose to use kean discernment and instead comes up with excuses,  he or she is likely to be misled.  Defending for the sake of defending isn't wisdom.

Dude:

The last comment wasn't directed towards you. There are some people that defend every source that is questioned. I don't believe you do this.

I believe it is great that you can find useful information in a source without having to consider the source infallible.

Sorry, my mistake Recoverer.  I understand where you are coming from.  Not every source is for everyone.  I respect your decision.

Cricket wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 10:28am:


  I use to believe a similar thing as in the above, particularly so when i somewhat briefly and temporarily opened myself up to Alice Bailey's work. 

  She talked about all these supposed historical correlations and similarities between other figures of history and Yeshua.   Supposedly the whole nine yards of virgin birth, enlightened teaching for a time, sacrificial death, and resurrection.   

  Later on, i questioned these beliefs, and decided to do more research.   Well i found that her claims were greatly exaggerated when compared to a cross section of both historical info and myth oriented info.   For example, she claimed that Lao Tsu was born of a virgin, yadad yadayada, well most Chinese philosophy and historical scholars will argue that Lao Tsu is a bit of a made up character to begin with, and many lean to believing that perhaps he represents a synthesis of various ancient Chinese teachings rolled into one. 

  But the main point is, we know very, very little historically about many of these characters, many of whom were quite farther in the past than Yeshua, if they were real to begin with.   History without detailed documentation is kind of like that phone game with passing whispers around the room from ear to ear. 

  While Don/Beserk and I disagree strongly on quite a few things, he did give a great and informed talk about this very subject here once i believe, and he found similar major inconsistencies and exaggerations between the Yeshua is so not unique at all theory. 

  Anyways, there does seem to be at least "some" of that, more objectively speaking.   Interestingly, the Edgar Cayce readings, the most independently verified outer source that i've ever looked into so far, gave a unique perspective on the "Jesus Soul", and said that as a Soul or Spirit essence, he has either directly or indirectly influenced every major thought and belief system which strongly emphasizes and professes the Oneness of All Force/Consciousness. 

  In some cases, this was a direct physical incarnation/personality as a spiritual teacher among humanity, or as they said in the case of Buddha, something like, "When Buddha meditated, the Christ Spirit communed with him."

  Apparently, Jesus's Disk had expressed quite a few known and not so well known Biblical characters, like Enoch, Melichizedek, Joshua, Joseph, Asaph the temple musician and right hand man of David, and various others.   Some of these other lives had some similar parallels or similarities to his life as Yeshua Ben Yosef.

  Cayce's work also suggests that the Jesus Soul was the main person responsible for and genius behind the designing of the Great Pyramid, and this figure later on became known as Hermes and Thoth in different cultures.  (there are some suggestions that this came character, was known as "Enoch" by what later became the Hebrews/Jews).

  He said it was this figure, this Teacher of teachers, and not Ra who was the true wisdom behind the immense spiritual heritage of the ancient Egyptians, and interestingly in some old myths, like some ancient Arabic ones, it is said that Ra was the mouthpiece of Thoth, who was the Heart. 

  In another reading generally about the Jesus Soul, specifically as his life as Y.B.Y., his source said something like, "out of the millions who have entered the Earth as teachers and helpers of humankind, only Yeshua fulfilled completely and held to the Whole Law all the way through."  Yet this same source was emphatic that we all could do likewise.

  Perhaps if this is true, this is why there has ever only been found one artifact like the Shroud of Turin?

  Perhaps Jesus and his Disk is more unique in ways that most of us aren't willing to open ourselves up to in this life?   I kind of see him as just another Child of Source like the rest of us, but also an outstanding spiritual prodigy and phenomenon comparatively speaking to the rest.  I mean the dude just cut through illusion faster than anyone else ever has.  Both as a "Disk", and especially as the personality Yeshua B. Y.

  There are some suggestions in both the Bible, the Cayce readings, and in other sources completely unrelated to same, that Yeshua's Disk is the very Co-Creator God of this particular Universe, the "logos" in this Reality.   Often enough, we find in some channeled sources, in some NDE's and other info like this where "Yeshua" shows up, like in one of Monroe's books, we find him referring to us as "my child" or "my children". 

  Perhaps he means that in many cases literally (in that his Essence was the womb from which many of our Souls emerged)?  Perhaps we too will become like him in other Universes and in other worlds.  Perhaps if all the above is true, he deserves a lot more respect than so many of us actually give him, for he has always been there trying to help all of us to be happy/joyful again?    And yet look at how much vitriol hate, disdain, dislike, disrespect, and misrepresentation is constantly directed his way.

   Those who have had various experiences with this Consciousness just do not tend to treat or think of him in such ways.   In my experience and in my relating with others who have had experiences with same, the utmost respect is usually felt towards this Consciousness, this once man (and still very involved with the physical btw with same body image he had 2000 years ago), this Disk, this Co-Creator God.   He IS literally PUL and Light, and his original birth from out of Source was the birth of same.  Course, most will not believe this until they have their own experiences and deeper intuitions with this subject.

  And that's ok, but sometimes i like to remind people that things may be a little different than they currently believe.   "He" doesn't always like this about me, but hey, i'm human yet.