Jane Roberts claimed that she channeled an entity that went by the name Seth. This means that she allowed an entity named Seth to use her body to speak to people. She claimed that she made contact with Seth while using an ouija board. In Jane's book Seth Speaks (pgs. 366-368, Seth (Or Jane?) claims that Jesus wasn't crucified. Rather, Judas made arrangements so a mentally disturbed man was drugged and crucified in Jesus' place. Seth referred to what the gospels say as he tried to make his points. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to use the gospels to show that the points Seth made are erroneous.

In the Gospels of Matthew 26:21-24, Mark 14:18-25, and Luke 22:21-22, Jesus tells Judas that he would betray him. Why would Jesus tell Judas this if Judas was arranging a hoax, rather than arranging for Jesus to be captured? Matthew 26:2; Mark 8:31, 9:12, 9:32 and 10:33-34; Luke 9:44, 17:25, and 18:31-33; and John 13:31; also show that Jesus was well aware that he would be crucified. Why would Jesus have this knowledge if a hoax was taking place? The gospels also show that Jesus understood that it was his divine destiny to be crucified. If you contend that the gospels can't be totally relied on due to historical recollection and translation issues, please remember that Seth used the gospels as a basis for his arguments. Either the gospels can be used to make a point, or they can't.

Regardless of what the gospels say, after asking the following questions, I find it hard to believe that a mentally disturbed man was drugged in Jesus' place. Would Judas be able to plan a hoax without Jesus knowing about it?  Would Judas be able to get a mentally disturbed man to believe that he is Jesus? Would it be necessary to drug a delusional man, if he already believed that he was Jesus? Wouldn't it be risky for Judas to give a man who already believed that he was Jesus a drug that might interfere with his delusion? What kind of wonder drug did Judas supposedly have? Wouldn't at least one person recognize that the man being crucified isn't Jesus?   

On page 415 of The Nature of a Personal Reality, Seth states:

The "substitute" was a personality seemingly deluded, but in his delusion he knew that each person is resurrected. He took it upon himself to become the symbol of this knowledge.

I did not add the underline emphasis to the word seemingly. This emphasis can be found in The Nature of a Personal Reality. It seems to me that because Seth's story isn't based upon fact, a contradiction was made. It doesn't make sense to claim that the man who was supposedly crucified in Jesus' place was both seemingly deluded and deluded at the same time. Either he was deluded, or he wasn't.

Seth stated that Peter denied Jesus three times, because a man other than Jesus was captured. This contention isn't supported by the gospels. Matthew 26:34, 69-75; Mark 14:29-31, 66-72; Luke 22:34, 54-65; and John 13:38, 18:15-18,25-27; clearly show that Peter did indeed deny Jesus three times, because Jesus wouldn't tell Peter that he denied him three times, if somebody other than Jesus was captured.

Seth claims that Jesus appeared to his disciples after the hoax crucifixion in order to let them know that he is still alive. Seth claimed that Jesus was a great psychic and caused wounds to appear on his body so his disciples could use the wounds as a basis for identifying him. If Jesus wanted to let his disciples know that he was still alive and wasn't crucified, wouldn't he have a better chance of doing this if he didn't have wounds that made it seem as if he was crucified? Imagine how his conversation with his disciples would've played out.

Jesus: "Here I am. I wasn't crucified."

Disciple: "Then why do you have wounds on your body as if you were crucified?"

Jesus: "In order to let you know that I wasn't crucified I created them."

Disciple: "But Master, wouldn't we be more likely to believe that you weren't crucified, if you didn't have wounds on the exact parts of your body we expect you to have them?"

Jesus: “I psychically created them so you would be able to recognize me.”

Disciple: “Why wouldn’t we be able to recognize you even if you didn’t have wounds? We know you so well.”

Jesus: “Uh…uh”

Disciple: "Master, I asked you…"

Jesus: "Don't rush me. I'm trying to come up with a parable that will make this clear."

I hope the above imaginary dialogue makes it clearer on how unreasonable it is to conclude that Jesus psychically created wounds as if he was crucified, in order to prove that he wasn't crucified. If Jesus’ disciples could recognize Jesus only if they saw wounds on his body, then how did they recognize him on previous occasions? Did they suddenly in mass develop a case of dementia? I figure they knew what he looked like, what his voice sounded like, and considering that Jesus was an evolved person, they probably knew what his presence felt like. Even if for some odd reason these modes of recognition didn't work, perhaps they could've asked Jesus some questions for which a man other than Jesus wouldn't know the answer. Or perhaps they could've asked Jesus to perform a miracle or two.

Seth claims that his point is validated because Thomas accepted that Jesus was Jesus, only after he put his hand into the wound on Jesus' side. This claim demonstrates a lack of understanding of what took place. Thomas was not with the disciples the first time Jesus appeared to his disciples. When some of the disciples told Thomas that Jesus had reappeared, he said "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." (John 20:25). Eight days later Jesus appeared to his disciples again when Thomas was with them. Jesus told Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him. "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:26-29).

Nowhere within the gospels does it say that Jesus proved who he was to the rest of his disciples by the same means. He spoke to Thomas as he did in order to respond to the non-literal comments Thomas made to his fellow disciples when he said that he didn't believe that Jesus appeared to them. I say this after making the not to bold assumption that Thomas spoke just figuratively when he said that he would believe that Jesus was alive only after he sees the nail marks in his hands and put his fingers where the nails were, and put his hand into his side. He probably recognized Jesus immediately after seeing him, just as the other disciples recognized Jesus with no problem. In fact, this point is established with Jesus' statement, "Because you have seen me, you have believed” (as shared above).

There is also the matter of how Thomas knew about Jesus' wounds not only in a general way--he also knew about the wound in Jesus' side. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Thomas knew about this specific wound, because either he or one or more of the other disciples knew that Jesus was wounded in this part of his body.

Seth claimed that when Jesus couldn't convince his disciples that he was himself, he willed his life in this World to an end, because there was no point of remaining in it. I believe it is contradictory for Seth to contend that Thomas stuck his hand into Jesus' wound in order to verify that he was with Jesus, and then contend that Jesus failed to do so.

Mary Innes claims to channel an entity named Elias. Elias is supposed to be similar to Seth. Nevertheless, Seth and Elias contradict each other when it comes to the crucifixion. Elias claimed that Jesus moved to Macedonia and died of natural cause at the age of 51. Clearly Elias and Seth contradict each other. If what Elias claims is true, it is odd that Paul had to speak to Jesus' disciples in order to learn about Jesus' teachings, since Jesus could be found within Macedonia.

Suzanne Ward claims to channel her deceased son Matthew. In her book [] she wrote that Matthew's spirit told her that rather than being crucified, Jesus was whipped and then let go. Once again a well known channeled source contradicts other channeled sources about a significant event.

Alleged psychic Sylvia Browne is another person who felt it necessary to come up with a lie about how Jesus didn't die on the cross. In her book The Mystical Life of Jesus she makes Jesus sound like a whimp who made a deal with Pontious Pilot. Pilot tried to work things out so Jesus wouldn't have to be crucified. When he supposedly wasn't able to arrange things in such a way, he supposedly arranged to have Jesus removed from the cross before he died. He also arranged to have a foot stool placed under Jesus' feet while he was on the cross. Sylvia also wrote that the people who crucified Jesus were experts in anatomy, and they drove stakes into Jesus' body in a manner where no arteries were damaged.

I find it hard to believe that none of the people who attended Jesus' crucifixion noticed the foot stool. I find it hard to believe that arrangements could be made so the people who were responsible for hammering stakes into Jesus' body would do so in a manner that spared his life. Even if such arrangements could be made, I find it hard to believe that the people who nailed Jesus to the cross knew how to avoid an artery. Even if they managed to avoid Jesus' arteries, surely the puncture wounds from the stakes that were placed into his hands and feet, the spear that was thrust into his side, and the crown of thorns that were driven into his head, would've caused him to lose enough blood so he would die before the scene was clear and he could be removed from the cross without anybody becoming wise about what Pilot supposedly arranged. I also find it hard to believe that with all of Jesus' reported abilities; he would have a difficult time avoiding his pursuers if he chose to do so. Therefore, he wouldn't require Pilot's very painful and life threatening assistance.

It is also significant to point out that Sylvia Browne contradicted herself about Jesus' manner and age of death. In her March/April 2007 Sylvia Browne Newsletter she wrote that Jesus died at the age of 33. In her book The Mystical Life of Jesus she wrote that he died at the age of 86. I believe this is quite a contradiction. Her book was published in 2006. Perhaps when a person delves out too much misinformation (see Stop Sylvia Browne.net), he or she is bound to lose track.

Jane Roberts/Seth didn't limit their inaccurate statements about about Jesus to the crucifixion issue. In Jane's books Seth Speaks and A Nature of a Personal Reality, Seth took three of Jesus' most famous verses and translated them so they lacked spiritual meaning. For example, Seth claimed that when Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself he was just making a joke, because nobody loved their neighbor during Jesus' time period (pg. 414).  I believe it is quite obvious that Seth's claim is ludicrous; nevertheless, I'll show how the Gospels don't support Seth's claim. From the Gospel of Matthew:

"5:43 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: 5:44 but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; 5:45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. 5:46 For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than other? do not even the Gentiles the same? 5:48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Certainly the above isn't a demonstration of Jesus not being good at sticking to one-liners.

Also from the Gospel of Matthew:

19:16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 19:17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19:19 Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself. 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions."

22:34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 22:35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: 22:36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 22:37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love thy Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 22:38 This is the great and first commandment. 22:39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 22:40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets."

When I read the above closely, I find it hard to believe that Jesus was making a joke about any of the commandments he shared. What seems most reasonable to you? Did he 1) make a joke about each of the commandments; 2) share commandments he was serious about and then just for the fun of it added a joke about loving one's neighbor as one's self; or 3) realized that he was asked about the most important commandments and responded accordingly? How about the last verse? "On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." Was this statement an extension of a hardy-har-har joke about loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, or is Seth's claim full of beans?

Also, Jesus wasn't the originator or the commandments he stated. They are commandments that can be found in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:33-34 and Deuteronomy 10:19 for the love thy neighbor as yourself commandment). This being the case, how could it be a matter of Jesus making an ill timed joke? Remember, in comedy, timing is everything.

Actually, I thought Recoverer did a good job pointing out specific areas of Seth's commentary about Jesus and christianity that really did not hold up to scrutiny. 

The "haha noone cares" comment is somewhat cruel, don't you think?

M

recoverer wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2009 at 9:05pm:



Albert Skywalker: "Master! I pledge myself to your teachings."

Darth Berserk: "Good!....Good!....The word is strong in you!...Kneel before me my new apprentice........I name you Darth...Regurgitator!...Together we shall ROOOOOOOL the Galactic Forums, and bring religion and fear back to the people!"

Darth Regurgitator: "I thank you my Master."

Darth Berserk: "Lord Regurgitator. I have an important task for you.....You shall go to the New Age Temple and take care of all who dwell in there. None must be spared!...Then you shall seek out all those who reside in the New Age Ghettos throughout the Galactic Forums...Their fate shall be the same!"

Darth Regurgitator: " I understand, my Master."



   

Ha, ha Dude. Thank you for bringing this thread back to life. You rock. 

After Don told me he's an older member of my disk, I decided to follow him.


DocM wrote on Nov 8^th, 2009 at 7:54pm:

For those who like to research on that matter, this story that another one was crucified instead of Jesus is a part of Gnostic literature, I just can't remember where. Possibly in the Nag Hammadi find. In this find, there are texts "of" an entity called "Seth". Here

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html

are links to the Gnostic Seth texts

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
The Three Steles of Seth

I don't know if to the time Jane Roberts wrote her Seth books this material had been already translated.

Spooky

Just to be 'devil's advocate', you could argue that the bible has been interfered with, mistranslated and generally mucked about with to the point that a lot of 'the word of God' may be anything but.
I'm not saying that Jane Roberts and the Seth material is definitive ('cos I don't actually know) but if you're applying the same analysis you could argue that the biblical references are equally suspect?
Just a thought.

Best wishes,
David.

Interesting Bets. Was it in the air at that time?

Yes, detheridge and usetawuz, finally we must say we don't know on a historical basis. While the gospels have some dubious spots (for instance that the resurrected Jesus hasn't been recognized at first by his disciples) the stories of Jane Roberts about this seem to me much more dubious. And most of the Gnostic literature, though interesting maybe, has hardly anything to do with historical facts.

Spooky