The Elias Material - phasing related

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ben K

QuoteCome on....Can someone give the 'Cliff Notes' on all of that? Cheesy
My head hurts...
:lol:

dont say he didnt warn ya!

QuoteI was a bit disappointed that he wouldn't give anything other than a cursory mention of F4 -- although his rationale made sense -- we wouldn't be able to comprehend it as we are now.

:lol: :lol:
EXPERIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE

Novice

That was excellent Ben K. I had searched around for info on that and somehow missed that page (feeling rather dumb now).   :roll:

It's amazing. That explaination/description entirely consistent with my own beliefs/experiences at present.  Very cool stuff!  8-)
Reality is what you perceive it to be.

Gandalf

That is amazing stuff and thanks Ben your your exhaustive PM on the matter of F3 also.

Concerning F3, we seem to be coming to the conclusion that all of Monroe's F23-F27 or Frank's F3, may only be the very early stages of the whole R3/Transition area stage. Hardly scratching the surface even, although Monroe's/Frank's work does has the added advantage of coming from people who have actually experienced these areas for themselves, rather than just listening to a lecture on the matter from a communicated source.

However, the communicated sources such as Seth and Elias are providing much needed expansion on what we have already discovered and help to put them into some context.

Elias's description  of F4/R4 is excellent!

By the way, I think it was Seth who first came up with the 4 framework model, although he only went into detail about F1 and F2. It was always assumed that Seth was coming from F4 and his piece on the 'mechanics of transition' in 'Seth Speaks' is assumed to take place in F3.

However Elias provides clarification on this matter and expands further.

I'm looking forward for more info from this source in the future... these communications are still ongoing i believe.
"It is to Scotland that we look for our idea of civilisation." -- Voltaire.

recoverer

#28
Regarding Jesus Christ not getting crucified, consider how channeled sources have contradicted themselves on this matter.

Elias said: "I understand that he (Jesus) did not die in the crucifixion, but did he go to India after that? In reply, Elias claims that Jesus moved to Macedonia and died there at age 51, apparently of natural causes."

Jane Robert's Seth on the otherhand provides a completely different version. He claimed that a hoax took place and a mentally disturbed man was drugged and crucified in his place. Shortly after the supposed hoax, Jesus used his psychic powers to end his existence as a physical being.  Clearly this contradicts Elias' claim that Jesus lived until he was 51. It is also funny that Paul had to speak to Jesus's disciples in order to learn about Jesus' teachings, if Jesus could be found in Macedonia.

In her book about Jesus, Sylvia Browne claims that Jesus made a deal with Pilate, and the men who were assigned to crucify him were experts in anatomy, and resultantly were able to place stakes through his feet and hands so an artery wouldn't be damaged. This despite the fact that other people weren't crucified with stakes, and Grey's anatomy (the book, not the TV show) hadn't come out yet. They also supposedly placed a foot stool under his feet. Somehow, nobody noticed this. Later on, when nobody was around people close to Jesus (I can't remember who Sylvia named, Mary etc.) came to rescue Jesus from his tomb. If you read Sylvia's account, she basically makes Jesus sound like a wimp who wasn't brave enough to fulfill his divine destiny.

The lady who supposedly channels her deceased son Matthew, claims that Jesus was whipped rather than crucified, and lived for a number of years afterwards.

Why the contradictory stories?

And consider Seth's version.  He uses the Gospels to make his case.  Specific verses are referenced in Jane Robert's books. Seth claims that Peter denied Jesus three times, because somebody other than Jesus was taken prisoner. The problem is that there are verses where Jesus tells Peter that he would deny him three times. Why would Jesus tell him so if somebody other than Jesus is taken prisoner?

Seth also claims that Judas made the arrangements for a hoax crucifixion to take place. If this is the case, why did Jesus tell Judas that he would betray him? There are numerous verses within the gospels which show that Jesus was well aware that he would be crucified.

If somebody suggests that there might be errors in the Gospels, then why did Seth twist them in order to make his arguments?

When it comes to the man who was supposedly crucified in Jesus' place, wasn't there anybody around who knew what Jesus looked like, and would know that somebody other than Jesus was being crucified?

Wouldn't Jesus' disciples realize that Jesus was still with him when a drugged man was supposedly crucified in his place?

The way Seth spoke of the crucifixion and other things related to Jesus gives me the impression that he was looking to tarnish his reputation. For example, in the two Seth books I have, "Seth speaks" and "a nature of a personal reality," Seth referred to three of Jesus's most famous verses and completely despiritualized them.

For example when Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, Seth said that Jesus was just making a joke, because nobody loved their neighbor at the time. Consider the below verses from Matthew:

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

19:16And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 19:17And 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. 19:18He 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, 19:19Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 19:20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? 19:21Jesus 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. 19:22But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.

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

Does it sound like Jesus was just making a joke when he said to love your neighbor as yourself? How about the other things he said? Thou shalt not commit murder, adultery, and should love God with all thy heart, mind and soul? Was he just making jokes? Or was he serious about those commandments, and just for the fun of it, inserted a joke about loving one's neighbor as one's self, even though he was asked what the most important commandments are?

I'm not writing what I write because I'm a fundamentalist. I went through a period where I had all kinds of doubts about Christ. Then one day I realized that I didn't really know, so I prayed and asked to find out. I have had a number of spiritual experiences (including an experience in a higher realm) and received spirit messages which told me that Jesus Christ did in fact live, is a key part of divine reality, and was crucified.

One series of symbolic visual messages was as follows: First I was shown a crucifix. I asked why. I was shown an image which is a bit complicated to explain, but basically said that "They killed him (Jesus), they put him on display, they spotted his reputation." Next I experienced myself press the high C note on my piano (not physically) which I understood to symbolically mean that he represents the highest consciousness there is. I've also received some other messages which showed that Jesus was crucified.

So what kind of shenanigans are sources such as Elias and Seth up to?


Stookie

recoverer - Interesting subject

What do you think about the Elias model of consciousness? Do you find any truth behind the different focuses of consciousness Elias talks about? And if so, how do you think those focuses relate with Christ and the crucifixion?

recoverer

#30
Hello Stookie:

I've read very little of Elias. I did read Seth for a while. Gave it a good shot. After I started having experiences and receiving messages that related to Christ, I decided to see what Seth had to say about Christ. It became clear that in an underhanded way Seth puts Christ down. When I found that people stated that Elias is similar to Seth and that he denies the crucifixion, I decided to not check him out.

This doesn't mean that none of the things Seth and Elias say are true.  I figure even misleading sources have to say a significant number of things that are true, or people won't consider them at all. Hopefully they don't say too many things that set people off course.

As far as models go, I'm a fan of Robert Monroe's Ultimate Journey and Bruce Moen's books. I can't say if they are 100% true because I haven't experienced everything they've experienced. I have had experiences and received messages that told me that the higher self/disk/I-there/oversoul viewpoint is true in some way. I haven't figured out all of the details.

P.S. I have doubts about Seth for reasons other than what he says about Christ.





Quote from: Stookie on January 25, 2008, 11:41:57
recoverer - Interesting subject

What do you think about the Elias model of consciousness? Do you find any truth behind the different focuses of consciousness Elias talks about? And if so, how do you think those focuses relate with Christ and the crucifixion?