“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

In the 591st session for Seth Speaks, I noted claims for an earlier date for the origin of the first Gospel, that according to Mark; nevertheless, most authorities still believe that the Gospels were written between A.D. 65 and 110. Since Christ was presumably crucified around A.D. 30, this means that some 35–40 years passed before the advent of Mark’s account. There are many consistencies in the Gospels, but also inconsistencies that cannot be resolved. Even the authorships of the Gospels according to Matthew and John are now being questioned. A study of the New Testament books alone can quickly lead one into a maze of questions: Why isn’t the resurrection itself described? Why are there so few references to the ascension? Matthew doesn’t mention it at all in his Gospel, for example; and Paul alludes to it only once (1 Timothy 3:16) in his writings. Is the Gospel according to Luke merely schematic, rather than chronological? If time (as much as 40 days) did elapse between Christ’s resurrection and ascension, where was he physically during all of that period, other than on the few occasions cited in the Gospels and in Acts, when on various occasions he revealed himself to the women who discovered his empty tomb, to the apostles, and to some others? Sometimes Christ appeared as an apparition — but as Seth commented in a private session: “You could not have a world in which the newly risen dead mixed with the living. An existence in a spiritual realm had to follow such a resurrection.”

At the same time, Jane and I checked a number of biblical references on the New Testament — and discovered that Seth’s passage seems to be a case where he shows a knowledge we don’t consciously possess. For we learned that of the four Gospels (according to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, in that order), some scholars believe that Luke and John can be read as stating that Christ’s resurrection and ascension took place on the same day. Yet in Acts, Luke postulates the 40-day interval between the two events. (Originally Luke composed his Gospel and Acts as one treatise; the two were separated early in the second century.) Out of such contradictions as those implied in Luke’s case, however, confusion and opposing opinions reign when one studies the Gospels and related material. Christ himself left no written records, nor are there any eyewitness or contemporary accounts of his life.

[...] I explained the little I knew about the Gospels to her, and suggested that she attempt to psychically determine whether the “counterfeit” Gospel was that according to Matthew or Luke. [...] It’s generally thought that the Gospel according to Mark was written first.

(All dates given are approximate: Many Biblical scholars think the Gospels were composed between A.D. 60 to 100, well after the death of Christ in A.D. 29 or 30. Various recent claims and assorted kinds of evidence have tended to push the writing of Mark’s Gospel [which Seth asserts is genuine] back to as early as A.D. 35 — much closer, of course, to the time when Christ lived.)

Christ uses parables that were applicable then (as described in all four of the Gospels). He used priests as symbols of authority (Matthew 21:23–27). He turned water into wine (John 2:1–11), yet many who consider themselves quite holy ignore Christ at the wedding feast and think any alcoholic beverage degrading.

There are indeed lost gospels, written by men in other countries in that time, relating to Christ’s unknown life, to episodes not given in the Bible. [...]

(A note: Beneath a larger agreement, there are many differences in the details of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. [...] Many complicated questions and reasons have been advanced in dealing with various aspects of the Gospels: their possible foundation in oral tradition and older common literary or documentary sources; whether any of them embodies an eyewitness account of the life of Christ [it has been very recently claimed that Mark’s was written only a few years after Christ’s death, for example], whether the Gospels should simply be regarded as expressing a single tradition, the fact and atmosphere of Christ, regardless of anything else, etc.

(The booklet explains much — all of the multitude of sittings and standings and kneelings that we went through in the pews; the gifts carried to the altar by the Bumbalo grandchildren; the hymns we listened to; the selections from the Bible read by the various priests; the responses we gave to the appropriate passages recited by the head priest, who read from the Gospel of John and other Biblical passages.

[...] The Word, by Irving Wallace, is a book on the discovery of an unknown gospel by the brother of Christ, James the Just. [...]

[...] Yet the church must admit the separate reality of the devil and numerous demons, because their existences are given in the Gospels. [...]

[...] (See the Gospel according to Mark, 1:1–11, for instance.)