“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

This was all misunderstood. Christ then changed his mode of behavior, appearing quite often in out-of-body states to his followers. (See John 20, 21; Matthew 28; Luke 24.) Before, he had not done this to that degree. He tried to tell them however that he was not dead, and they chose to take him symbolically. (A one-minute pause.)

Now: He knew that without the wounds, they would not believe he was himself, because they were so convinced that he died with those wounds. (See John 20.) They were to be a method of identification, to be dispensed with when he explained the true circumstances.

He ate to prove he was still alive, for example (John 21, Luke 24, etc.), but they took this simply to mean that the spirit could partake of food. They wanted to believe that he had been crucified and arisen.

(A note: Beneath a larger agreement, there are many differences in the details of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For instance, in John 19 it is said that Christ carried his own cross; in Luke 23, Simon from Cyrene is named as carrying Christ’s cross for him. 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.