Session 5 October 1994

[anart]

Sirius, I didn't expect anything, not having been present, and a mere reader of the transcript of the occasion. As a reader I find the Cs are too consistently startling in these sessions to expect anything! But yes, reading the question

'Are there any fifth density souls on the earth today or any of recent times we would recognize?'

to follow the first two names supplied by way of answer, both from the second half of the 20C and the questioner's own lifetime, as a reader I am being nudged in the direction of anticipating another personage from the same general era. A name from much further back, especially if not prominent, is beginning to ask for a note of explanation. Or starting to display a dithery lack of focus, which is something the Cs never do. The very opposite.

I would also be anticipating the person named to be eye-catchingly prominent. Recognisable, as Laura asked for. A pope is a good start, but John V is as obscure as a pope can get.

An unheard of name from a different millennium and a different world (ask Fomenko) still sounds out of place to me. I find it easiest to explain as an error of some sort, whether of transcription, miscommunication, or distortion via Frank (perhaps he thought it sounded familiar, the name is similar to those of all the recent popes?) or whatever.

Or there is an intentional riddle (spur to thought) in the name that is whizzing right over my head? Or the name contained some sort of personal significance for either of the channelers.

Or it becomes a mystery for pedants of the Holy Writ to discuss for all time. I suspect there are more important points to be thinking about?

So, basically, you have a lot of expectations that weren't met...

 

[Howzat]

Thanks, Anart. Before I consider this, I am alarmed because I have possibly mentioned a name I shouldn't have. All apologies if this is the case, please edit/ moderate as you see fit. I believe I don't yet have rights to edit my posts?

 

[mnmulchi]

Be,

The term "recent" is highly subjective and depends on context. What did you actually expect? The 70s or 80s? If you were the questioner, which time span would you ask for? Probably, one would get as far back as information exist concerning the past, so that given data has a chance of verification. This could be 2,000-3,000 years for example. But it would not make much sense to ask about individuals dating back 20,000 years ago.

The Cs most likely just pick up thoughts and thought patterns and try to disentangle them so that they can respond to the questions. They do not themselves work with our limited concepts, they have to translate.

I agree, and on top of this they could have been referring to "recent" incarnations. From my understanding, incarnations do not have to proceed in a linear sequential fashion. Souls can choose to incarnate at any 3D "Earth time" needed for their lessons. If they were referring to the actual Pope John V, maybe he did "recently" complete that life in a more objective view.

 

[Graalsword]

Q: (L) Are there any fifth density souls on the earth today or any of recent times we would recognize?

A: Yes. Arafat. Sadat. Pope John V.

Spot the odd man out?

John V??? Holy Father from 685 to 686, a pontificate of one year? Recent times?

Paul VI? John Paul I? (My Jesus-league 5-D candidate, if you asked me to guess, blindfolded.)

John Paul II?

John XXIII...?

The problem with that John V is that he lived in the darkest period of the Dark Ages. Just a few decades after ancient world collapse, there is extremely little information about him.

Just found this from a website paradoxically called "atheism" _http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_johnv.htm

Dates:
Born: ? (Syria)
Died: August 2, 686
Pope: July 23, 685 - August 2, 686 (1 year)
Feast Day: August 1

Biography:
Not much is known about John V and, apparently, one of the reasons is that he really didn't do much while pope due to serious illness at the time. It is known that he represented a predecessor, Pope Agatho, at the Third Council of Constantinople where the Monophysite heresy was declared anathema as a heresy. This decision healed a growing rift between Rome and Constantinople and the resulting relationship was so cordial that of the 16 pople who followed Agatho, only four would come from Rome.

And this one which talks something about his personality, though it is difficult to know whether it is true or not. _http://www.historyofthepopes.com/Seventh-Century-Popes/17-JOHN_V.html

[...]
John V is set down by his biographer as a man of great energy and learning, but withal as a very moderate man. This last exceptional good quality may account, to some extent at any rate, for the success of John’s dealings with the Emperor Constantine. His biographer attributes to his exertions, while at Constantinople, the obtaining of imperial rescripts from Constantine, by which the taxes that had to be paid by the ‘patrimonies’ of the Church in Sicily and Calabria, and other imposts that weighed very heavily on the See of Rome, were reduced.

 

[Howzat]

So, basically, you have a lot of expectations that weren't met...

Anart, just so long as you don't think I'm dissatisfied in some way. More automatic ticks of the reading machine than expectations. We're talking about the Cs here, and as far as I'm concerned the Cs walk on water.

I'm puzzled by a tiny moment in a momentous transcript and throwing out a question mark. I have no expectations on the matter and am open to any answer (that makes sense). I suspect that in this case there is no 'answer' and all evaluations will remain subjective. Which is fine.

I take it as a given that the Cs are translating from a non-linear language to our own 3-D understanding. I sailed past the passage on first reading, assuming in a hazy way that John V would be a recent pope, a contemporary of Sadat and Arafat. Only on re-reading did the name strike me as incongruent. I remembered John XXIII was on the block reasonably recently, but John V? He had to be around many moons before John XXIII. It was a surprised to find out in Wikipedia just how many moons.

I have come to expect, no, trust, the Cs answers to be coherent and intelligible and to release deep meaning. From what I am finding from the transcripts, where there is room for ambiguity or misunderstanding the Cs are at pains to make themselves clear. They show themselves to be fully cognisant of every aspect and nuance of variance between our perspective and theirs. Multi-layered responses, and with careful reasons behind every statement. Normally they have a radar of feathers and a full-spectrum sensitivity to their questioners.

But there is the odd anomaly , the odd incongruity. There is the issue of the 70% accuracy rate in the early transcripts. Perhaps this is a slip of some sort. And perhaps it's not. Even making an allowance for an unimaginable entity answering from an omnipresent beyond our powers of conception, I personally find Pope John V to be neither of 'recent times' or someone 'we would recognise'.

OK, recent at a stre-e-etch. If a millennium ago qualifies as recent times (and the context is not geological time, large historical scope, or the omnipresent) what word springs to the lips to indicate the last few decades?

I'm happy for mine to be a subjective impression, quirks of my particular reading machine, but I've tried to make a more objective case from a slender context. I'm not invested in any particular solution and we're angels dancing on a pinhead.

Out of interest, what is your reaction to the list, given the phrasing of the question? Pope John V easily recognisable to you? Small twitch of the eyebrow?

 

[Howzat]

I agree, and on top of this they could have been referring to "recent" incarnations. From my understanding, incarnations do not have to proceed in a linear sequential fashion. Souls can choose to incarnate at any 3D "Earth time" needed for their lessons. If they were referring to the actual Pope John V, maybe he did "recently" complete that life in a more objective view.

Well, I hadn't thought of that! But I don't think it computes, and as an explanation is on the tortuous side.

If they were referring to the actual Pope John V, maybe he did "recently" complete that life in a more objective view.

That would be 'recently' from their point of view, not ours. As Laura asked the question from the 3-D point of view, I would expect them to be aware that a reply made with reference only to their own viewpoint, without accompanying explanation, would be confusing to anyone in 3-D. If the answers involve esoteric mechanics beyond the scope of our 3-D mental apparati, they say so. For me, this exchange has the apparency of a straight answer to a straight question. I would expect the Cs to add something like, 'that last one was recent by our reckoning, not yours.' But there again, perhaps not.

From my understanding, incarnations do not have to proceed in a linear sequential fashion. Souls can choose to incarnate at any 3D "Earth time" needed for their lessons.

Where do you derive your understanding?

I have heard reports of double, or even multiple parallel incarnations, running concurrently in 3-D to enable speeded-up learning. The soul can project holographically, the parts splitting up while retaining their essential 'wholeness'. But I've not heard of parallel incarnations in separate historical eras. Or backwards and forwards incarnations, hopping about in our time. Which is not to say these things don't happen, all the time (so to speak). On this subject the truth is probably outré beyond our wildest imaginings.

My understanding derives in part from Ian Lawton's privately printed The Book of the Soul. He reviews and tabulates the findings of the major inter- and afterlife researchers, like Stevenson, Newton, Wambach, Whitton, Modi, Cannon, Fiore, Hans Ten Dam, et al. (Not having looked at the book for years (it came out in2004) from my present position of understanding I would now guess that he was only getting pieces of the picture: no cyclic model of time, no STS/STO orientation, no Lizards, no OPs, no return to primal matter; and, as far as I remember, no Gurdjieffian forming of an essence which will survive the shock of death.)

Lawton combs by proxy the tens of thousands of cases of regression (and some of pregression) now on record, and attempts to discern the ground rules of soul incarnation as reported by the thousands who have now undergone past life regression. He delves through various anomalous possibilities that are reported, like parallel incarnations, possession, 'walk-ins', spirit attachment, etc etc. But, as I remember, the consensus is that souls choose their lives from what is on offer in a forward moving sweep, that they don't generally dot about backwards and forwards in time. That the flow of learning is accumulated in one direction, through progressive incarnations that are broadly understandable as moving from a 'past' to a 'future'.

Now I put it down, this model sounds limited. If you were standing in the 5-D, completely free of linear time, planning your next incarnation, you would have a much wider palette to choose from by looking in all directions at once. But perhaps there is some function that militates against this idea, the tangling of karmic lines or some such. Souls normally incarnate in groups, with pre-planning involved, sharing an ongoing commitment to shaping the developing course of events in 3-D. It might not be so practical for individuals to head off in different directions in time. But perhaps all bets are off for 'advanced' souls (like Sadat and Arafat) who have qualified as guides and choose tough incarnations. Perhaps our timelines are sculpted through retrocausality by elders in 5-D. (As the Lizzies do.)

Incidentally, I defer to the Cs over any earthly researcher. I don't know if there is a 'what happens after death?' thread on the forum where the Cs pronouncements on the subject are all pulled together?

 

[mnmulchi]

Where do you derive your understanding?

I have heard reports of double, or even multiple parallel incarnations, running concurrently in 3-D to enable speeded-up learning. The soul can project holographically, the parts splitting up while retaining their essential 'wholeness'. But I've not heard of parallel incarnations in separate historical eras. Or backwards and forwards incarnations, hopping about in our time. Which is not to say these things don't happen, all the time (so to speak). On this subject the truth is probably outré beyond our wildest imaginings.

If I am remembering correctly the information regarding the ability of choosing lifetimes in "past" or "future" 3D Earth times came specifically from the Robert Monroe trilogy. Now of course the Monroe information was subjective because everything he experienced was from his personal OOBE's, and written down from his memory. I may have also heard this info again from some other source, but I cannot recall.

If they were referring to the actual Pope John V, maybe he did "recently" complete that life in a more objective view.

That would be 'recently' from their point of view, not ours. As Laura asked the question from the 3-D point of view, I would expect them to be aware that a reply made with reference only to their own viewpoint, without accompanying explanation, would be confusing to anyone in 3-D. If the answers involve esoteric mechanics beyond the scope of our 3-D mental apparati, they say so. For me, this exchange has the apparency of a straight answer to a straight question. I would expect the Cs to add something like, 'that last one was recent by our reckoning, not yours.' But there again, perhaps not.

I agree that it did seem like a straight answer in that they were actually referring to Pope John V. Possibly they were encouraging thought about why Pope John V would be considered a "recent" incarnation along with Arafat and Sadat. This could be another subtle segway into thinking outside the box. It seems the C's have never had a problem with confusing us, if you're confused you seek to understand and then gain knowledge(which is fun)!

 

[Laura]

Actually, I think they meant XXIII, but since I didn't transcribe that tape, and no one was taking notes at that session, nor were we even preserving the tapes at that time, I can't make any of those usual cross-checks. I do remember talking about the pope in question afterward and that it was noted that he was not from the usual papal background.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Sirius, I didn't expect anything, not having been present, and a mere reader of the transcript of the occasion.

And then:

As Laura asked the question from the 3-D point of view, I would expect them to be aware that a reply made with reference only to their own viewpoint, without accompanying explanation, would be confusing to anyone in 3-D.

I would expect the Cs to add something like, 'that last one was recent by our reckoning, not yours.'

Isn't there a contradiction here?

It seems to me that you have a lot of assumptions and expactations actually. Maybe it has to do with:

a mere reader of the transcript of the occasion

I would suggest that you take the time to read the Wave series in order to understand the whole context. There is a lot of informations into these books and you might be amazed at how much you can get from a single volume, let alone all of them! I recommend it.

I understand how you may feel but if you don't read the material, you will mostly have a hard time getting many concepts (it happens to me often so I read more and understand more).

My understanding derives in part from Ian Lawton's privately printed The Book of the Soul.

Have you already considered that his work, or your understanding of it might not represent objective reality? I mean, I haven't read this book so I can't tell but I think it would be a good idea to read the Wave for instance and see how it can correlate, if it does.

No harm given, I know what it is. I'm in the same boat and get wet sometimes as well. I'm just trying to open some doors for reflection.

I could be wrong though.

Peace.

 

[timeless roamer]

Laura

Q: (L) Were either Mary or John the Baptist fifth density souls?

A: Both. (.......)

Q: (L) Are there any fifth density souls on the earth today or any of recent times we would recognize?

A: Yes. Arafat. Sadat. Pope John V.

If our souls reside in 5th density between incarnations, then aren't we all 5th density souls?

Yeah, you would think that. But there is also the concept that souls graduate to a 5th density "guide" status and are not obligated to reincarnate but can do so for a mission if they choose.

Thanks laura, was wondering about the same thing.

 

[globalgrrl]

The paper session transcripts that I have from the first printing of them say "1.6 years" as the time period. In january of 1995, the Great Hanshin Earthquake in Kobe struck as a 7.2. It was the second-worse earthquake to hit Japan in the 20th century. Not near Tokyo. Not in the middle of 1996 as suggested by this transcript. Only 7.2. However, it is within the 1.6 years predicted by the C's. Another hit, perhaps?

Y'all have to understand that whenever "Frank" sat at the board, the C's have stated that the transmissions were only 67% accurate, so don't get freaked out by the discrepancies in this transcript.

 

[Nachtweide]

Q: (L) Do demons and evil spirits fear anything?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Do they fear any power that we, as humans, possess?

A: Yes. Knowledge.

Q: (L) Do they fear religious symbols, signs or figures?

A: No.

Q: (L) Is there any name or sign or symbol that can halt their activity?

A: Sometimes.
{It is curious that the Cassiopaeans have said that "demons" do not "fear" religious symbols, signs or figures, but that there may be some name, sign or symbol that can halt their activity! A most interesting clue.}

Q: (L) Were they afraid of Christ?

A: Yes. Because of his knowledge. The mass of his knowledge raised his vibrations. Knowledge is truly power.

Q: (L) Do pentagrams have any effect in slowing down or halting negative entities?

A: Only if you think they do.

Q: (L) Is the greatest power we have to resist demonic entities held in our free will: our power to say no?

A: No.

Q: (L) What is our greatest power?

A: Knowledge.

Q: (L) Does the accumulation of spiritual knowledge hold the key?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Is there any other clue you can give us?

A: You do not need anything else than knowledge.

I consider these sentences to be my most important companions. Knowledge leads to exposure - spiritually and materially. Correct knowledge and understanding is the basis for all actions that show the right and true way under this aspect. The knowledge of how psychopathy presents itself and what effects it has on man and nature also enables protection from the excesses. And the pleasant side effect is the increase of one's own frequency through knowledge - one becomes inedible for STS, which in turn promotes the undisturbed absorption of new knowledge. Nobody is simply at the mercy of others if they do not want to.

 

[jcsmalz]

So the ship and Jesus came from 5th density which means a sort of container of souls waiting for incarnation opportunity. As Laura clarified, there are also some souls who are just waiting for "big projects" or "special missions". So in order to get into the earth the souls need to jump into a human body. As I understand this was the case with Jesus.

However, I do not completely understand how the mother ship could come from 5th density? Or it was also a special project for evil forces from 5th density with the aim of programming the infant with special abilities... But I guess they also had to occupy physical bodies and to get a spaceship for their journey to the earth.

It is interesting who was the sponsor of this mission. Lizards?

I'm not sure how to quote this part of the transcript so I copied it. Maybe a mod can fix it.

It's been a long time and so perhaps you've already come to the same conclusion as I am about to explicate for you.

I think you're mixing up concepts relating to densities a little bit...

4th density STS cannot access souls in 5th density. There is a conduit that protects between 3rd and 4th through to 5th density. Forgive me for not finding that transcript to present here. Point being that the Lizzies aren't involved with this situation.

It seems to me that Jesus' 5th density soul arrived in 3rd density on a ship simply because a ship is necessary to conform to the laws of 3rd density.

I'm left wondering why it was important that the ship guide the three Magi. What was the importance of their presence for the birth of Jesus?

I am in the midst of reading the transcripts chronologically. Maybe the answer will present itself later on... Maybe it isn't important.

 

[christx11]

I'm not sure how to quote this part of the transcript so I copied it. Maybe a mod can fix it.

It's been a long time and so perhaps you've already come to the same conclusion as I am about to explicate for you.

I think you're mixing up concepts relating to densities a little bit...

4th density STS cannot access souls in 5th density. There is a conduit that protects between 3rd and 4th through to 5th density. Forgive me for not finding that transcript to present here. Point being that the Lizzies aren't involved with this situation.

It seems to me that Jesus' 5th density soul arrived in 3rd density on a ship simply because a ship is necessary to conform to the laws of 3rd density.

I'm left wondering why it was important that the ship guide the three Magi. What was the importance of their presence for the birth of Jesus?

I am in the midst of reading the transcripts chronologically. Maybe the answer will present itself later on... Maybe it isn't important.

There was a lot more going on in these early sessions.

Session 12 July 2014
===============================
Q: (L) Anything else anybody wants to ask about that before we change topics? Everybody here is waiting for the change of topic... Okay, I've been going over all of the early sessions, and I noticed that I had a particular obsession with the topic of Jesus during the first year at the very least, 1994, because of my particular religious upbringing and background and so forth. And I had a lot of energy invested in - not just a lot of energy, but a lot of emotion - so, I'm reading back over these previous answers we received on the topic of Jesus, and I would like to ask if, in fact, Julius Caesar is Jesus, or was the model for Jesus, why were you giving me answers that sometimes could have been applied to Caesar, but other times could not?

A: You would not have been able to receive. When you ask a question with strong prejudice, we cannot violate your will to believe.
===============================

A lot of the Jesus info was influenced by Laura's strong religious beliefs at that time.

 

[jcsmalz]

There was a lot more going on in these early sessions.

Session 12 July 2014
===============================
Q: (L) Anything else anybody wants to ask about that before we change topics? Everybody here is waiting for the change of topic... Okay, I've been going over all of the early sessions, and I noticed that I had a particular obsession with the topic of Jesus during the first year at the very least, 1994, because of my particular religious upbringing and background and so forth. And I had a lot of energy invested in - not just a lot of energy, but a lot of emotion - so, I'm reading back over these previous answers we received on the topic of Jesus, and I would like to ask if, in fact, Julius Caesar is Jesus, or was the model for Jesus, why were you giving me answers that sometimes could have been applied to Caesar, but other times could not?

A: You would not have been able to receive. When you ask a question with strong prejudice, we cannot violate your will to believe.
===============================

A lot of the Jesus info was influenced by Laura's strong religious beliefs at that time.

Thanks. Like I said I'm reading the transcripts chronologically. I noticed the Jesus history wasn't matching up with the Jesus myth being based on the life of Julius Caesar (aside from the 3 roman daughters that Jesus had) and figured it was due to her biases. I had a hunch that as I continue to read, everything would sort itself out.

Admittedly as I was writing that post I pondered on whether or not it was meaningful. Perhaps I didn't have a grasp on the entire picture because the incongruencies might sort themselves out as I continued reading.

Alas I decided I didn't have anything to lose and went for it. Instead thanks to you I have gained something. Thank you