Hi Michael and thanks for coming online! For the other readers: Yes, the Greek words are one way to authenticate the Stephen material. For me, not having been part of the Stephen circle itself and coming quite recently to the material (about ten years ago), I actually find the Greek stuff less persuasive than the content of the communications themselves. I guess I tend to 'authenticate' channelled works by how they 'feel' internally: specifically, do they seem to be communicating a spirit of love and openness and is what they say compatible with reason and with my previous beliefs.
In the transcripts I've read, Stephen asks his listeners several times to check what he says and not necessarily take it all on trust. I've seen similar warnings in other channelled works that I respect and I think it's sound advice. My personal take on this is twofold: one, that mediumship can be a 'noisy channel' and that the medium might pick up multiple communicators, and some ideas might not come through correctly. And two, there may be deceptive or confused spirits out there - just as there are deceptive and confused politicians and bloggers and newscasters all over the Internet - who can 'parrot' nice-sounding phrases they've heard from better sources, but themselves may not even understand the material they're quoting, or may be deliberately trying to just get power over others.
So I guess I tend to 'authenticate' channelled works at a fairly fine-grained level - much the same as I do any human writer. Just because I trust something on one page or in one book doesn't necessarily mean I'll trust everything ever written by that person. I try to keep these works a little at 'arms length' - because there often seems to be quite a strong 'energy' behind the words in a channelled work and sometimes the strength of that energy worries me a bit. Eg some of these works feel quite 'compelling', in an odd way, and I'm not always sure that I want to be compelled, even if it's true.
But my impression is that, on the whole, Stephen mostly seems to come across like a nice person and one who has a philosophy of life that I like, and a lot of what he says, and it seems to cross-reference with a few other channelled communicators and NDE experiencers and practicing psychics in a way that - to me - cross-authenticates some of them. At least in the sense that I can say 'this appears to be a coherent philosophy shared by multiple people that's quite unique and yet seems to provide a useful way of looking at the world - and one that doesn't seem to separate me from others'.
(I've not studied, eg, Ramtha or Seth. But so far I've looked at: Stephen, A Course in Miracles, 'Love Without End' by Glenda Green, 'Emmanuel' by Pat Rodegast... also an early 1900s communicator I think nicknamed 'Zodiac', who claimed to be one of Jesus' minor disciples, and is similar to Stephen - I'll try to locate the book. The common features are a strong emphasis on love and forgiveness - radical forgiveness, in fact - and the idea that 'there is a plan behind the universe that we don't have to make happen')
And of course I look at the result in people's lives. And in my case I can say that Michael has been a good friend to me and the impact of his association with Stephen seems to have been, on the whole, positive.
Regards, Nate
In the transcripts I've read, Stephen asks his listeners several times to check what he says and not necessarily take it all on trust. I've seen similar warnings in other channelled works that I respect and I think it's sound advice. My personal take on this is twofold: one, that mediumship can be a 'noisy channel' and that the medium might pick up multiple communicators, and some ideas might not come through correctly. And two, there may be deceptive or confused spirits out there - just as there are deceptive and confused politicians and bloggers and newscasters all over the Internet - who can 'parrot' nice-sounding phrases they've heard from better sources, but themselves may not even understand the material they're quoting, or may be deliberately trying to just get power over others.
So I guess I tend to 'authenticate' channelled works at a fairly fine-grained level - much the same as I do any human writer. Just because I trust something on one page or in one book doesn't necessarily mean I'll trust everything ever written by that person. I try to keep these works a little at 'arms length' - because there often seems to be quite a strong 'energy' behind the words in a channelled work and sometimes the strength of that energy worries me a bit. Eg some of these works feel quite 'compelling', in an odd way, and I'm not always sure that I want to be compelled, even if it's true.
But my impression is that, on the whole, Stephen mostly seems to come across like a nice person and one who has a philosophy of life that I like, and a lot of what he says, and it seems to cross-reference with a few other channelled communicators and NDE experiencers and practicing psychics in a way that - to me - cross-authenticates some of them. At least in the sense that I can say 'this appears to be a coherent philosophy shared by multiple people that's quite unique and yet seems to provide a useful way of looking at the world - and one that doesn't seem to separate me from others'.
(I've not studied, eg, Ramtha or Seth. But so far I've looked at: Stephen, A Course in Miracles, 'Love Without End' by Glenda Green, 'Emmanuel' by Pat Rodegast... also an early 1900s communicator I think nicknamed 'Zodiac', who claimed to be one of Jesus' minor disciples, and is similar to Stephen - I'll try to locate the book. The common features are a strong emphasis on love and forgiveness - radical forgiveness, in fact - and the idea that 'there is a plan behind the universe that we don't have to make happen')
And of course I look at the result in people's lives. And in my case I can say that Michael has been a good friend to me and the impact of his association with Stephen seems to have been, on the whole, positive.
Regards, Nate
Last edited:
I just think this subject gets glossed over.
