General > Paranormal

Is Michael a Ghost?

(1/5) > >>

Riley:
Is it correct to call Michael a ghost?

jk:
Not quite, in my mind anyway. Of course there is no precise definition of the term ghost. However what I understand under the term (I dont use it myself, so this is what I can assign its general usage to) is most likely (in my understanding) what has been called the "etheric body" of a recently deceased person, borrowing energy from living. I could also imagine someone might use that word to describe an astral traveller they may have met, if this traveller has been actually seen (by someone who was not aware why are they seeing this) - for example somewhere where they could not have logically physical been. And I am pretty sure that many times the word has also been used to describe figments of imagination, hoaxes, shadows etc.
Michael is a reunited Entity of fragments who have concluded their human journey long time ago and does not to my knowledge and understanding manifest in any way that could be described as ghost.

John Roth:

--- Quote from: Riley on May 18, 2011, 10:35:05 AM ---Is it correct to call Michael a ghost?

--- End quote ---

Not without stretching the term way out of proportion. Ghosts, at least as I use the term, are deceased people who are sticking around on the physical plane for some reason before going on.

HTH

John Roth

russell:
What about what Michael looks like as a spirit. I wonder if he can be seen by psychics and mediums?

Chiara DB:
Well, Michael isn't a "he." Michael is a group of 1050 essence fragments. The name is just a convenience for us to be able to address the group consciousness (this is why I always call them "The Michaels" and use the pronoun "they").  If they were psychically visible, they probably wouldn't look like anything recognizable to us!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page