(urth) This week in Google alerts

[Andrew Mason]

Lee Berman wrote:

>
> As has been noted in the past, I think the evidence is more for a Jesus than a Christ.
> I think you understand the difference.
>

I think there is lots of evidence for a person who played the role of
the historical Jesus: it's not clear to me that we can detemine, from
the actual content of the works, whether that person is indeed God
incarnate or just a prophet. (I think that the true God, the Abrahamic
Giod, is indeed active in that world, so if he was just a prophet, he
was a prophet of the true God.)

I'm beginning to incline to the 'just a prophet' view, because of the
'aspects of the Outsider' passage in OBW. These 'aspects' seem to be
people through whom the Outsider reveals himself, and they are treated
as if they are all equal in signficance, which would be odd if there
was a person in that world who actually _was_ the Outsider, made
manifest. Admittedly this is just the Rajan's view of things, so may
be wrong; on the other hand, it is confirmed by the many voices which
Silk hears during his enlightenment, which the Rajan identifes with
the aspects.