(urth) This week in Google alerts

[David Stockhoff]

On 11/2/2011 5:49 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:
> 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.

I'm inclined to this too, but why would Silk have visions of a man with 
no extraordinary link to the Outsider? Clearly this Jesus was at least 
an "aspect" or "host" of the Outsider (though the O doesn't seem to 
possess people quite the way the other gods do).

The question is whether he was the ONLY such aspect. This brings one 
back to the "which universe" question. But it seems unimportant to the 
story.