This week in Google alerts

David Stockhoff · 02 Nov 2011, 22:03 · from 2011-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:03:40 -0400
Subject: (urth) This week in Google alerts
In-Reply-To: <CAM3O41L5BDsdWLjcVJm47meSkwGi8E8sQwbj1gdkTOd=E3-Ezg at mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM3O41L5BDsdWLjcVJm47meSkwGi8E8sQwbj1gdkTOd=E3-Ezg at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EB1BE3C.8050306 at verizon.net>

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.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net