By Schubert Ogden
The distinction between Jesus-in-his-being-in-himself and Jesus-in-his-meaning-for-us is not really but only verbally different from the distinction between the "what" of the actual Jesus and his "that." Both parts of the distinction have to do with the actual Jesus, and both parts have an exclusively ontic reference, the "that" of the actual Jesus, and so the meaning of Jesus for us, being as much an event of the past prior to and independent of us as his "what,"' or the being of Jesus in himself, is such a past event.
It is otherwise, however, with the distinction between the empirical-historical Jesus and the existential-historical Jesus, since in this case there is in both parts of the distinction not only an ontic reference to the actual Jesus as an event of the past, but also a noetic reference to someone for whom the actual Jesus is such an event, whether an empirical-historical event or an existential-historical event, or, possibly, both.
Spring 1991; rev. 9 October 2004