M,,,I know Tim Staples so I looked at his link.
I think we have to be careful how we speak.
What TS is saying is that Jesus is not a human PERSON.
But Jesus is a HUMAN MAN.
This is from the article:
First of all, I encourage all reading this to also read a previous article of mine called “The Man-God, Jesus Christ” to get a good sense of how we know, from Scripture, that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. That would be a must read for a foundation.
As you can see, it states that Jesus is FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN.
I think it's a little disengneuous of you to declare that Jesus is not a human PERSON....knowing that most will read right over that just like I did...
and
I'm a believer in the Trinity which states that there is only ONE GOD
but three PERSONS.
Person has a very specific definition in theology, I'm thinking that you surely must know this.
One of your links explains this very well.....but most will not take the time to understand it because it's not easy.
So...just saying that Jesus is not a PERSON....is really not being intellectually honest.
For those interested.....this is the meaning of PERSON:
(Jesus was not a divine man....HE WAS GOD incarnate....so He was not a human PERSON).
The classic definition of person comes from the great sixth-century philosopher Boethius, who defined it as “an individual substance of a rational nature.”
There is an essential term there that itself needs defining: substance. In philosophy, substance corresponds to the Greek ousia, or “being.” It is defined as that which undergirds, grounds, or (even better) constitutes an individual thing and does not inhere in anything else. It is not a property of a thing, but the thing itself.
There are literally billions of examples of substances we could choose to talk about, such as a “tree,” “horse,” “man,” etc. But we’ll consider “man,” since the man Jesus Christ is central to our undertaking here.
So what constitutes the substance of man? What is most basic to man, without which you do not have a man at all? The answer is the body-soul composite. Without either a body or a soul, you don’t have the “substance” of a man. You don’t have a man at all in the fullest sense.
Now, if we could move briefly back to the idea of person, we can see how substance is closely related to it, because both refer to the “subject.” However, there are crucial differences as well. Person and substance are different, because although all persons are substances, not all substances are persons. A “horse” is a substance but not a person, because a person is “an individual substance of a rational nature.” A horse does not possess a rational nature.
This takes us to our third essential definition. The simple definition of nature is the what of a thing—in contrast to person and substance, which refer to the individual subject being considered. In the case of rational beings, we are speaking of the what rather than the who.
Nature and substance are almost synonyms, but not quite. Because remember: substance, though similar to nature in referring to what constitutes a thing, also refers to the subject as well. In the case of rational substances, that would be the who of a being. Nature does not. It always refers to “what” a thing is.
Now that we have our three definitions, consider that all living human beings are persons, but person is not part of the definition of what it means to be fully human. The definition of what a human being is pertains to the what or the nature of a human being. So there is no reason why we couldn’t have a being that was truly human, or, more accurately, possessed a human nature but was not a human person. There is nothing in the definition of a human (being a body-soul composite) that requires it to be a human person. Thus, even though this actually happens only in the case of Christ, there is nothing unreasonable about positing the possibility.
source: Jesus Is Not a Human Person (your link).
