Dear Campion,
"Do you disagree with what I said?"
"IMO, calling Jesus a 'human being' or a 'human person' is either Nestorianism or Arianism."
I think I disagree. I think there are ways in which these phrases are correctly used in modern English which include Jesus.
For now, I think I'd like to avoid the phrase "human person," because although I think it's defensible when used in one sense, it's easily confused with specific theological terminology that is used to describe the Trinity.
However, in the sense ordinarily given to the phrase "human being," it seems clear that Jesus is a human being. A human being is an individual member of the species homo sapiens, from the moment of conception on. At least, this is what I tell my kids when we're marching for life in January. ;-)
Jesus clearly qualifies.
Of course, at death, the soul is separated from the body, and I believe that at that point, it's considered somewhat inaccurate to call the disembodied soul a "human being." However, for most of us, that'll get tidied up on the Last Day. For Jesus, though, He's already obtained of His glorified Body, and thus, still retains His entire humanity, is still a human being.
A human being is a human soul giving form to a human body. Jesus clearly qualifies.
Of course, Jesus is at the same time God, the Second Person of the Trinity. But in saying that Jesus has two natures, Divine and human, we say that He is human (as well as Divine). One nature is not subsumed into the other. Jesus is not God with some human nature subsumed into His Divine nature. He is both fully God and fully man, each unmixed from the other. It seems almost a tautology, almost a grammatical identity to say that a man is a human being. He's also a Divine being. That's the whole point of the Incarnation. Jesus is at once both Divine and human, God and man.
I agree that one can make heterodox interpretations of the phrase, but I think that's sort of inherent in the whole Incarnation business.
Just my two cents.
sitetest
You can't just "avoid" it.
Orthodox theologians reject the application of the term "human person" to Jesus; it's not just my opinion. He's not a "human person", he's a divine person.
You have to then argue that Jesus can be a "human being" without being (!!) a "human person". I suppose that's possible, since the term "human being" doesn't have much of a theological pedigree.
A human being is a human soul giving form to a human body. Jesus clearly qualifies.
If that's your definition, I would agree with you, insofar as you've stated it.
In metaphysical terms, what you've just said (I think) is that any *person* having a *human nature* is a "human being". In that case, Jesus is definitely a human being. (He's a person -- "an individual substance of a rational nature" -- and he has a human nature.)
But if you use "human being" as synonymous with "human person", then He can't be. As I say, the term "human being" isn't a theologically precise term of art. (It's an English expression anyway; how would it translate into Latin or Greek?)