Replies

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.

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?)

Campion, I don't have a problem with the term "human person" because I do not see it as necessarily incompatible with "divine person" and/or intrinsically Nestorian. If I had been alive during the life of Christ on earth, and someone had pointed at Christ and asked me: "Is He a human person?" I would (let's say) reply, "Yep." And if they then asked, "Is He a divine person?" I would reply, "Yep." And if they then asked, "Is He two persons?" I would reply, "Nope." If they asked, "How can He be a human person and a divine person, and not be two persons?" I would reply, "Because He is one person with two natures. He is a *divine* person, in fact the Second Person of the Trinity, because of His divine nature. But it is also true that He is a *human* person because of His human nature. By 'human person' I mean that He is truly a person and that He is truly a human, and that His personhood is human in virtue of having a human nature. By saying that He is a 'human person' I do not mean that his personhood is *merely* human."

What do you think about that? Do you think the term 'human person' is innocuous in that sense, but that it is just too intrinsically misleading? :-)

-A8

Dear Campion,

"You can't just 'avoid' it."

Sure I can. I just did. ;-)

The difficulty is that we use words that have different meanings in different circumstances.

"Person" is one of those words. What it means theologically is different from what it means in modern English in a sociological or psychological sense. Because I don't want to tangle things up, in an abundance of caution, I prefer to avoid it. Nonetheless, those other meanings are important, as well.

"I suppose that's possible, since the term 'human being' doesn't have much of a theological pedigree."

That's kind of the point for using the phrase - it's less tangled up in theological meanings, and much more a non-theological description of something.

In fact, when I'm talking to folks who defend the "right" to abortion, I use the phrase just for that reason. It's much more separated from questions of theology or philosophy. It's a plain, everyday descriptor, a bit more rooted in observable phenomena. However, it still gets around to saying what a thing IS, rather than merely how it APPEARS.

"In metaphysical terms, what you've just said (I think) is that any *person* having a *human nature* is a 'human being'."

I'll make it easier. Anyone who is accurately called a man is a human being, as all men possessed of a human soul and a human body are human beings.

Conversely, to say that Jesus is NOT a human being suggests to me that Jesus merely took up a human body for the duration, and that He is not to be really identified as being REALLY human.

sitetest