[The_Reader_David]

I suspect the error in the sentence is not the one you are jeering at:

To say angels are minds (and more brilliant then Einstein) is correct—provided one understands the English “mind” as an equivalent of the Greek “nous”. Holy Tradition speaks of the bodiless powers as “noetic beings” and uses “angelic realms” and “noetic realms” interchangably.

The problem is that Einstein was not a mind, but human being, body and soul.

[OneWingedShark]

>The problem is that Einstein was not a mind, but human being, body and soul.

So then Einstein had no mind? — ;)

I think the problem is the is-a vs has-a constructions in object-oriented programming. Though there are some places where the correct ‘view’ depends on the implementation, so to speak.

Take sex, for example. It is linguistically correct to say blank is a male, or blank has a male gender. In the first, the person IS a male, in the second the person has a sex (that is the gender field/attribute) and it depends on how you are modeling the construct of “Person”.

Do you understand what I’m getting at?