>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?
I didn’t say Einstein had no mind. In the Christian tradition, the mind is a property of the soul (which by observation, while the body and soul are properly united during life, provably is intricately bound to the physical brain). Einstein was not a mind: much though Western Christian seems to want it to be so, we are not our minds. It was the whole person whom Christ became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, died on the Cross, trampling down Death by death, and rose again as the firstfruits from the dead, to save, not minds, nor even disembodies souls.
Admittedly some of the Fathers use the tripartite anthropology—body (soma), mind (nous) and soul (psyche)—though the tripartite body, soul and spirit (pneuma) is equally common.
I take your point, but there is still a real problem with the sentence: angels are minds (mind properly understood as nous), quite literally, while to say Einstein was a mind, is not actually true, but an example of metonymy. And, I wanted to emphasize the Orthodox view that we are not our minds.