I have encountered a number of Oneness Pentecostals who not only object to the Trinitarian concept of God as “three persons,” but object to calling God a “person” at all. In what follows, I provide typical objections offered against calling God a person, followed by a response.
Objection: The Bible never uses the term “person” of God
Response: The question is not whether the Bible uses the term per se, but whether the nature of God as described in Scripture can rightly be described as personable, given the definition of person: a conscious, rational, thinking, subject of various experiences (a mind).
Furthermore, the Bible does not speak of humans as “persons” either, and yet no one disputes the legitimacy of applying such a term to human beings. The mere fact that such terminology is not used of God no more means that God is not accurately described as being a person than the absence of such terminology for humans means we are not accurately described as persons. If we do not hesitate to call ourselves persons, neither should we hesitate to call God a person.
Objection: The Bible calls God a Spirit, not a person
Response: The two terms are not incompatible with one another. Humans are spirits as well as persons. “Spirit” describes the kind of substance our person is; i.e. our person is a spirit, or spiritual in nature. The same is true of God. He is a person who is spiritual in nature.
If God is not a person, what is He? Answering that He is a spirit will not do, because spirits come in two logically possible forms: personal, impersonal. Clearly God is not impersonal, so He must be a personable spirit. If God is personable, why not call Him a person? What other than “person” properly and accurately describes the attribute of being personable?
Objection: God cannot be a person because God does not have a body
Response: Having a body is not necessary to personhood. A person is essentially incorporeal in nature. What makes something a person is their possession of mind, the very thing God is/has. Having a body may be commonplace to persons, but it is not necessary. Put another way, persons might have bodies, but persons are not identical to their bodies. That this is true should be obvious from the doctrine of the intermediate state. When we die our person goes on to be with the Lord in heaven, but our body stays in the ground. Such a state of existence is possible only because having a body is not an essential property of persons. And if it is not an essential property of persons, then God’s lack of a body does not count as evidence against His personhood.
“Persons” applies to more than just human beings. Any being who is a conscious, rational, thinking, subject of various experiences is a person. Both angels and God fit this description, and thus they are persons: God is a divine person; angels are angelic persons; and humans are human persons. Humans are embodied persons, while God and angels are disembodied persons (apart from Christ, at least).
June 22, 2010 at 10:35 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
I am not against calling God Almighty a person as long as one expounds what person means in reference to God. Because most people whom call God Almighty a person would say that he is a man of which I am firmly in disagreement as well as the scriptures. When the scriptures call God Almighty a person means the character of God Almighty.
Therefore, I am not against calling God a person as long as one rightly understands what person means in reference to God Almighty.
Peace be unto you!
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
June 22, 2010 at 12:30 pm
One’s definition of “person” will largely determine how one falls on this issue, but Webster has the word “body” in his definition, and I think “person” has to be linked to a body. Although angels are called
“ministering spirits”, I do believe they possess bodies, i.e. spiritual bodies, as do all the heavenly host, and fall in the “person” category. Just my thoughts, but I do not consider the Father a person. The “firstborn” of all creation, the image of the invisible God, the express image of his person, is what personifies him. In the person of Jesus Christ, God has personified himself so that all creation can relate to Him and Him to us (we are especially blessed that the ‘human’ person was chosen, not other beings (see Hebrews 1). Glory to Him forever.
James
LikeLike
June 22, 2010 at 2:51 pm
James,
Are you a Christian? Do you believe the dead in Christ are conscious in heaven as they await the resurrection? If the answer to both questions is yes, then what would you call those who are with Jesus in heaven right now? Would you deny that they are persons? If so, on what basis? It seems to me that they would still be persons, even though they are not embodied. I don’t see why anyone, other than a materialist, would consider being embodied part of the sine qua non of personhood. It seems to me that the Christian view of personhood is defined primarily in terms of metaphysical qualities, not physical qualities. That’s why we would say humans are embodied persons, while angels (and God) are disembodied persons.
Jason
LikeLike
June 22, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Jason,
The temporal state of a being does not necessarily define him as not being a person. Paul likened not being clothed (unembodied) to being naked, a state signifying at least some incompleteness of that “person”. I do not think that qualifies him as a materialist. The question is would unembodied angels also be considered “naked”? In your view no, but I do not think a case can be made either way from the scriptures as far as I can see. Paul stated we will have “spiritual bodies”, which seems like an oxymoron to us, and he even admitted “it does not appear what we shall be, but we shall be like Him”. Understanding what a spiritual body really is would help solve this.
I will admit you are more convinced of your position than I am of mine, I certainly would not die for this. Yes, I do consider myself a Christian, and this is just how I have tended to lean on this subject, but your points are well taken.
James
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 1:44 am
Glad to see Hebrews 1:3 referrenced, since the word “person” is used to address/describe God.
Of course, this is our English word from the KJV and not the Greek or even Latin Vulgate.
The Greek word is hypostasis, and first refers to something set or placed under something else, hence a foundation. We also see the meaning of substance, through which the trinitatian creed comes. Ironically, that creed states that there are three “persons” in one substance, and doesn’t use the word person to refer to the substance or hypostasis, but to something else that the Bible does not address.
The Latin Vulgate uses substantiae, obviously where we get our word substance, with the prefix “sub-” referrring to something underneath or below, which is a good parallel to the original Greek.
So, the question is, can the word person refer to God, since our modern definition of the word is not the best translation of hypostasis or substantiae?
I say yes, with a caveat. The word “person” comes from Latin persona, and translates to “role” from the idea of an actors mask from the Greek prosopa, which can and does also mean face, which is used often in the New Testament in relationship to God, Matthew 18:10 being one example.
So, perhaps, when we speak of the “person” of God, we might, quite literally be speaking of the “face” of God.
(Granted “face of God” is an anthropomorphic symbol for something else, since God doesn’t technically have body parts, except through His Son, into and through Whom He manifested Himself to the physical world.)
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 11:35 am
James,
You mentioned temporality, but I’m not sure how that bears on the discussion of what a person is. Could you elaborate?
As for Paul’s comments in 2 Cor 5, I agree that a human is incomplete without his body, but that is because God has intended for human persons to be embodied persons. But it’s entirely another matter to say a disembodied human is less of a person.
Another reason I don’t consider personhood to have anything to do with having a body is that many organisms have bodies, but we would not consider them persons. Why not? They have skin, blood, and DNA just like our bodies do. If we both have the same physical stuff, and yet we do not share personhood, then that tells me personhood is something that transcends physicality. Personhood is about one’s spiritual capacities, hence, I think our spirit is the essence of our person. Humans are embodied persons, whereas God (a spirit) and angels (spirits) are disembodied persons.
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 11:39 am
Aaron,
I agree that Heb 1:3 does not mean person in the way we mean it today. As for it meaning “role” or “face/mask,” it meant that in Tertullian’s day, but that is not how we use the word today. Today the word has psychological overtones, referring to a single, conscious, rational, thinking, subject of various experiences (a mind). On this definition does God qualify as a person? I would argue that He does.
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 11:41 am
Hello Jason and others,
Grace and peace be with you. I write this in love and sheer curiosity, not sarcasm.
My next question after yours (i.e., ‘Is God a Person?’) would be: then why not admit three persons?
It seems to me that unless one acknowledges the distinctions in the Godhead, one may very well lean toward if not outright agree with modalism, which has been considered false doctrine since the 3rd century.
Thank you for considering my email. Please forgive my lack of understanding. I appreciate this dialogue and thank God for it.
Shea
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 11:57 am
Shea,
I don’t see how it follows that if we identify X to be in the category of “person,” that it follows we should categorize X to be “three persons.” I would identify SHEA to be a person, but it doesn’t follow that SHEA is three persons. The same is true of God. While one could admit the logical possibility that God could be three persons, the mere identification of God as a personal being does not lead one to conclude that He is a tri-personal being. One would need additional evidence for that. Oneness adherents reject the Trinity because they believe such evidence is lacking.
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Shea asks,
Because the Bible doesn’t teach God is three Persons and because such a concept is unintelligible.
Acknowledging the personhood of God does not entail the Trinity any more than acknowledging His personhood entails a “septinity” (see Rev. 5:6). One could just as easily ask whether belief in one God entails affirming more than one. If there is one God, why not admit three Gods?
Well, since I am a modalist, I fail to see how that counts against Jason’s affirmation. Modalism is considered “false” by those who disagree with it. It is the doctrine of the Trinity, in all its forms, that is false; but that is not the topic of this thread. 🙂
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Jason,
Thanks! That helps. I’m not saying one should then categorize X to be three persons, but I’m saying that identifying X “to be in the category of ‘person'” opens the door for the possibility of X being in the category of ‘three persons,’ since we are, after all, talking about personhood.
Do oneness adherents (unitarians) reject the view that God is trimodal?
Thanks!
Shea
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Scalia,
Thanks for your reply! It’s interesting that if I say modalism is false then one could turn around and say that the trinity is false. That doesn’t seem to get us very far. What I believe helps is to look at Holy Scripture and the history of the Church.
Although this could be another topic for a different thread, I’m curious what you think about the historical view of modalism. I, however, believe that this is somewhat on topic of this thread since many Christians in answering ‘Is God a Person’ might say that they do not believe He is a Person but a Spirit operating in different modes.
Thanks!
Shea
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Shea writes,
Correct. That is why I replied by calling trinitarian doctrine “false.” I’m showing why one shouldn’t throw out off-topic assertions like that because they can just as easily get thrown back.
The history of the Church doesn’t define the Scriptures. Whatever the Catholic Church did under its political arrangement with the Roman Empire has no bearing on the teachings of the Bible.
Yes, this is off-topic.
Yes, but that doesn’t engage the arguments Jason has set forth. What terminology they prefer to use is up to them.
Thanks for your message.
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Hi Scalia,
Please forgive me if I offended you. In no way did I mean to. Days prior to this post I did actually look for different threads on Jason’s blog to talk about modalism because I’m trying to understand the difference between modalism and personhood.
I thought this was a good opportunity. I’m definitely learning as I go!
Thanks for letting me know that I need to be more specific to the question of the thread as I sincerely wish to be respectful. Please forgive me for referring to what you so genuinely believe to know as false. Anyone’s search for God, I believe is a very beautiful thing.
Shea
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Shea,
Essentially you are arguing “if X then possibly Y. X, therefore possibly Y.” I agree with that reasoning. The question, of course, is why think Y is actual rather than just possible (or why think Y is even possible).
Given the reluctance of some Oneness Pentecostals to even call God a “person,” I can see how you might see my acknowledgement of God as a person as a hop-skip-and-a-jump away from Trinitarianism. My previous response was simply to show that the skip and jump do not necessarily follow from the hop. 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Shea,
As for #12, some Oneness adherents (what you call modalists) would make the distinction between “Spirit” and “person” (as I noted in objection #2 of my post), and say God is just a Spirit operating in different modes. I, myself, however, see the two terms as virtually synonymous. To say God is a Spirit operating in distinct modes is equivalent to saying God is a person operating in distinct modes.
As for #14, I don’t think “modalism” and “personhood” are even worthy objects of comparison. The former refers to a specific view about the identity of God and the nature of the Father-Son-Spirit relationship, while the latter refers to the nature of God. I think it’s safe to say that all Oneness adherents (modalists) would affirm that God is personable, even if they prefer not to use such terminology.
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Shea, I’m not at all offended by your posts. I don’t mind discussing “modalism” with you, but I try to stay within every thread’s topic. Jason, as site administrator, has the prerogative to expand the subject matter; but I try to avoid doing so.
Thanks again for your messages.
LikeLike
June 23, 2010 at 10:50 pm
“Today the word has psychological overtones, referring to a single, conscious, rational, thinking, subject of various experiences (a mind).”
According to this definition, God is a person, undoubtedly. And I have no objections. But is the word person limited to this defintion only?
As far as Tertullian’s day and all that, I was actually alluding to another point. That, since “person” or “persona” referred to roles actors played, as such, back then, this is much closer to the idea of modes, hence modalism, as opposed to three separate centers of “conscious, rational, thinking subjects of various experiences”, which would be the standard trinitarian position.
The irony being that many trinitarians accuse modalists of saying that God must have to “change masks” like an actor, i.e. at once He’s the Father, now the Son, now the Holy Spirit, back to the Son, and so on.
Which, when considering the most literal, historical meaning of person, which the trinitarians use to describe God in tri-unity, this makes for an interesting logomachy.
LikeLike
June 24, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Aaron wrote,
Yes, we discussed this extensively in our theology classes many moons ago. Tertullian obviously intended that term to imply a genuine personal distinction in the Godhead; but, as you note, personae implies a mode of revelation. This further illustrates the impossible task trinitarian apologists have in making their affirmations intelligible.
Defining ‘person’ as a self-conscious, rational existence is perhaps prima facie adequate when discussing theology, but how does this definition apply to fertilized human eggs? Under this definition, a fertilized human egg is not a person, only potentially so. If I say Aaron is a person and a fertilized egg is a person, then I’m obviously defining that term differently in the same sentence. The apparent solution is to either retain the proposed definition and deny the personhood of a fertilized egg or to appeal to primary/secondary definitions.
Alternatively, we can either excise the term person from our theological vocabulary (e.g. God is a rational being) or simply affirm that God is a rational person.
The generic “person” might appear too unwieldy without clarification, but I think context adequately satisfies this concern. I also think the terminology here comes down to a matter of preference, unless one attempts to import trinitarian concepts.
When I was a trinitarian, I never put much stock in that objection. Since God is omnipresent, He never needs to “change masks.” If He can intelligently listen to billions of prayers simultaneously, He can certainly perform myriad roles simultaneously too.
LikeLike
June 24, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Scalia,
“When I was a trinitarian, I never put much stock in that objection. Since God is omnipresent, He never needs to “change masks.” If He can intelligently listen to billions of prayers simultaneously, He can certainly perform myriad roles simultaneously too.”
What caused you to abandon Trinitarianism?
I’ve tried many times to explain that though we can call God a “person”, a divine person is different than a human person using the same example you have used about God being able to listen to more than one stream of information (prayers) simultaneously. And His ability to do that does not necessitate that God be multiple persons as it would for humans.
LikeLike
June 24, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Scalia,
“When I was a trinitarian, I never put much stock in that objection. Since God is omnipresent, He never needs to “change masks.” If He can intelligently listen to billions of prayers simultaneously, He can certainly perform myriad roles simultaneously too.”
What caused you to abandon Trinitarianism?
I’ve tried many times to explain that though we can call God a “person”, a divine person is different than a human person using the same example you have used about God being able to listen to more than one stream of information (prayers) at the same time. His ability to do that does not necessitate that He must therefore be multiple persons like it would for a human person. No one thinks that would be necessary requirement for God to hear and respond to everyone’s prayers as well as direct angels, etc, so then why do we have to say that when God became man for Him in his incarnate state to pray, He would have had to be another person from the one he is praying to unless we are boxing God into what we know that human persons are capable of doing? Other explanation of Jesus’ prayers are much more compelling than saying that there must be at least two divine persons in view.
LikeLike
June 24, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Sorry for posting twice!
LikeLike
June 24, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Scalia,
I agree that the definition of person I offered would not apply to the unborn in its earliest stages, but only if one requires that these capacities be instantiated. I see no reason for such a constraint, however. A being who possesses the named capacities is a person even if those capacities are not presently being expressed (either because of its stage of development, or some injury).
While I know you stated your preference for “person,” I thought I would point out that your alternative, “rational being,” would not solve the problem you posed about the unborn since they lack rationality. I think the modern definition of person can be applied universally to all humans and God so long as we take into account the distinction between primary and secondary capacities (instantiated vs. latent).
Jason
LikeLike
June 24, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Wow, you guys are smart! I’m learning so much from this conversation. I have a lot to chew on…
LikeLike
June 24, 2010 at 11:39 pm
CarolJean asks,
Although this is off-topic, I asked Jason if I could give a brief reply and he graciously gave me the green light. Being raised trinitarian, I simply assumed its truth. In a thread entitled Justifying our Own Traditions Jason wrote:
I never critically evaluated the tenets of my faith until I wondered why the world was filled with so many different beliefs. Long story short, I sought to discover the rational foundation for every worldview I had read or heard about. When I attempted to make sense of the various doctrines of the Trinity, I found no scriptural or philosophical sense could be made thereof. One can only try so long to make a square peg fit into a round hole. I quit trying. 🙂
It still amazes me to read contemporary trinitarian apologetics. From Geisler’s 1x1x1 to Craig’s three-headed dog (I am not joking), trinitarians will twist mightily to prove three Gods are really one God (thus exemplifying Jason’s observation). Do I think they’re dishonest? I think some of them are, but not all. That judgment is God’s prerogative.
I hope that adequately answers your question.
LikeLike
June 24, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Jason writes,
Agreed. That is why I mentioned primary/secondary definitions.
True, but I was not proposing replacing person with rational being except when defining God. “Person” can still be retained with respect to human beings whereas rational being (or “rational person”) is, perhaps, more precise.
Yes, I agree. You are also correct to note I do not object to the word person, although I understand why my brethren are uncomfortable with it.
LikeLike
June 26, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Scalia,
Thank you.
Just one follow-up question…when you gave up trying to fit the square pegs into round holes, how did you end up with a Oneness view of God?
LikeLike
June 27, 2010 at 3:37 pm
CarolJean asks,
I studied Arianism and obtained a significant amount of material from the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. At the end of the day I found their doctrine of Christ to be unbiblical, not to mention their views being based upon their patently dishonest New World Translation. That their denial of Christ’s deity is pathological is evidenced by their blatant distortion of critical biblical passages that refute their pet notions.
I met and became friends with some Pentecostal people. Having no recollection of ever visiting a Pentecostal church, I decided to attend a few services. While listening to a lesson on the Godhead, I experienced what I later learned old-time Pentecostals called “the revelation.” It was direct, overwhelming and glorious! It was a true epiphany! Recall the words of Christ in Matthew 11:27–
Moreover, we’re told in Luke 24:45 —
This was not an extra-biblical revelation. Rather, it was the unlocking of an enigma that resulted in my soul being flooded with the marvelous and glorious knowledge of the mighty God in Christ!
I still weep with gratitude when I hear or read about the oneness of God. After all these decades the knowledge of Him floods my heart with joy…
LikeLike
June 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Jason,
Sorry I have not been able to get back before now.
I really have no problem with the definition you give of “person”, and saying God is a person. However, I would like to make these points:
1. When you say God is a person, I presume you mean the “Father”. We all know Jesus
is a person. Having a body, He has a form and He has finite dimensions. The
Scriptures teach God “inhabits eternity, and “the heavens of heavens cannot contain
Him”. Does the average person out there equate “person” with “people”? Before I
came to believe in Oneness, I equated 3 persons in the Godhead with 3 “people”. It’s
just the way I perceived it, maybe not everyone else had the same concept. I just now
see the “Father” as greater than my own concept of what I always thought of as a
“person”. Though Trinitarians see the “Ancient of Days” in Daniel as speaking of the
Father, I see it as purely symbolic, since that same vision also applies to the Son in
Revelation. Do you see my point? I am just concerned that some may have this faulty concept of the Father and picture Him and Jesus as 2
“people” standing side by side. Otherwise, we have no real argument, I
can accept your definition of “person” as a rational, intelligent being.
2. We both agree angels can be classified as “persons”, you say they are just not
embodied. Whereas God is infinite, they are finite, and I would presume have finite
dimensions. Do you think they have mass? If we have bodies in heaven, I should be
to shake your hand or pat you on the back. I have a hard time believing we would not
be able to do the same with an angel, otherwise they would be living in a phantom
zone. When you say angels are spirits without bodies, do you have some concepts of
what their nature would be like in reference to us?
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 11:06 am
Praise Jesus
The Bible does use the word person and Persons right? The Bible never says God is Three Co-equal Persons and it could have.
I prefer “Tridimensional” God rather than “Trinity”
Yours in Christ Jesus
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 11:45 am
Thank you, Scalia, for that wonderful testimony! Truth is precious!
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 7:57 pm
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matt 24:36
“After the stone had been rolled aside, Jesus looked up toward heaven and prayed, ‘Father, I thank you for answering my prayer. I know that you always answer my prayers. But I said this, so that the people here would believe that you sent me.” John 11:41-42
QED
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 1:17 pm
ScaliaAwesome testimony my brother! I’m thankful that old time “revelation” came my way too! Nothing gets me more pumped when a preacher throws down on “When you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father”!
As for “person” Jason nailed it, I’m lumped in with most about getting nervous with this term. On the flip side Jason you nailed it again when you said God is personable.
LikeLike
July 13, 2010 at 10:32 am
I remember when i was against using the word “person” when speaking of God but after learning what a person was, i now use it. God is a person
LikeLike
July 14, 2010 at 10:40 am
God is a personal Being. Every time God manifested Himself it was a manifestation of a personal God. God’s Spirit is personal. God has manifested Himself personally as Father, in the person of His Son, and is manifesting Himself personally as the Holy Spirit today. God’s Spirit is omnipresent; therefore God’s personality is omnipresent. This explains why traditional theology uses “persons” when they see God manifesting Himself personally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They see personality in God’s distinct manifestations. The word “persons” naturally conjures up the idea of separate entities of beings. On the other hand, the word “manifestations” without any reference to “personality” also dues injustice to God’s revelation as (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) into nominal or impersonal distinctions. In other words, using “manifestations” alone does not help bring clarity to understanding the real different between the Father (the invisible and transcedant God) and the Son (God in the flesh).
LikeLike
July 14, 2010 at 10:47 am
God has manifested Himself personally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Every time God relates to man, He does it in a very personal way. This explains why you can see in the Scripture personality in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You cannot divorce God from His personality. God’s Spirit (as well as His personality) is ominpresent, multiform and personal. The Holy Spirit is not some impersonal manifestations, it is God Himself personally present.
LikeLike
July 14, 2010 at 10:56 am
When I say that you can see personality in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit I am not saying that God is composed of three individual entities, or three minds or is some family of diferent persons, but rather God’s personality and His Self-revelation need to be accounted for. You do not have to avoid or dispise the word “personality”, but rather understand it fully and correctly. We have pounded down on the doctrinal anvil God’s oneness to a fine point; and now more than ever need to account for God’s personality manifested in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
July 15, 2010 at 10:16 am
James, Regarding point #1, when I say God is a person, yes, I am referring to the Father (but prefer the more general “God” since I think “Father” is a term used more specifically of God post-incarnation). With that said, I would question your assumption that Jesus is a person based on the fact that He had a body. Having a body has nothing to do with being a person. A person is an immaterial entity. Humans are simply embodied persons. Want proof? Go to a graveyard. Those are bodies you are looking at, but they are no longer persons. Why? Because the spirit has departed from the body. So what makes Jesus a person is not that He has a body. What makes Jesus a person is that He is a rational, conscious being. And since Jesus is God incarnate, if we understand Jesus to be a person, then we need to understand God/Father to be a person as well. Regarding #2, no, I do not think angels have mass because mass is a physical property, and angels are immaterial beings. We, however, will be material beings forever. That’s why you’ll be able to pat me on the back. Could you pat an angel on the back? Only if he temporarily materializes like we see them doing in Scripture from time to time. Jason
LikeLike
September 13, 2014 at 5:10 pm
I Simply Don’t View God As A Person But I Do Believe That God Is Spirit!
LikeLike
June 27, 2019 at 10:24 pm
My dictionary’s first definition for person is simply “a human being”. Father in the Bible refers to Eternal Spirit. This Eternal Spirit manifested himself as the holy spirit in the burning bush and the tabernacle, temple, as well as other times in the Old Testament. In the New Testament that same Eternal Spirit manifested himself on the Day of Pentecost giving evidence of his presence through the individuals speaking in tongues. That same evidence is present today when someone receives the Holy Spirit. So where does the Person of God come in? Jesus is the only flesh, bone, and blood, human being. He was both GOD and human being. God made himself a body became a person, so he could die for our sins, but also so he could have a relationship with us that i think even He and Adam did not enjoy before Adam’s fall.
To use the definition as a person being any self aware rational being can lead to unusual problems. For example, there are children born with so little mental capacity that there is no indication of self awareness or rationality. They would not be persons according to that definition. I think Hitler’s crew agreed with that! In fact, pro-choice people on the abortion issue love that definition because they assert the unborn are not self aware or rational. However, I assert they are persons, simply because they are human beings, flesh, blood, and bone!
Also there is evidence mounting that some animals are self aware and rational to a degree. Does that make them persons? Animal activist would give them the same rights as human beings. Things get a bit complicated when we enlarge and change the meaning of words.
LikeLike