Up until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, there were several competing views concerning how to understand the nature of Christ. The two main non-heretical theories were monophysitism (one nature which is divine) and the Chalcedonian definition or the hypostatic union (two natures, one divine and one human).
For the purposes of this experiment let’s use Gordon Clark’s definition of ‘person’ and apply it to every individual who has lived on earth throughout Biblical history. Clark’s definition of ‘person’ is ‘a complex of propositions’.
If every man is an individual unique complex of propositions which includes everything about him, body and soul, every facet of his being, how would Christ, the Logos, be beyond this definition. If He is not reasonably beyond this definition, how might it change our understanding going forward?
Is it worth the effort to try to know and understand our Lord and our own person-hood perhaps a little bit better? What is the worst that can happen? We come out with a better handle on truth whichever way it goes!