« Why do republicans want old people to be poor? | Main | Why James Dobson isn't there when you need him »

February 28, 2005


Musing Michael

Well, he's wrong. "Person" was never used in the second century to talk about parts of the Trinity, since there was, to the best of my knowledge, nobody representing England at any of the synods that would have discussed it--and if there had been, he wouldn't have spoken English as we know it, either. What they did use, at places like Chalcedon (in the fifth century) and others, was the perfectly ordinary Greek expression prosopon, which literally means "that which is before (pros) the eyes" or, less cumbersome, "face." It's still around as a loan-word (prosopography) in English, to describe the study of persons and their relationships to one another in the ancient world.


I was tempted to get into it over at the Evolving Liar, but experience has taught me that to engage these guys in a debate is to give them credibility among the fence-sitters. Last thing I want to do!


Good idea, pw. Besides, the only people who would be convinced by the dreck that guy is pushing are people who think that if they don't understand the argument, then the guy making it must be right.

The comments to this entry are closed.