The moment we've all been waiting for . . .

. . . is finally here. Many of you have been waiting with baited breath to see how Jonathan Prejean would respond to my series on the Christological controversies. Surely, we all thought, he had big guns in patristic scholarship that he was reserving till now, and that he would pull them out to sunstantiate the charges of Nestorianism and historical ignorance he's been leveling against me over the past month. Well, here is Jonathan Prejean's "response" to my series. I suggest you read it before contining on with this post. When you're finished with it (it won't take long, believe me), then return to this post.

Finished already? Wow, that was fast! Keep in mind that this paltry, lazy post, which does not answer even one point I made, is supposed to be a response to these posts . . .

Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Post 4
Post 5

. . . all of which are supported by the same patristic scholars Prejean pretended supported his views against mine. I may have treated Prejean to some lessons in historical theology; but I took away a lesson or two of my own--never waste time responding to Jonathan Prejean rants. He can't back them up.