and what Thayer suggests that YOU AGREE WITH is that “person” in both Matthew 22:16 and Gal. 2:6 means outward appearance, “face”.
An “outward appearance” is not a “someone”, “a who” or an individual “a person”, having personhood.
To assign the giving or receiving of authority to the word “face”, “person” at 2 Cor. 2:10 is not supported by the meaning of “prosopos” while “presence” is.
“So you understand now that “prosopos” at times can only be translated as “person? So why the long post asking for an example of such?”
Again you misstate what I said, I did not just ask “for an example of such?” as above but rather:
You say the Greek reader “takes the meaning from context, for example, when “prosopos” is used in the strictly anatomical sense the reader understand it as “face”, otherwise, the entirety of the human individual”.
So I must ask,
Have you found any instance of “prosopon” or its variants, being used to refer to “person” in the sense of an individual with all the characteristics of self existence that confer upon him personhood, an individuality not associated with objects or animals?
The examples you give do not meet the the criteria of the question above or EVEN WHAT YOU SAID YOU AGREE WITH, i.e.,
“I don't disagree at all that the meaning of “person” in Matthew 22:16 is indeed what Thayer suggests”
and what Thayer suggests that YOU AGREE WITH is that “person” in both Matthew 22:16 and Gal. 2:6 means outward appearance, “face”.
You say (have said) the Greek reader “takes the meaning from context, for example, when “prosopos” is used in the strictly anatomical sense the reader understand it as “face”, otherwise, the entirety of the human individual”.
That's an either/or choice, the face with eyes, nose, etc. OR the person with all the attributes (”the entirety) associated with what it means to be an individual, self aware, “a person”.
That, you have agreed, is NOT the case, presence, literal face, outward appearance, being amongst other meanings you have agreed that “prosopos” can mean.
In 2 Cor 1:11, however, "prosopos" is certainly not congruous with outward appearance: "εκ πολλων προσωπων το εις ημας χαρισμα" refers to people praying. Surely St. Paul did not mean to say that because the Corinthians made the outward appearance of praying it became a gift for him.
Now, can one say that in 2 Cor 1:11 the "individual with all the characteristics of self existence that confer upon him personhood"? I don't know. I know that in order to pray one has to be a person. An outward appearance does not pray; a presence does not pray. If there is a creature that prays yet lacks all the characteristics of personhood, I am not aware of it, unless you think it was a praying mantis that St. Paul was thanking.
Likewise, when St. Paul pardons the penitents in 2 Cor. 2:10 he does so in the person of Christ. The person of Christ here has enough of personhood to authorize St. Paul to forgive sin. That is consistent with John 20:21-23. To say that St. Paul did so "in the face of Christ" but not "in the person of Christ" could mean two things. One, St. Paul put on outward appearance of Christ. That is comical and of course not meant. Two, that St. Paul did so as Christ was watching, -- in the presence of Christ but with no authority of Christ. The latter is the unfortuinate version of events offered by some dynamic "translations". That is smoother for the reader as it does not engage his mind, adn that is the chief objective of dynamic translators. We often say things like: I gave him $10 in the presence of Jim. But does it make sense in the scenario on hand? I don't see what sense it makes if St. Paul pardoned the penitents who had already been pardoned, without attaching the authority of Christ to his pardon. Was Christ any less present when the penitents were pardoned the first time?
I think it is clear that St. Paul added that his pardon was in the "prosopon" of Christ in order to invoke the authority of Christ and not merely point to Christ's presence. If you have any explanation of this where the authority of Christ is not claimed by St. Paul, but his presence is mentioned, I'd like to hear it.