Second point: They say, “That whose light fills the space between heaven and earth with brightness, and which is truly present in a given house without being conjoined to the very sun from which it was generated.”

We reply: The ray that is between heaven and earth is itself the brightness; it is the light. Accordingly, your statement that “the ray’s light fills the expanse between heaven and earth with illumination” presupposes three separate things: a ray, the light of that ray, and another light produced from it. This is mistaken. In reality there is nothing here but the body of the sun in the sky and its ray—and that ray is the very brightness and light found between heaven and earth.

Third: Your phrase “without separating from the sun itself” implies that this ray is identical to what inheres in the sun. That contradicts both sense-perception and reason, for the ray that settles in the air and on the earth is an accidental quality that does not inhere solely in the sun. The ray that strikes one spot is not the same entity as the ray that strikes another spot, even though it is its counterpart and likeness; the genus “ray” merely groups them together. Likewise, the ray of this lamp is not the ray of that lamp—even if we imagine them mingling so that the light grows stronger—and the motion of this portion of air is not the motion of that portion of air. Parallels of this sort are numerous.

Fourth: Your claim, “In the same way, God dwelt in the nāsūt (human nature) without the Father departing from Him,” is an invalid analogy.