you claim necessitates reinterpreting the scriptural texts.

The eighth point concerns his statement: “This proximity is only through obedience and servitude. As for proximity in direction, it is known of necessity that it does not result from prostration.”

The response is: This statement affirms the first kind of proximity, denies the second, and asserts that the two are contradictory and mutually opposed. Yet nothing you have mentioned demonstrates that they contradict one another. Proximity through obedience and servitude does not preclude proximity in direction, since obedience is the act of the one drawing near, while direction is the location of his act. There is no incompatibility between an act and its location. If he affirms a kind of proximity that precludes proximity in direction, his statement would be false. This is impossible: no kind of proximity precludes proximity in direction, for proximity necessarily entails direction.

The ninth point concerns your statement: “As for proximity in direction, it is known of necessity that it