--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > Yikes. In terms of Christian theology, you're quite right, > > of course. (That was my mistake, not Wikipedia's!) > > > > But the "mappings" I've read have still identified devata > > with the Holy Spirit and chhandas with the Son, which > > makes more sense to me, the order being less important > > than the similarity of function, at least as I perceive > > it. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice, I > > guess. > > > > That may be what Paligap meant by saying the mapping is a > > "bit tricky." > > > Yes! Rather like language itself, where words may convey quite different > tonalities to different people, or even the same people, in different > contexts at different times. None of it is carved in stone, as far as I can > see, anyhow.
Perhaps some of form of this "disagreement" was behind the "quoque" controversy? If so, I guess I'd go with the Latin rite, saying the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son, while those who ascribe the devata-value to the HG might say it proceeds from the Father alone...
