Sam2:
Is this the letter that you were referring to?
??????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??
By the way, R’ Meiselman contends that the Rambam specifically says ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? but would not apply it to a definitive statement of Chazal.
As to whether the Ralbag’s shitta would be apikorsus for any of us to say, that would be an interesting discussion and we pretty much had this discussion at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/shmuly-yanklowitz-novominsker-and-oo-theology
The key difference is that the Ralbag hasn’t said anything that would be against the Rambam’s principles of faith (well maybe he has – I won’t claim to be an expert in all the Ralbag’s statements, but certainly the statements being discussed here are not against the Rambam’s principles).