God has no son ... really?

[M3n0r4h]

A Muslim will vehemently declare to you that God (Allah) has no son. Really? What does the Tanakh have to say regarding that subject? Let’s examine a few verses in what some call the Old Testament and see what they reveals on the subject.

Psalm 2:7-9 & 12 English Standard Version​

7 I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”​

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

If one notices who is relating the decree in verse 7, it appears to be presented as the voice of the Son. Some have claimed that they think that they can identify all three members of the Godhead speaking in Psalm 2. You decide.

Proverbs 30:4 English Standard Version

4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!​

Muslims refer to Yeshua/Jesus as Issa, to Muslims, Issa is His name but they really don't know Him. A quick diversion into the New Testament reveals more insight into the creative role of the Son.

Colossians 1:15-20 English Standard Version​

The Preeminence of Christ​

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.​

Now back to the Tanakh.

Isaiah 9:6 English Standard Version​

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace [Sar Shalom].​

Isaiah 9:6 reveals that a child that will be a son, which would indicate a male human being, shall be called Mighty God and Everlasting Father? Yalla, yalla oh Muslim; try to wrap your head around that marvelous revelation. Hurry, hurry oh Christian; try to wrap your head around that revelation. It still exceeds my limited ability to comprehend that astounding fact.

Matthew 1:21 Amplified Bible​

21 She will give birth to a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus (Yeshua - The Lord is salvation), for He will save His people from their sins.”​

So I am so very sorry to tell you this oh Muslim, but there is no salvation in Islam, because the allah of Islam has no son. However, the God (Allah) of Israel has one whom He sent into the world, and His name is Yeshua [The Lord is Salvation] (Jesus).

 

[Wrangler]

A Muslim will vehemently declare to you that God (Allah) has no son. Really? What does the Tanakh have to say regarding that subject? Let’s examine a few verses in what some call the Old Testament and see what they reveals on the subject.

Psalm 2:7-9 & 12 English Standard Version​

7 I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;​

today I have begotten you.​

What did the Muslim say in response to this?

 

[M3n0r4h]

What did the Muslim say in response to this?

They tend to ignore what they don't agree with and then propose another straw man. I have yet to receive a response regarding the verses in the Quran that teach that the much of the Levant is given as the inheritance of Israel either (Q 17:100-104 & Q 5:20-21).

 

[Matthias]

I dealt with the issue when it came up in a conversation with a Muslim by drawing his attention to Luke 3:38. That satisfied his objection, at least at the time. We spoke many times after that and he never brought the subject up again.

 

[ButterflyJones]

I don't care what Muslims believe.

It is a tragedy that an apostate Bible publishing house abrogated scripture so to pander to them by deleting all scripture that pertained to calling Jesus the son of God.

That original scripture offended Muslims!
Imagine how offended they are when they're dead.

 

[M3n0r4h]

I dealt with the issue when it came up in a conversation with a Muslim by drawing his attention to Luke 3:38. That satisfied his objection, at least at the time. We spoke many times after that and he never brought the subject up again.

That is a good verse as well. The reason I was arguing mainly from the OT is because it shows the concept of a Godhead has its roots in Judaism. The word trinity doesn't appear in any verse in the Bible, so one of the straw man arguments that muslims present is to show them where in the Bible the word trinity appears. According to the verses from the OT alone, we can see that God (the father) declared that He has a son. In John chapters 14-16, Jesus introduces us to the concept that the Holy Spirit is a person and a member of the Godhead, which is given a place of special importance and reverence in Matt. 12:32. Hence, in the NT we learn that three members constitute the Godhead. Just as the plan of salvation is a mosaic, that becomes vividly clear in the NT, so too, the Godhead, (a possible meaning indicated by the word "echad" [compound unity] in the Shema), is revealed in a progressive manner in the OT which is likewise completed in the NT.

 

[Matthias]

That is a good verse as well. The reason I was arguing mainly from the OT is because it shows the concept of a Godhead has its roots in Judaism. The word trinity doesn't appear in any verse in the Bible, so one of the straw man arguments that muslims present is to show them where in the Bible the word trinity appears. According to the verses from the OT alone, we can see that God (the father) declared that He has a son. In John chapters 14-16, Jesus introduces us to the concept that the Holy Spirit is a person and a member of the Godhead, which is given a place of special importance and reverence in Matt. 12:32. Hence, in the NT we learn that three members constitute the Godhead. Just as the plan of salvation is a mosaic, that becomes vividly clear in the NT, so too, the Godhead, (a possible meaning indicated by the word "echad" [compound unity] in the Shema), is revealed in a progressive manner in the OT which is likewise completed in the NT.

The Muslim I spoke about has a PhD in computer science. He understands that the Hebrew word echad means “one“ and can be used, just as it is in English, to modify a collective noun. (Ex. echad / 1 team.)

He doesn’t believe that “God” (Heb. elohim) is a collective noun.

He was a work colleague of mine for many years and we became very good friends. I prevailed upon him to take me to the mosque he attended in Atlanta (see below) to observe a worship service, where he arranged a private meeting for me afterward with the Imam.

P.S. Just to clarify, the private meeting was arranged at the request of the Imam, not me. He knew beforehand that I would be present at the mosque that day and wanted to deliver a message, a prophecy about me, in person.

Home | Al-Farooq Masjid

alfarooqmasjid.org

 

[M3n0r4h]

The Muslim I spoke about has a PhD in computer science. He understands that the Hebrew word echad means “one“ and can be used, just as it is in English, to modify a collective noun. (Ex. echad / 1 team.)

He doesn’t believe that “God” (Heb. elohim) is a collective noun.

He was a work colleague of mine for many years and we became very good friends. I prevailed upon him to take me to the mosque he attended in Atlanta (see below) to observe a worship service, where he arranged a private meeting for me afterward with the Imam.

P.S. Just to clarify, the private meeting was arranged at the request of the Imam, not me. He knew beforehand that I would be present at the mosque that day and wanted to deliver a message, a prophecy about me, in person.

Home | Al-Farooq Masjid

alfarooqmasjid.org

The 'can be used' in your above statement would indicate that the word can be also be used differently. In the Bible it is written that man and a woman become one (echad) flesh. The Jewish sage Maimonides (the Rambam) wanted to change the reading of the Shema in reaction to Christianity and Gnosticism to use the word Yachid, which does indicate an absolute one. According to another Jewish rabbi, the word echad could mean a compound unity of more than one item. When the spies came back to report on the promised land they brought back a bunch (echad) of grapes. Muslims are very adept in distorting passages from the Bible by presenting them out of context, however, they become apoplectic when one points out any issues found in the Q and then question one's qualifications to make those claims. That kind of sounds like what the scribes and Pharisees attempted to pull on Jesus. Cheers.

 

[Niblo]

A Muslim will vehemently declare to you that God (Allah) has no son. Really? What does the Tanakh have to say regarding that subject? Let’s examine a few verses in what some call the Old Testament and see what they reveals on the subject.

I understand the word ‘nature’ to be a reference to what is fundamental, or essential, about a being. It is that which makes a being – any being – what it is.

Christian notions concerning the nature of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) are derived from selected interpretations of scripture, augmented by the opinion of sympathetic scholars. The process is simple enough: Read……interpret……discuss......reach a decision……formulate a notion……make a declaration……claim sole possession of the ‘truth’……and declare as ‘heresy’ all opposing notions. Thank you very much, and have a nice day!

According to the Nestorians, Yeshua is one person, two hypostases and two natures. According to Trinitarians, he is one person, one hypostasis and two natures. Monophysites, on the other hand, hold that he is one person, one hypostasis, and one nature. For Unitarians – and the rest of us folk – he is just a man: one person; one nature; no hypostasis.

Mike Robinson (a Christian apologist) writes:

‘Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God has two natures found in one person……The Bible reveals the dual nature of Christ and humanity’s salvation demands that be the case. It’s a mystery, but a mystery that in selected ways not only makes sense, but is necessary for redemption. Jesus, in the incarnation, did not lose His divinity. He did not lose His authority or His deity. He voluntarily came to the earth as a human baby to live perfectly as He fulfilled the Law…..He took on our humanity in order to die in our place….’ (‘How Jesus Became God In The Flesh: The Proper Exaltation Of A Prophet From Nazareth: Bart Ehrman Refuted’).

There is broad agreement among New Testament scholars (and has been for decades) that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) did not consider himself to be God.

Consider, by way of example, the following quotations:

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.' (The Rev. C.F.D Moule: ‘The Origin of Christology’).

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

‘There (is) no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly he called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn: ‘Christology in the Making - a New Testament inquiry into the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite: ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship' and that it is impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (The Rev. David Brown: ‘The Divine Trinity’)

‘The historical Jesus of Nazareth did not teach or apparently believe that he was God, or God the Son, Second Person of a Holy Trinity, incarnate, or the son of God in a unique sense.’ (John Hick: ‘Believable Christianity’. See also his ‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age’.

Trinitarians claim that Yeshua has two natures….one entirely human…one entirely divine. Let’s call this ‘notion A.’

Unitarians claim that Yeshua was just a man; and in no way divine. Let’s call this ‘notion B.’

Two mutually exclusive notions about one particular man.

According to the Council of Basel, Yeshua was ‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin…’(Session 13).

If Yeshua has two natures (one human and one divine, as per ‘notion A’), then he cannot possibly be ‘like us in all respects (except for sin)’.

That leaves ‘notion B’.

If Yeshua is just a man – an entirely human being, like the rest of us – then he cannot possibly be God.

 

[M3n0r4h]

I understand the word ‘nature’ to be a reference to what is fundamental, or essential, about a being. It is that which makes a being – any being – what it is.

Christian notions concerning the nature of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) are derived from selected interpretations of scripture, augmented by the opinion of sympathetic scholars. The process is simple enough: Read……interpret……discuss......reach a decision……formulate a notion……make a declaration……claim sole possession of the ‘truth’……and declare as ‘heresy’ all opposing notions. Thank you very much, and have a nice day!

According to the Nestorians, Yeshua is one person, two hypostases and two natures. According to Trinitarians, he is one person, one hypostasis and two natures. Monophysites, on the other hand, hold that he is one person, one hypostasis, and one nature. For Unitarians – and the rest of us folk – he is just a man: one person; one nature; no hypostasis.

Mike Robinson (a Christian apologist) writes:

‘Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God has two natures found in one person……The Bible reveals the dual nature of Christ and humanity’s salvation demands that be the case. It’s a mystery, but a mystery that in selected ways not only makes sense, but is necessary for redemption. Jesus, in the incarnation, did not lose His divinity. He did not lose His authority or His deity. He voluntarily came to the earth as a human baby to live perfectly as He fulfilled the Law…..He took on our humanity in order to die in our place….’ (‘How Jesus Became God In The Flesh: The Proper Exaltation Of A Prophet From Nazareth: Bart Ehrman Refuted’).

There is broad agreement among New Testament scholars (and has been for decades) that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) did not consider himself to be God.

Consider, by way of example, the following quotations:

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.' (The Rev. C.F.D Moule: ‘The Origin of Christology’).

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

‘There (is) no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly he called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn: ‘Christology in the Making - a New Testament inquiry into the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite: ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship' and that it is impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (The Rev. David Brown: ‘The Divine Trinity’)

‘The historical Jesus of Nazareth did not teach or apparently believe that he was God, or God the Son, Second Person of a Holy Trinity, incarnate, or the son of God in a unique sense.’ (John Hick: ‘Believable Christianity’. See also his ‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age’.

Trinitarians claim that Yeshua has two natures….one entirely human…one entirely divine. Let’s call this ‘notion A.’

Unitarians claim that Yeshua was just a man; and in no way divine. Let’s call this ‘notion B.’

Two mutually exclusive notions about one particular man.

According to the Council of Basel, Yeshua was ‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin…’(Session 13).

If Yeshua has two natures (one human and one divine, as per ‘notion A’), then he cannot possibly be ‘like us in all respects (except for sin)’.

That leaves ‘notion B’.

If Yeshua is just a man – an entirely human being, like the rest of us – then he cannot possibly be God.

I previously posted verses from the Tanakh that show that the promised child would have the title mighty God and everlasting Father. This is an issue that has had its critics since the first advent of Yeshua, and people will continue to voice divers opinions until the end, or their end. At least twice in the NT, the opponents of Jesus reacted in such a manner that indicated that Jesus actually claimed to be divine/God. People have to decide for themselves what they believe. If they read Isaiah 9:6 and spin what it states to mean something other than what is stated, then they are perfectly free to do so.

As an ex-mormon, believe me, I have heard spin from the masters of eisegesis. However, I tend to agree with polyglots such as the late Michael Heiser and Larry Hurtado who are on the side of the issue of Jesus being fully God incarnate. In fact, Hurtado has written a couple of books that are conta Ehrman and others in that camp. I used to have them in my personal library, but I have given them away, so I can't quote from them to show an alternate view. Some of the others groups that you have cited have been considered to be from heretical camps, and have been considered to be such for centuries. Paul warned us about this issue in more than one epistle, and at least seven may still be uncontested by various critics. Feel free to believe what you wish to believe, but I will stick to what actually appears to be written and has been trustworthy in the past. Cheers.

 

[Matthias]

The 'can be used' in your above statement would indicate that the word can be also be used differently. In the Bible it is written that man and a woman become one (echad) flesh. The Jewish sage Maimonides (the Rambam) wanted to change the reading of the Shema in reaction to Christianity and Gnosticism to use the word Yachid, which does indicate an absolute one. According to another Jewish rabbi, the word echad could mean a compound unity of more than one item. When the spies came back to report on the promised land they brought back a bunch (echad) of grapes. Muslims are very adept in distorting passages from the Bible by presenting them out of context, however, they become apoplectic when one points out any issues found in the Q and then question one's qualifications to make those claims. That kind of sounds like what the scribes and Pharisees attempted to pull on Jesus. Cheers.

One can modify a singular noun or a collective noun.

In both cases, one means only one, not more than one.

One echad duck (singular noun) -> only one duck, not more than one duck.

One echad team (collective noun) -> only one team, not more than one team.

One echad God (singular noun) -> only one God, not more than one God.

But what if we believe that God is a collective noun, rather than a singular noun? I don’t. Do you?

One echad God (collective noun) -> only one God, not more than one God.

Plurality isn’t found in the word one / echad. If there is plurality it is always to be found in the collective noun.

You used the example of a bunch of grapes. Let’s look at it.

A bunch of grapes -> one bunch of grapes, not more than one bunch of grapes. Right?

Where is the plurality in one / echad bunch of grapes?

In the word echad? No. In the phrase “bunch of grapes”.

Let’s look at the Hebrew phrase echad elohim - one God (or god).

Where is the plurality? Is it in the word echad? No.

Is it in the word elohim? If it is then elohim must be claimed as a collective noun.

If and when elohim is a collective noun in scripture then elohim is plural in meaning and is always translated in the plural form - gods - in English.

Elohim is a Hebrew word that is always plural in form but can be singular or plural in meaning.

Yachid is seldom used in scripture, something like 8 times, and never used in reference to Yahweh.

Are there only 8 references in the entirety of scripture to an absolute one? No.

Is echad ever used in scripture to describe someone or some thing which is an absolute one? Yes.

 

[Matthias]

Counting in Hebrew.

1 - echad, not yachid.

 

[M3n0r4h]

One can modify a singular noun or a collective noun.

In both cases, one means only one, not more than one.

One echad duck (singular noun) -> only one duck, not more than one duck.

One echad team (collective noun) -> only one team, not more than one team.

One echad God (singular noun) -> only one God, not more than one God.

But what if we believe that God is a collective noun, rather than a singular noun? I don’t. Do you?

One echad God (collective noun) -> only one God, not more than one God.

Plurality isn’t found in the word one / echad. If there is plurality it is always to be found in the collective noun.

You used the example of a bunch of grapes. Let’s look at it.

A bunch of grapes -> one bunch of grapes, not more than one bunch of grapes. Right?

Where is the plurality in one / echad bunch of grapes?

In the word echad? No. In the phrase “bunch of grapes”.

Let’s look at the Hebrew phrase echad elohim - one God (or god).

Where is the plurality? Is it in the word echad? No.

Is it in the word elohim? If it is then elohim must be claimed as a collective noun.

If and when elohim is a collective noun in scripture then elohim is plural in meaning and is always translated in the plural form - gods - in English.

Elohim is a Hebrew word that is always plural in form but can be singular or plural in meaning.

Yachid is seldom used in scripture, something like 8 times, and never used in reference to Yahweh.

Are there only 8 references in the entirety of scripture to an absolute one? No.

Is echad ever used in scripture to describe someone or some thing which is an absolute one? Yes.

I find it interesting the Maimonides may not have agreed with your take on things, because he wanted to change echad to yachid in the Shma. If two become one/echad flesh they do not become an absolute one. I have read other scholars who explain the concept differently, and they are/were also fluent in numerous ME languages. Since I am not, then I guess that it is a case of which scholars we deem to be the best source on the subject.

The book, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism, the Jewish author Alan F. Segal discussed the concept that in early Judaism some believed that there was a Yahweh that could never be seen, and there was a Yahweh that was seen and interacted physically with certain leaders of Israel from time to time. While Segal supported the rabbinical view that declared the two powers concept to be a heresy after the disaster of the bar Kokhba revolt that led to the expulsion of all Jews from the land of Israel, he discussed the concept at length. Some Jewish scholars believed and taught that there were two hypostases of Yahweh present in the Tanakh. Since we know that current rabbinical Judaism is but a shadow of original Mosaic Judaism, and that Rabbi Akiva supported a false messiah that led to another diaspora of the chosen people, I choose to accept some of the teachings of other scholars on this subject that are contra your opinion. It is not by whim and caprice that I choose to do so.

The two hypostases concept is a Jewish concept seen in Dan. 7:9-14, wherein both figures are considered to be hypostases of the same Yahweh. Like I have always maintained; believe what you wish to believe. I believe that Messiah ben Joseph has already visited Israel riding on a donkey, and that the same 'being' will return as Messiah ben David riding on the clouds of heaven in the future. IMO, He originally came to Israel, and His return will be for Israel. You may say that I am looking to the wrong Messiah, but it is Israel who has a history of following and promoting the wrong Messiahs, no? So, why would I look to rabbinical Judaism for the identity of the Messiah. Doesn't a sect of Judaism (Chabad-Lubavitch) believe their the holy leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, will return as the Messiah? Weren't posters promoting that belief put up around Israel? Schneerson allegedly told Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri that he would see the Messiah before his passing. Who did the acrostic in his letter refer to when it was read a year after his passing? Try calling for Him by name and He just may return to save all of Israel. Cheers.

 

[Niblo]

They tend to ignore what they don't agree with and then propose another straw man. I have yet to receive a response regarding the verses in the Quran that teach that the much of the Levant is given as the inheritance of Israel either (Q 17:100-104 & Q 5:20-21).

The Qur’an confirms that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) – through His chosen prophet, Moses(Radi Allahu ‘anhu) – delivered His people from slavery in Egypt in order to make them inheritors of the Promised Land:

‘Moses said to his people, ‘My people, remember Allāh’s blessing on you: how He raised prophets among you and appointed kings for you and gave you what he had not given to any other people. My people, go into the holy land which Allāh has ordained for you – do not turn back or you will be the losers.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 20-21).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘That God gave the Israelites that which He gave unto no other in all the worlds is similar to other statements of the unique Divine favor the Israelites enjoyed.

‘Some commentators explicitly connect the Holy Land (al-arḍ al-muqaddasah) ordained for the Israelites with Abraham, indicating that he was shown this land and given it as an inheritance for his progeny – which from an Islamic point of view would also include his Arab Muslim descendants through Ishmael. It is interesting that the Quran describes this land as blessed in a universal way, and as the “Holy Land”—a term used widely today in Judeo-Christian contexts for this land, but one that is used only very rarely in the Bible itself.’ (‘The Study Qur’an’).

I hope this helps,

Blessings.

 

[Matthias]

One can modify a singular noun or a collective noun.

In both cases, one means only one, not more than one.

One echad duck (singular noun) -> only one duck, not more than one duck.

One echad team (collective noun) -> only one team, not more than one team.

One echad God (singular noun) -> only one God, not more than one God.

But what if we believe that God is a collective noun, rather than a singular noun? I don’t. Do you?

One echad God (collective noun) -> only one God, not more than one God.

Plurality isn’t found in the word one / echad. If there is plurality it is always to be found in the collective noun.

You used the example of a bunch of grapes. Let’s look at it.

A bunch of grapes -> one bunch of grapes, not more than one bunch of grapes. Right?

Where is the plurality in one / echad bunch of grapes?

In the word echad? No. In the phrase “bunch of grapes”.

Let’s look at the Hebrew phrase echad elohim - one God (or god).

Where is the plurality? Is it in the word echad? No.

Is it in the word elohim? If it is then elohim must be claimed as a collective noun.

If and when elohim is a collective noun in scripture then elohim is plural in meaning and is always translated in the plural form - gods - in English.

Elohim is a Hebrew word that is always plural in form but can be singular or plural in meaning.

Yachid is seldom used in scripture, something like 8 times, and never used in reference to Yahweh.

Are there only 8 references in the entirety of scripture to an absolute one? No.

Is echad ever used in scripture to describe someone or some thing which is an absolute one? Yes.

There are actually 12 occurrences of the Hebrew word yachid.

Strongs's #3173: yachiyd - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools

There are 969 occurrences of the word echad.

Strongs's #259: 'echad - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools

 

[Matthias]

I find it interesting the Maimonides may not have agreed with your take on things, because he wanted to change echad to yachid in the Shma. If two become one/echad flesh they do not become an absolute one. I have read other scholars who explain the concept differently, and they are/were also fluent in numerous ME languages. Since I am not, then I guess that it is a case of which scholars we deem to be the best source on the subject.

The book, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism, the Jewish author Alan F. Segal discussed the concept that in early Judaism some believed that there was a Yahweh that could never be seen, and there was a Yahweh that was seen and interacted physically with certain leaders of Israel from time to time. While Segal supported the rabbinical view that declared the two powers concept to be a heresy after the disaster of the bar Kokhba revolt that led to the expulsion of all Jews from the land of Israel, he discussed the concept at length. Some Jewish scholars believed and taught that there were two hypostases of Yahweh present in the Tanakh. Since we know that current rabbinical Judaism is but a shadow of original Mosaic Judaism, and that Rabbi Akiva supported a false messiah that led to another diaspora of the chosen people, I choose to accept some of the teachings of other scholars on this subject that are contra your opinion. It is not by whim and caprice that I choose to do so.

The two hypostases concept is a Jewish concept seen in Dan. 7:9-14, wherein both figures are considered to be hypostases of the same Yahweh. Like I have always maintained; believe what you wish to believe. I believe that Messiah ben Joseph has already visited Israel riding on a donkey, and that the same 'being' will return as Messiah ben David riding on the clouds of heaven in the future. IMO, He originally came to Israel, and His return will be for Israel. You may say that I am looking to the wrong Messiah, but it is Israel who has a history of following and promoting the wrong Messiahs, no? So, why would I look to rabbinical Judaism for the identity of the Messiah. Doesn't a sect of Judaism (Chabad-Lubavitch) believe they’re don’t agree the holy leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, will return as the Messiah? Weren't posters promoting that belief put up around Israel? Schneerson allegedly told Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri that he would see the Messiah before his passing. Who did the acrostic in his letter refer to when it was read a year after his passing? Try calling for Him by name and He just may return to save all of Israel. Cheers.

I don’t agree with Maimonides (or anyone else) who desires to substitute yachid for echad in the Shema.

Yahweh is the echad elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the Messiah’s own God.

There is no yachid elohim discussed or alluded to in the Hebrew Bible.

 

[Matthias]

Deuteronomy 6:4-5, read aloud in Hebrew.

* A letter to Maimonides … which will fall on eyes, ears and a mind which currently do not exist. *

Dear Maimonides,

If you were able today to hear this speaker reading the text, you would have no difficulty acknowledging that he says echad. If you were able today to read the voweled Hebrew, you would have no difficulty acknowledging that the written word in question is echad. There is no valid reason to substitute yachid for echad. The God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, the God of Israel, the Messiah’s God, is echad, not yachid. You knew in your heart, in your mind, that this is so. When you are resurrected from the dead, you will remember. And you will weep.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Matthias

 

[M3n0r4h]

I don’t agree with Maimonides (or anyone else) who desires to substitute yachid for echad in the Shema.

Yahweh is the echad elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the Messiah’s own God.

There is no yachid elohim discussed or alluded to in the Hebrew Bible.

In checking with various sites, both Christian and Jewish, I can see the impasse regarding this specific top still continues to exist with not movement by either camp. Any continued discussion would simply be an argument of scholar vs scholar which IMO, only go circular. Since I don't see that this issue effectively detracts from the main topic of this post for some of the reasons that I have presented above, I have no problem of conceding this point. I don't agree with everything that Maimonides wrote either, but still, he was a great Hebraic scholar as well as a physician.
With that put aside. My personal opinion about the Messiah is that He was a Jew; remains a Jew; and will return as King of the Jews to restore the kingdom to the Jews. His bride, true believers will have been among those that He will call 'home' at His return. Since Jews are considered to be the elder brother, by virtue of being called chosen first of the all the nations, and the elder brother is given a double portion, then peace will eventually come to Jerusalem. IOW, Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David are one and the same that appear in two advents. Be blessed and expect the appearance of the deliverer of Israel to appear in the near future. Cheers.

The Qur’an confirms that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) – through His chosen prophet, Moses(Radi Allahu ‘anhu) – delivered His people from slavery in Egypt in order to make them inheritors of the Promised Land:

‘Moses said to his people, ‘My people, remember Allāh’s blessing on you: how He raised prophets among you and appointed kings for you and gave you what he had not given to any other people. My people, go into the holy land which Allāh has ordained for you – do not turn back or you will be the losers.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 20-21).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘That God gave the Israelites that which He gave unto no other in all the worlds is similar to other statements of the unique Divine favor the Israelites enjoyed.

‘Some commentators explicitly connect the Holy Land (al-arḍ al-muqaddasah) ordained for the Israelites with Abraham, indicating that he was shown this land and given it as an inheritance for his progeny – which from an Islamic point of view would also include his Arab Muslim descendants through Ishmael. It is interesting that the Quran describes this land as blessed in a universal way, and as the “Holy Land”—a term used widely today in Judeo-Christian contexts for this land, but one that is used only very rarely in the Bible itself.’ (‘The Study Qur’an’).

I hope this helps,

Blessings.iut

Muslims also claim that Abraham helped Ishmael build the Kaaba as a place of worship, but that is anachronistic and is only supported by pure speculation. The blessing found in the Tanakh for Ishmael was that he would be a wild donkey of a man and that will lift his hand against all his neighbors and that his neighbors will lift their hands against him. Perhaps this is why there is no peace in the ME. The progeny of Ishmael don't play well with others. That goes beyond differences in religion.

 

[Matthias]

… My personal opinion about the Messiah is that He was a Jew; remains a Jew; and will return as King of the Jews to restore the kingdom to the Jews. His bride, true believers will have been among those that He will call 'home' at His return. Since Jews are considered to be the elder brother, by virtue of being called chosen first of the all the nations, and the elder brother is given a double portion, then peace will eventually come to Jerusalem. IOW, Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David are one and the same that appear in two advents. Be blessed and expect the appearance of the deliverer of Israel to appear in the near future. Cheers.

I’m happy to see and be able to say that we are in substantial agreement on this point.

 

[Matthias]

“You [Jesus of Nazareth] are the Messiah, the son of the living God.” - Peter (Matthew 16:16)

Amen.

My faith and confession, too.