Did the early Jews believe in two powers in heaven (Binitarianism)? - MuslimByChoice Refuted

Introduction

MuslimByChoice a well known drama-stirrer, internet troll and Islamic apologist has offered a video with a Christian supposedly debunking the existence of early Jews who adhered to Binitarian Monotheism. I submit his video here for review:

Response

I will respond to both Volf and Ally respectively. Firstly Ally.

"What he neglects to show is that in-fact this is actually a deviation from the Torah and from the Old Testament The O.T does not tell you there are two equal powers in heaven, the O.T does not teach you Binitarianism." ~ Ally

If your read the book cited by Nabeel the opponents of Binitarianism argue this is a deviation, but as Segal points out the proponents do not, he points out they have complex, complicated Scriptural arguments for their own position that are actually brushed aside and often underdone by later Unitarian Rabbis (similarly to Ally's comments in this debate), who only address incomplete versions of the exegesis offered by the "heretics". So appealing to circular reasoning "It's a deviation because I think it is" is not actually an argument and a repetition of historical error. As Heiser points out Segal: "argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E." which is now the consensus position in scholarship. So in fact, Ally by proclaiming the Binitarian view as heresy is guilty in nothing other than engaging in the anachronistic fallacy of inserting his own views into the respective time period of the first century which is rejected by the vast majority of his beloved critical scholars.

"but Unitarianism, that there is only one God YHVH, everyone else are his creatures." ~ Ally

Ally is obviously grossly ignorant or lying, but i'll assume the latter since he is familiar with (and aware of) scholarship in general. And since he is, he knows that just as he stated "their were developments within Christianity", their were also "developments with Judaism", especially the Bible. "Unitarian Monotheism" according to these Scholars (he loves citing: Dunn, Ehrman, Sanders, etc) is one of those "later developments". (1) 

In fact as Ehrman says, it's the: "minority position in the Hebrew Bible". So why appeal to scholarship to argue that Christianity developed over-time but not Judaism? Oh, that's right! I know why. Because it suits you. However you shot yourself in the foot, by appealing to the very same kind of scholars who think that Christianity developed since they also believe Unitarian Monotheism was one of the the ultimate and final developments within Judaism, that had arguably only become mainstream close to the time of Jesus.

And worst of all it was the latest position evolving out of an entire plethora of polytheistic ideas as a extremely late product of the Israelite religion (sorry Abraham and Moses, bye!). And yet still the most amazing irony is that some of these very scholars claim the Binitarian view was a kind of  'developmental hangover' from an ancient time that was some-how preserved within the beliefs of a multitude of first-century Jews, but ultimately usurped and overthrown by a later newer second century exclusivity defined as "Unitarianism". So much for being the original Monotheism. (2)

Muslims are now stuck with Exclusivitic Monolithic Unitarianism beginning within the second century after Judaism as a whole has already collapses and is recuperating from a death stroke and heart attack by inventing a new spin of the wheel which is eventually adopted by Islamic Tawheedists. Unitarianism of this kind far from ancient is pure innovation.  

So the argument that "The O.T does not tell you there are two equal powers in heaven, the O.T does not teach you Binitarianism but Unitarianism" is categorically false. The Bible contains both views according to Shabir's "development scholars" and the former view is the more ancient of the two (so-long "Tawheed"). I only wish Muslims would read a book before trusting this con-man.

Now I will respond to Volf.

5 Objections

1. The title is inaccurate, Volf does not argue Jews did not believe in Binitarianism. His argument is entirely different. Not only does it misrepresent Volf, it's clear that MuslimByChoice is either trolling by creating such a title or deliberately not paying attention to the actual content of the debate itself. 

2. So then what was Volf's argument? His argument is that Post-Nicene Christianity (he quotes Augustine as a representative) causes Orthodox Christianity to contradict the earlier Jewish Binitarian movement. Since Trinity asserts "one power" over that of "two". Even if he were correct, (which he's not), this is simply a non-sequitor, since Jewish Binitarians could very well contradict Augustine and preserve a different form of monotheism to that of Augustine. Who really cares? So did many proto-Trinitarians and/or relational subordinationists.

3. Next, he makes two strawmen. First strawman: beginning at 7:47: 

"My third point, plural personhood in God, I think we would have to say in two powers in God, I think we would say that's heresy from Christian perspective". 

Have to or Think so? Any Christian who denies the plural personhood/powers of God is a heretic known as a modalist. He even uses powers interchangeably with persons, so he knows powers are persons in this context, yet still makes the strawman and quotes Augustine who refers to the actual adjective, quality and attribute of power, not powers/persons, which is entirely orthodox. 

4. Second strawman begins at 8:17 

"So the kind of sense that their are these two powers independently or the kind of sense you've got 3 people kind of sitting next to each other on three thrones and then acting as a kind of committee is a heretical view"

First of all no Binitarian argues they are 'independent' powers, they are independent only in the sense that they are obviously not the same figure/person, they are distinct characters. In fact that kind of 'independent' view was advocated by another early group of Jews, the Jewish Gnostics who as Hurtado points out were: "later type in which two opposing divine figures are pictured." But as he points out there was "an earlier type in which two “complementary” divine figures".

Secondly if the idea of God having an embodied form sitting on a throne is 'heretical' or 'anathema' to Christianity, I would like to know according to what Orthodox Creed (clearly he can't cite even a single one). Finally no one is arguing 3 people (aka human type super beings) are sitting on chairs like a committee, since these are easily taken by earlier Jews and Christians to represent a deeper spiritual plain/reality which cannot be fathomed. Nor is Monotheism effected, since Monotheism is not dependent on the arrangement of theophanies, the heavenly kingdom nor divine manifestation.

5. 'Two powers of heaven' is not a coin termed by the Jews themselves, but later Jews describing the fact that two distinct figures were both seen as God which according to their logic this denoted two deities/powers. The Jews of course would say the same about modern day Trinitarians, hence the opponents of the faith demean us as heretics and polytheists, but obviously Volf himself wouldn't employ such language to describe his own position as a Trinitarian (three powers), so why accept the terminology of later Jews when describing the position of their fellow Binitarian (two powers) monotheists? Further more it's a misnomer to understand power as 'separated' attributes each independently possessed in the same sense two humans may individually or independently have attributes. This is a caricature to make Jewish binitarians look like polytheists, along with other enemies of the late Rabbinical Jewish movement.

Conclusion

This means the title must be changed by MuslimByChoice to accurately reflect the discourse. However inevitably that won't help him either, since even if he changed it Volf's original contention is riddled with too many inaccuracies.

Notes:

(1) e.g. "Monotheism is now understood to have evolved much more slowly than former scholarship suggested, reaching maturity much later" See more here or here.

(2) Rabbinic Judaism and Islam just tapped out according to Shabirs scholars.