No - it is you who are talking about "Christian theology." My point is that "son of God" is not exclusive to Christianity. Your point is that the "Christian theology" of the son of God "is a false one not found in the Tanach."
That means that you are the one talking about it. I am only talking about the empirical evidence for associating the messiah with being a "son of God." That is an empirical inquiry, not a theological one. The New Testament strongly supports, as a matter of fact, the Jews did then associate the messiah with being a son of God. The two were regarded as alternatives for the same thing, IMO. This is because there is no evidence of any dispute in the New Testament in the association of the son of God with the messiah.
There is no empirical evidence or reason for associating the Messiah with "son of G-d". The lack of evidence in the NT of any dispute only serves to prove that the authors did not fabricate an argument against the new interpretation of it they were presenting.
It may not be "proof" to your way of thinking, but it is empirical evidence that the Jews did not at that period have any theological objection to denoting the messiah as the son of God. It further suggests that the modern Jewish practice (if indeed such exists) of denouncing the term "son of God" as relating to the messiah is a recent one.
No, the narratives written in the NT aren't empirical of anything except of what the authors wanted to present.
A "son of elohim" denotes a "son of God" i.e. son of YHWH, not a "son of a ruler", but where elohim is used to denote rulers etc directly, it is not referring to "God." So a "son of elohim" means something conceptually different from the mere usage of elohim as it applies to rulers.
No it doesn't. See Gen. 6:1, sons of elohim are the sons of the rulers.
From Psa 82:1 I suggest that the entire Jewish people is not designated as either elohim or sons of elohim, but only the members (i.e. rulers) of an assembly, amongst whom God gives judgement. However I can concede that the context of Ps. 82:6 is that there is more than one son of God denoted, but it does not forgo the messiah being a son of God. In fact from Ps. 82 derives an expectation of the messiah calling himself a son of God.
There is nothing in Psalm 82 that suggests a Messianic connection. This Psalm is about G-d setting Himself against judges who give unjust judgement.
Angels identified themselves directly as YHWH. They spoke as agents of God and they are referred to as YHWH. When it says "YHWH spoke" it actually means an angel spoke.
That's correct. Except it's just not the whole story. See Job 1:6. The sons of elohim come to present themselves before G-d and among the sons of elohim was also the Satan. The Satan is an angel and he was among the other angels who went to present themselves before G-d.
Yet it would have significance for one claiming to have come from God.
It would not. Not only would it not, it would also sound
really weird. Pretending this narrative actually took place and it took place in front of an Aramaic speaking audience this is how it would translate: "My people! I am here for you! It is I PERSON!!!!" Because in Aramaic,
barnash (or
bar nash) is literally "son of man" but that also happens to be the way you say "person". Any native Aramaic speaker would not catch the meaning. It happens to be the same way in Hebrew today with the phrase
ben adam which is again literally "son of man". Come to Israel and tell an Israeli that Jesus was
ben adam and they'll be like, "yeah cool, but don't you also believe he was G-d?"
It could be that there's an argument here that the NT was written in Greek for a Greek speaking audience who wouldn't recognize "son of man" as a colloquial term for "person" in Hebrew/Aramaic.
Jews are not in exile. They are more powerful today than they ever were for the last 2000 years. They could even wipe out every surrounding muslim nation at one stroke with nuclear weapons. To describe the Jews as in exile is perverse. Just because there is a Jewish diaspora does not infer that they are in exile. They would be in exile if they were not permitted to go to Israel but I think most are, except perhaps for African Jews. One issue is proving you're a Jew, which is another issue entirely, and another is that many Jews would rather not live in Israel.
Exile is not about being in the diaspora, although that is a part of it. We've been in exile since the Romans destroyed the Temple - even though there were sizable Jewish communities in Israel for the following few hundred years. Similarly, Ezra only brought a minority of Jews with him out of Babylon and that was still called a redemption from exile.
What I meant by messianic fruit is the result of his coming. I really struggle to understand what benefit you think should accrue to the Jews besides some kind of political dictatorship where everyone lives in peace, which is effectively to transpose everyone into heaven.
Do you use the word "fruit" like that when you talk to people all the time?
That is enough benefit. As Maimonides says, "there is no difference between now and the Messianic Era, except subjugation to [other] governments." The Messiah will lead us in a theocratic monarchy where we will be at peace so that we will be able to study the Torah without worries. That's all it is.