Evidence bridge
Where does the Torah teach that God cannot take the likeness of a man when the very first book teaches that He made us in his likeness?
The reader wants to be able to explain “Where does the Torah teach that God cannot take the likeness of a man when the very first book teaches that He made us in his likeness?” from the relevant Daniel passage in full, its Hebrew/Aramaic terms, chronology, symbolic identifications, and any later messianic or apocalyptic claim without relying on denominational authority or counter-missionary slogans.
What this article established
Genesis 1:26 says humanity is made in God’s image and likeness. Classical Jewish interpretation does not read that as divine anatomy. Rambam explicitly rejects corporeality and treats 'image' as form or intellectual capacity, not bodily shape.
- Verified: Genesis says humanity is created in God's image and likeness.
- Verified: Deuteronomy stresses that Israel saw no form at Sinai.
- Verified: classical Jewish theology, especially Rambam, rejects divine corporeality.
- Christian claim: God can assume a human nature without ceasing to be divine.
- Torah-first verdict: that metaphysical claim is not taught by Genesis 1:26.
The question that still remains
Does the method used to answer “Where does the Torah teach that God cannot take the likeness of a man when the very first book teaches that He made us in his likeness?” produce the same result across Whether Trinitarian doctrine coheres with Sinai and divine simplicity when the relevant Daniel passage in full, its Hebrew/Aramaic terms, chronology, symbolic identifications controls the test?
Why this book is the next step
us / Daniel / messianic / prooftexts: the problem has moved from one Daniel messianic prooftexts ruling into the exact scope of The Trinity vs Absolute Unity: Sinai, Divine Simplicity, and the Limits of Relational Godhood. A wider verdict needs a fresh source. Preserve the strongest concession first; only then test the inference built on it. Bracket the covenant boundary before the verdict widens.
If the wider question after “Where does the Torah teach that God cannot take the likeness of a man when the very first book teaches that He made us in his likeness?” is genuinely What happens to the larger case when Whether Trinitarian doctrine coheres with Sinai and divine simplicity is tested instead of inferred from this single result?, the next destination is The Trinity vs Absolute Unity: Sinai, Divine Simplicity, and the Limits of Relational Godhood, because its scope is Whether Trinitarian doctrine coheres with Sinai and divine simplicity.