I really must stress that, for me, this discussion has nothing much to do with Torah - that is just one point that is stimulating the discussion. For me it is all fundamentally about the nature of Jesus and God himself. To keep this on track I will remind you all of the comment that kicked off this whole line of discussion:
The hierarchy proposed by
@BiblicalLiteralist was Father > Torah > Son. This has very serious ramifications for the nature of God. When you run through the train of logic carefully, you find that i
f it is true, then Jesus is not God. Because it makes Jesus a subordinate creation underneath the Father and subject to the laws made by the Father, just as humans are. Now, that does not necessarily mean someone is not saved if they believe that - I am controversially ecumenical on this point and don't consider the divinity of Christ to be an essential for salvation (although I believe it is true). But we have to be honest that this is what is being proposed, because it does have serious implications.
You were doing fine up until this point. And I, too, was inclined to remind readers that the original question was a good one, and resulted in "iron sharpening iron," which is beneficial.
Although
@Earth_is- initially appeared to agree with this hierarchy, he and
@Mark C have actually been proposing a slightly less extreme but nevertheless still problematic hierarchy: Father > Torah = Son.
Oh, MAN! Is that a bad twisting!
(And I've already said I wasn't going "metaphysical"!)
BUT THIS YOU CAN LOOK UP!
Deuteronomy chapter 6, in what the Messiah Himself called the "most important commandment" in Scripture!
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is echad!
But, whether you think I can "prove" it or not, I can all but guarantee that every one of His earthly disciples knew and could quote that verse IN HEBREW, and that it begins,
"Shema Israel, YHVH Elohenu, YHVH echad..."
And here's why that matters. (But, thanks, BTW, for the reminder - this should have been discussed in that "other thread" not long ago!)
The Hebrew word "
shema"
שָׁמַע
(sometimes rendered 'hear,' or 'guard,' or even 'obey' in English) is actually in this case best rendered, IMHO, in the AKJV: "hearken". Which means
"Hear AND Obey." It's not enough just to "hear," as Yahushua, the teacher (can we even agree on that?!) pointed out so well in the parable of the father with the two sons, one of whom did in fact, 'shemar'.
But the second part of that phrase is just as important, and is at the heart of a "theological" (and this is why I
HATE that word!) dispute that has waged for centuries, if not longer.
The Hebrew word "echad" means "a unity," perhaps even (my paraphrase, admittedly - take it or leave it) an "all-encompassing Whole." It can, depending on context, and there are even masculine and feminine forms, mean a cardinal number, "one". And there is where the metaphysical "rub" is.
I often say, "I can handle calculus, eigenvalues, and differential equations, but can't explain the math that says, 'three is equal to one.' "
But "unity" is a bit easier, and less problematic. He is a [even THE] "Unity". (And, for doubters, even a
herd of cattle, or a
flock of sheep are "echad." For some here, my contention is that this is how are wives are to be, in our house, and "in Him." Through us as covering. But I can't PROVE that from Scripture either - I just try to make a convincing case.
)
So - and this is as "metaphysical" as I will get, and, yes, it is pure "Markology" - my own understanding. Your mileage may vary:
Father, and 'Son,' and 'Ruach' are
echad. Aspects of a Unity, a whole. No one can "see" the face of the 'Father'. But that one is "outside the time-space continuum as we know it anyway. Can He project Himself (or - here it comes - at least an "aspect" of Himself) into a Universe of His creation, subject to the laws of spacetime, so as to even project Himself there and interact in the reality of His own creation?
(Try this: Could He even appear as "
a prophet like unto Moshe" if He chose?)
Could He even teach His own Instruction, which He Himself Wrote anyway, as He intended? But in the process perhaps even correct what men had said He should'a said? (Matthew 5:21+, repeatedly?)
NOTE: I have linked this before, but I wrote a series of articles, years ago, and have taught on a topic the topic - sometimes called "God as Game Designer" (and, no, it was not original, but I have adapted the concept to teach it as it makes the most sense to me) - for quite a few years now. Here are just two of the earliest, in text form:
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Now, if you can't see the answer to your issue in here, I guess I can't help you. He, Yahushua, already PROVED that point, to my satisfaction, in Matthew chapter 5!
But, if you can't see that He was His own Instruction, taking the form of man, and projected into THIS 'time-space continuum' as "fully god and fully man," and then teaching His Instruction (not only by Word, but by Action, in "hearing and obeying") I can't cite a single verse in a rendering from Greek to 'prove' it. But, I can't help but note in that sense that He, Himself, never actually
claimed, in a single verse, while He walked among them, to be the 'promised Messiah,' either! But I submit that He proved it. You have to read the Scripture as "echad," though, to see that.
