Matt. 23

[gbausc]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

However, that does not limit Him to three

I think we are talking apples and oranges here. You are discussing sepherot (attributes) and I am
talking about 3 Persons-Personalities. It appears that you are also putting Kabbalah, a commentary on Torah, on a par with Old and New Testaments. This is an error in judgement, if that is your approach. Human commentary cannot compare to the Divine utterances.

The "that which was, and is, and is coming" quote was originally written in Aramaic (I believe). The point was not to delineate 3 conjugational tenses of verbs. It is to show that The Jews certainly had an abstract concept of 3 tenses, as certainly set out in that scripture from Revelation 1:19:

(that are) Nyhytyad (& those) Nylyaw (you have seen) tyzxd (whatever) am (therefore) lykh (write) bwtk 19
(these things) Nylh (after) rtb (to be) awhml (& are going) Ndytew

"Write whatever you have seen, and those things that are, and those that are going to be after these things."
This ideological series of 3 tenses occurs several tiimes in Revelation: "Him who is , and was, and is coming, The Almighty." -Rev. 1:4,1:8,4:8

The presence or absence of three words in a language should decide whether the language has provision for 3 tenses. The 3 words which mean: "Before", "now", "after", ("terem" or "shilshowm", "Paam", "Akhar") in a chronological sense. Three other words signifying the tenses as a concept are "yesterday, today, tomorrow". "Tamowl, Ha yowm, makhar". This is so elementary as to be ridiculous. Those who say that the abstract 3 tenses are a relatively modern invention are simply full of it.

You have admitted that the 3 tenses are provided for in Hebrew perfect and imperfect conjugations.The participle also is commonly used for the present tense. I don't think you intend to deny the historical reality of the 3 tenses; its just another word game, perhaps.

The issue we were discussing is The Person of The Messiah. You said "He is Yahweh, after a manner of speaking." That is a fuzzy statement. The more I have pressed you on it, the more you seem to go with Kabbalah and the "Ayn Soph" and "Sepherot" positions that Messiah is a mere attribute, or attributes of God, which means He is not a person at all. You also say you are dealing with Orthodox Jews who cannot abide the concept that a man can be God. I ask you, then: Is Yeshua Meshikha, God? Yes or no.

Dave