Matt. 23

[Dawid]

Rather weak and vague...this is meant to imply something bad, but that is because of the connotations of these words. Some things simply are very vague, Mr. Bauscher.
YHWH is the entirety of the Sephiroth. All ten. Yeshu'ah is Hochmah, the Supernal Torah. Because YHWH refers to all of them, it can be said that Yeshu'ah is a part of YHWH. Think of it this way, you are a trinitarian. (no, I'm not making an assumption. I have your interlinear. You leave no room for doubt in it.) So you know that YHWH does not always refer to the "son." It often refers to the "Father" and sometimes even to the "Spirit." So it would be logical to assume that YHWH is the over-arching term for all three, and is therefore applicable to each component part, but it would be an inaccuracy to say that the "Son" is all of YHWH. He is only one of the three parts.

You have taken my quote out of its context. Put it back in context, answer it, and I will answer you.

How do you know that he is the revelator? I know he is the revelator because he gave us his autobiography, the map of his character. I checked the Gospels against it and found them to be in perfect harmony. So I must ask you, Khaver, how you know, since you do not believe that we must check things against the original autobiography.

I have already told you where to find answers to Galatians.
I would also appreciate it if, in the future, you would quote shorter sections. I would love to answer your Galatians and Hebrews quotes verse by verse, but I have other things that I have to do. If you can pare it down to the one or two verses that best make your point I would be happy to respond to them.
It would also be helpful to me if you would respond to my posts point by point, rather than writing about what I say in general. I would appreciate it if you responded contextually, rather than simply taking what I say out of context to respond to it.

I do not believe that the Torah did not exist before Sinai. Bereshith and Mishley both indicate that the Torah existed from the very beginning.
Yaakov also indicates this.

The Psalms make it clear to us that there is an alternative to sacrifices. Psalm 141 and Psalm 5, as well as Psalm 51 show us that Teshuva, Tephillah, and Tsedaqa can take the place of sacrifices.

I do not have the time to answer three chapters of quotations. I'm very sorry. But I will answer one thing. You pointed out the "change of the Law." If the author meant to indicate that the Torah is mutable, he is a heretic. The Torah itself says it is a "statute forever." We also know that "God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent." We also know that, according the the very author of Hebrews, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
The Torah stands forever, according to the very edict of El 'Elyon. If a prophet comes, and his signs come true, but he seeks to lead the people into idolatry, away from the Torah, then God is testing you. This is what Torath YHWH teaches. Let no man contradict it.

If only sin comes from the Torah, then God is a liar and I want nothing to do with Him. He told Moshe, and Moshe wrote it in D'varim 30, that to obey the Torah is life, and to disobey it is death.
He told Moshe also that those who observe the mitswoth will live in them. The Torah is the very derekh khayim.

Thank you very much for informing me that I want to "multiply sin, wrath, curses and death." I didn't know that before. Can we please keep this discussion rational rather than personal?

Behold I set before you this day life and a blessing, death and a cursing. Therefore, choose life that you may live, you and your seed.
Khaver, if you continue to be personal and to not respond to half of my arguments I will not reply. This is for both of our sakes because I find both of these traits very frustrating and I will probably blow up at you if they continue and I continue to reply. I have already been far testier than I like to be in this post. I want to be respectful, but I find it very difficult sometimes.
This is not an attack on you, it is my weakness, and my fault, not yours.

Shalom,
Dawid

[gbausc]

Shlama Akhi,

I respect your attempt to be respectful and your frustration. We must separate disagreement with each other's positions from personal contempt or animus.
I do not mean this as an attack on your person, so please do not take it as such. You and I have more in common than you may share with other Nazarenes. I have not heard that they are generally universalists. At least we believe that eventually, everything and everyone will be set right by our Father and Lord in Heaven. In that, I take great comfort.
I will address only the first point for now.

Rather weak and vague...this is meant to imply something bad, but that is because of the connotations of these words. Some things simply are very vague, Mr. Bauscher.

You have just admitted that you are vague about who Yeshua is.
We cannot afford to be vague about the central tenet of the faith- The Person of The Messiah. The scripture is not at all vague on this point. The Peshitta NT names Him as "MarYah" 32 times. This is plain unequivocal declaration of His full Deity. YHWH is The Name in Hebrew, however one wishes to pronounce or not pronounce it. YHWH is a Name, not a title or word denoting The Godhead. It is The Name of three Persons who are corporately called "Elohim".The Tanakh refers this Name, as you correctly point out, to The Father and to the Son, as well as The Spirit. Zechariah 2:8-11, 4:6-9, 6:12-15 and other references speak of YHWH sending YHWH unto us. Have a good read of those passages. It is not a matter of YHWH sending part of Himself. Scripture does not divide YHWH into parts.

If The Arm of YHWH (Isaiah 53:1) does something, it is because YHWH does something. He does not cut off an arm and send it. His arm comes because He comes. The mouth of The LORD does not speak apart from the rest of The LORD, as if it were separate from Him. The mouth of The LORD is no less than The LORD Himself; The Arm of The LORD is no less than The LORD Himself. Yeshua even referred to the finger of God as The Holy Spirit. Some may think this means The Holy Spirit is a lesser being or only a partial Deity or part of God. Think about it. God is almighty. Is His arm less mighty than he is? Is His finger less mighty than His arm? Is not even His pinky almighty? Sometimes "Ha Ruach" is called the breath of God. He parted the Red Sea "with the breath of His nostrils". Is His breath less mighty than his almighty pinky?
Not according to a correct understanding of who He is. Every one of these synecdoches is "a part representing the whole". The metaphor is used to signify different activities of God: His arm is "God working"; His mouth is "God speaking"; whatever the activity, the whole Being of God is involved and cannot be otherwise. "YHWH Eloheenu Echad" -The LORD is One, -indivisible, unified eternally. God's slightest effort is almighty power. His smallest part is the fulness of His Being. He cannot be disected or trisected. Where is The One are The Three, each with The same Name-YHWH.
Yeshua is called "The Arm of YHWH"; He is also Named "YHWH". The arm is a metaphor for power. The NT says he is Khayla d'Alaha (The Power of God). He is also "Khekmtha d'Alaha"- The Wisdom of God. Does God's wisdom have existence as an entity separate from Himself? What would that leave Him with? Does His power have a separate existence or Being? What kind of God would He then be? He would be "Mighty weak", I think. That is why I think Paul wrote: "All the fulness of The Godhead dwells corporately in Him (Yeshua)." The very Title of Meshiakh-Meshikha implies Triunity. "The Spirit of YHWH is upon Me, for He has anointed Me to preach Good News to the poor...." The Anointed One was anointed by God The Father with The Spirit of Holiness.

The Father is The Anointer; The Son is The Anointed; The Spirit is The Anointing."About Yeshua who was from Nazareth, whom God anointed with The Spirit of Holiness and with power..." Acts 10:38
So the title of "The Messiah" has The Triunity of Alaha in it.
My whole point is that God cannot be diminished, divided or resolved into component parts in any real sense, or God would not be God. Since The Messiah-Son is named YHWH in both testaments, we are to believe in and worship Him as YHWH Elohim Tsabaoth.

As The 2nd Person Person of The Godhead, in a logical sense, The Son is The Central Person of The Triunity. Many trinitarians have missed this truth. We meet God in The Messiah, for all Fulness dwells eternally with Him. It is true that The Father begot The Son. It is also true that Son begot The Father. Think about this. God became Father when God became Son. I am the first born of my parents. I made my Dad a father. One day he was Glenn Bauscher; the next he was a father and Dad. I made him a father the instant he begot me as his son. So the Son is coeternal and equally eternal with His Father. In other words, God The Father owes His existence as The Eternal Father to His Son as much as The Eternal Son owes His to His Father.

The Son is "Miltha d'Alaha" (The communication or expression of God). The Father never communicated to anyone except through His Son, for The Son is God communicating. The Son is "Demutha d'Alaha dla methkhaza" -"The Image of The Invisible God", for it is always in The Son that God is revealed. The Son is "Khayla d'Alaha" -"God's power", for it is always through The Son that The Father works. And "He is the same, yesterday, today and forever." We will never see the glory of God except "in The Face of Yeshua Meshikha", for "He is The Brightness of God's glory and the exact Image of His Being".
2 Cor. 4:6
For God???, who spoke that light would shine out of the darkness, has
dawned in our hearts that we would be enlightened with the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Yeshua The Messiah.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

1 Cor. 12
3. Because I inform you of this: there is no man who speaks by The Spirit
of God and says, ???Yeshua is damned???, neither can a man say, ???Yeshua
is THE LORD JEHOVAH???, except by The Spirit of Holiness.
4. But there are diversities of gifts, however The Spirit is One.
5. And there are diversities of ministries, however, THE LORD
JEHOVAH is One.
6. And there is a diversity of miracles, but God is One who works all in
every person. (Verses 4-6 set forth The Tri-unity of The Godhead ???Three are One; One is Three- God, Lord Jah
and The Spirit???.)

Verse three is talking about confessing Yeshua publicly, especially in the context of baptism and persecution in an empire which demanded Christians renounce Yeshua
as Lord and to confess Caesar as Lord. The truth of Messiah's Deity must be revealed to the heart by The Spirit Of Holiness, Who is also named MarYah:
17. But The Spirit is THE LORD JEHOVAH, and wherever The Spirit of THE LORD JEHOVAH is, there is freedom. 2 Cor. 3:17
Matthew 22
42 And he said, ???What are you saying about The Messiah? Whose Son
is He???? They were saying to him, ???The Son of David.???
43 He said to them, ???And how did David by The Spirit call him THE
LORD JEHOVAH, for he said:???
44 ???THE LORD JEHOVAH said to my Lord, ???sit at my right hand until
I place your enemies under your feet.???
See Psalm 110:1-5. In Hebrew and in The Peshitta text, the original of verse 5 has Yahweh at Yahweh???s right hand! The
Massoretes changed the reading to Adonai (Lord) but made a note of it in the Massorah.
45 ???If therefore David called him THE LORD JEHOVAH, how is he his
son????
If one were to read The Massoretic notes of the Hebrew text of Psalm 110, one would find that the Massorete scribes
changed the Name of ???Yahweh???(Yehovah) in 110:5 to ???Adonai???(The Lord) ; this they did in 133 other places as
well. But Ps. 110, verse five would read : ???Jehovah at your right hand will strike through Kings in the day of His
wrath??????. The Peshitta OT has the same reading. Our Lord???s quotation of verse one suggests the whole Psalm of
seven verses. If Jehovah is at God???s right hand in verse 5, then He must be the very same Jehovah at His right
hand in verse 1! No Greek ms. indicates this Divine Tetragrammaton Name (Yahweh) in verses 43-45. The
Peshitta has it three times! It also names ???Yeshua??? as ???Yahweh??? 32 times in the NT ! The Greek has no word for
Yahweh, though the Greek translator might have substituted ???Kurios Theos???(???Lord God???) or , ???Theos??? (???God???) to
indicate The Deity, since the ame (???THE LORD JEHOVAH???) ayrm ??? ???MarYah??? is referenced 239 times in
the NT quotations of OT scripture & etc. Actually, that probably happened only five or six times out of 239 in The
Greek T. All other places simply have ???Kurios??? ???(Lord???), which can refer to The Deity or to a mere man. The
Aramaic ayrm ???MarYah (???THE LORD JEHOVAH???) never refers to anyone but The Deity .

46 And no man could give him an answer, and no man dared again
from that day to question him.

Blessings to you my brother,

Dave

[Dawid]

True. Most Nazarenes hold to their old ways of believe in eternal damnation. They have not realized, for the most part, the teaching of universalism. This is one place where we must both commend the Orthodox Nazarenes, though, since they often do accept this idea.

I admitted no such thing. I simply said that vagueness is not always bad. I am very clear on who the Mashiakh is. He is the second Sephirah, the Right Arm of God.
I agree that YHWH is the proper noun for God, and the rest are improper nouns, adjectives, and adverbs that describe Him.
Are you familiar with the Kabbalah, Mr. Bauscher?

Naturally, if the arm does something it is because the man is doing it. However, if we are not careful in our termonology here we will fall into the modalist fallacy. It is equally inaccurate to say the hand did it, not the man, and to say that the hand is a part of the man, therefore the hand is the man. Do you understand what I'm saying? That is the distinction I am trying to make between YHWH and Mashiakh. It's a narrow road with deep ditches on both sides.

[*Albion*]

Dear David,

You said;

"He is the second Sephirah". Is this from the Kabbalah?

Wondering, Albion

[Dawid]

Yes, the Sephiroth, the Divine Attributes, are a Kabbalistic concept. I know the Kabbalah has a lot wrong, but this one I can see clearly in Bereshith (Genesis) Mishley (Proverbs) Yokhanan (John) Yokhanan Aleph (I John) and 'Ivrim (Hebrews).

[*Albion*]

I know that you and I have been clashing for awhile, but you don't really know all of the story of how (and WHY) I came (back) to MarYah.

I know enough about the Kabbahlah to tell you that you need to repent of/for your involvement with the occult.

I know that you pretty much think that you know everything, but I've lived a bit longer than you have, and I've been places that you don't wanna go. And maybe where your currently headed.

You keep studying the Kabbalah, because you think that it's gonna make you a better "Jew" (Oy Vey....as if you could ever BECOME "Jewish", in the physical sense!).

No, what it's gonna do, is every step that you take to climb that "tree" is pulling you down into ha satan's grip, more and more.

Believe me on this one Dawid. Take my word that I might know more than you about studying along this path.

You need to Repent (what is it.....Make "Tushavah", I forget how to transliterate/spell it, but you KNOW what I mean).

Don't put it off, don't think that your so smart in this area. ha satan ALWAYS use's *our strength's*, as well as our weaknesses, against us.

Get rid of your Kabbalahistic books and anything ELSE associated with this practise (jewelry, stones, etc., etc.).

I don't even care what Akhi Andrew tells you about this. Forget Brother Andrew for a moment, and ASK MarYah how HE feels, ask Him right now. Don't procrastinate, but do it NOW.

Ask Him plainly....."is the Kabbhlah part of the occult?"

And then, LISTEN TO HIM. He LOVES YOU more than anyone on this physical world ever could, or ever will.

He wants YOU to have His BEST. But sometimes when we go looking for the "Light", we sometimes stumble into the darkness......that's also called being lured, and smarter people than you and I have fallen for this trap too.

Is the Kabbalah 'JEWISH'? You bet.

Is it also a part of "what is hidden", i.e., the occult, YES IT IS.

Your soul is in danger, and anyone that you Love, is also in danger.

For Messiah's Sake, for the sake of the One who DIED so that YOU might LIVE, for the Sake of all that is Kodesh, of all that is Holy, abandon this practise. Not tomorrow, but RIGHT NOW.

You are a bright young man, you are gifted in fact, please, please, don't throw your soul's Life away over this occult system.

The Hebrew Roots of Our Faith could keep you studying for the rest of your life, you certainly don't need to add the occult to make the Hebrew Roots richer. You really DON'T.

I KNOW of what I speak. I know how you feel about me, forget that for a minute, and believe me on this one.

I will pray that MarYah will break this demonic stronghold within you.

Please forget our bickering, and believe what I say here Dawid.

I'm one who has BEEN where you ARE. It LOOKS like "Light" to you at this point. But it ISN'T.

I'm really sorry to be so direct, so blunt, but I think that you really needed to hear this.

You can PM me anytime. I'll think about putting my whole 'Testimony' here on the board.

It might help you.

You've seen me preach Compassion as a great gift from Messiah.

This post is the most compassionate thing that I can do for you. Please believe me on this. Thanks.

For Messiah's Sake, Albion

Yes, the Sephiroth, the Divine Attributes, are a Kabbalistic concept. I know the Kabbalah has a lot wrong, but this one I can see clearly in Bereshith (Genesis) Mishley (Proverbs) Yokhanan (John) Yokhanan Aleph (I John) and 'Ivrim (Hebrews).

[Dawid]

Chaver,
Believe me I've been places no one should have to go. I've been in spiritual darkness that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
The last time I even looked at a Kabbalistic text was...probably four months ago. My study of the Kabbalah is purely academic. I have a strong aversion to practical Kabbalah, which is simply witchcraft. However, the Scriptures are clearly mystical books. They must be understood as such. In this vein the Kabbalah is occasionally correct.
I did not start studying the Kabbalah in order to become more Jewish. I believe my conversion made me as Jewish (halachically) as the next guy. I studied it because I like to study every perspective. That's why my library contains works by the Falashas, Samaritans, Karaites, Rabbanites, Catholics, Essenes, and Nazarenes.
What I found is that the Kabbalah often has ideas that are also in the 'Edot (testimonies, the New Testament).

Shalom,
Dawid

[gbausc]

Akhi Dawid,

I have not read the Kabbalah per se. I have read extracts and a history of Bible codes (Cracking The Bible Code-Jeffrey Satinover,M.D.), going back to Maimonides, The Rambam and other Medieval Rabbis who searched the Torah for coded information and Gematria patterns, the Fibonacci sequence of numbers, The letters of fire, Atbash encryption, The All sufficiency of Torah: The 18th century Lithuanian Rabbi, Vilna Gaon said, "All that was, is, and will be unto the end of time is included in The Torah, the first five books of The Bible." I have also seen the movie, "The Chosen", which is about a young man, David?, the son of a Hassidic Rabbi who was also apparently very heavily invested in certain Kabbalah teachings, including hidden Gematria codes in Hebrew scripture. An excellent biography! I believe I read the book also.
I certainly agree with Albion's warning about Kabbalah. It is a mix of truth and error, which makes it all the more intriguing, subtle & seductive. I certainly would not use it as a source for doctrine about The Messiah as the second Sephirah. Scripture plainly says He is YHWH, not merely a part or parts of him.

It is equally inaccurate to say the hand did it, not the man, and to say that the hand is a part of the man, therefore the hand is the man

We are discussing God, not a man; however, we do use this same kind of metaphor to express human activity or attributes. "He is a loud mouth." The man is called a mouth to express what stands out about the man, so in this case, the mouth is the man. "He is a hothead". The head is the man. "He is a Fat ass."; you get the idea.

Yeshua is called the Arm of YHWH; He is also named YHWH, so we cannot limit Him to a body part of YHWH. The Arm represents The entire Person, but particularly with reference to His power-(Meshikha,Khayla d'Alaha, "The Messiah,The Power of God") 1 Cor. 1:24

Yeshua Himself referred to Messiah as YHWH, as I pointed out, in Matthew 22:42-45.

Shlama,

Dave

[Dawid]

Khaver, I have heard the "mixture of truth and error" argument before. I cannot agree with it. Yes, it is a mixture. But then, so is the Massoretic text family. In fact, so is every known textual family of the TN"K. Does that mean we should not study them? As Sha'ul HaShlachi says, we must be able to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Every idea I have from the Zohar or the Tanya I have tested against the Scriptures, and I only accept those which withstand this test. Many of the ideas from these Kabbalistic texts fall short.

As a Trinitarian, though, I think you should appreciate what I am attempting to communicate. You see God as a tri-unity. All are one, but all are separate. I am simply emphasizing the separateness of the various attributes of God (yes, I believe Yeshu'ah is an attribute of God, known in the Kabbalah as the Ayn Soph).
I maintain an emphasis on this because of my discussions with Orthodox friends, who are quite disturbed by the idea of a man being God. No, I am not saying that we should change our theology to make it more palatable. I am saying that we may change the emphasis in order to make it more palatable. I think you and I basically agree on this (I believe that the three highest Sephiroth are where the idea of the Trinity came from) we are simply emphasizing different parts of the idea.

Shalom,
Dawid

[gbausc]

Akhi Dawid,

The errors of Kabbalah are not on a par with copyist errors and manuscript variations in Hebrew; that is an absurd comparison. There are very few doctrinal differences between Hebrew mss. There are numerous doctrinal content differences between any Hebrew ms. of The Tanakh and Kabbalah. The reason we know there are textual errors in some Hebrew mss. is because of many other Hebrew mss., Massorah notes, and, in some cases, The LXX . In most cases, if not all, we know not only where the errors are, but also where the true readings are. Errors in Kabbalah are on a different quantum level altogether, exponentially more radical, because the doctrinal errors are from a source other than YHWH. In that case, the errors must be discerned by comparing the text to scripture.If scripture contradicts it, then Kabbalah is incorrect. If one is well grounded in scripture and filled with Ruach Ha Kodesh, he or she would be able to discern truth from error. Such texts as Kabbalah pose a danger to all others, especially unbelievers and new converts.

Kabbalah is not on a par with scripture, anymore than is The Satanic Bible. We may find some truths in The Satanic Bible, though it certainly would not be considered a reliable source of truth by any follower of YHWH.

As to the doctrine of The Person of The Messiah, Kabbalah cannot take precedent over plain scripture which declares Yeshua as YHWH. I appreciate your attempts to proselytize the Orthodox and to couch your language in Kabbalah terminology. I fear that you may only confirm them in Kabbalah and harden their position against the truth. Yeshua is not merely an attribute of God; He is God also. Yes, He is described as attributes of God (Power,Wisdom,Righteousness,Glory). He is also named as MarYah-YHWH and titled as God.
You wrote:

(I believe that the three highest Sephiroth are where the idea of the Trinity came from)

Not so! The Triunity doctrine came from The Tanakh (I see it in Genesis and Exodus) and the New Testament. It is certainly supported by Isaiah and David in Psalms, as well as The Prophets.
"Elohim" is a plural word denoting 3 or more, yet it always takes a singular verb! "Elohim (plural) said (singular)".

Triunity is written into the very fabric of the universe, which consists of three fundamental triune components, making one "universe", which word means, "to turn into one". The three components are , "time,space,matter". These 3 are one universe. All 3 must be present, or there is no universe. But each of these 3 is a triunity as well.

Time consists of 3 tenses (past,present,future). The 3 are one and essential for time to exist
Space consists of 3 dimensions.The 3 are one and essential for space to exist
Matter has 3 states; Some posit a 4th (plasma) , which is really the 3 combined as one in the center of stars.The 3 are one and essential for Matter to exist
Some would resolve matter into 3 attributes: Mass,Motion,Energy. The 3 are one and essential for matter to exist.

The Title of "The Messiah"-"The Anointed One" is a revelation of The Triunity, as I have pointed out previously.

But you must proceed however you think best to communicate. You must consider that usually, when we make compromises in order to win someone over to our viewpoint, the other party actually wins us over while he remains exactly where he started out.
It seems that you and I do actually agree more closely than some of our language suggests.

Burkta Akhi,

Dave

[Dawid]

Very few is not none at all, khaver.
Let me draw what will be a more acceptable comparison for you. Kabbalistic texts are no more a mixture of truth and error than are Lamsa's translation and commentaries. I own "Gospel Light" and it's riddled with errors. Does that make it wrong to study? No. It should simply be studied critically. One should keep one's eyes open when studying Lamsa, or when studying the Kabbala. As I said before, I have only accepted from Kabbala what I think they have right based on the text of the TN"K. The idea of the Ayn Soph and the ten Sephiroth jives with the text. I can even point out specific formulas containing various names of all ten Sephiroth in Hebrews.

To compare Kabbalistic texts (which are usually commentaries on the Torah) to the Satanic Bible is an outrage. The Zohar is a commentary on the text of the Torah. Yes, it is often wrong, but it is certainly not to be compared to the Satanists Bible.

I am not putting Kabbala over the plain text. I do think, though, that we must more accurately define our terminology. I think that the Kabbala has correctly defined terms such as "YHWH" and "Elohim." I did not accept this interpretation simply because it sounded cool. I accepted it because it jives with the text.

Khaver, the idea of the Ten Sephiroth and the upper three Sephiroth also came from the TN"K. I am saying that I think the idea of the Trinity is a misinterpretation of these three Sephiroth.
So if it is three or more, why not ten?

Or, according to other theories, space, time, matter, and energy.
Time consists of two tenses. Perfective and imperfective.
The universe consists of four dimensions. Height, width, depth, and time.

I don't make compromises. I'm simply (if I do say so myself) very good at the language game. I control my words rather than the other way 'round.
Do you know what the theory of the Ayn Soph and the ten Sephiroth is?

[gbausc]

To compare Kabbalistic texts (which are usually commentaries on the Torah) to the Satanic Bible is an outrage.

So you say. I and others are outraged, I think, at your comparison of Kabbalah to The Hebrew mss. of Tanakh. One good outrage deserves another <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

So if it is three or more, why not ten?

Because the Prophets mention three Divine Ones, not ten:
Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek.

Zech. 4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.
8 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent Me unto you.

Matter and energy are interchangeable as per E=mc2.

Time consists of two tenses. Perfective and imperfective.

No present? Even Hebrew and Aramaic use the participle for present tense: "which was, and is and is to come". Past and future are only meaningful with respect to the present.
What universe are you living in?

The universe consists of four dimensions. Height, width, depth, and time.

I said "space consists of 3 dimensions", not "the universe". Space is not measured by time. Matter moving through space is.

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the spacetime continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the fourth dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, the universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time.

Wikepedia on Space-Time
You wrote:

I'm simply (if I do say so myself) very good at the language game. I control my words rather than the other way 'round.

Yes, you are good at playing word games, but word games are not the way to learning or communicating the Holiness of The Truth and the Truth of The Holy.

Much of what I have gotten from you, Dawid, is sophistry. You are short on wisdom and truth. That is probably due to your youth, and I do not disparage your wit and intelligence; far from it, but you ought to assume a meeker stance and seek understanding from others who have been doing so far longer than you have and have learned from experience and mistakes the difference between wisdom and knowledge, information and understanding, life and death, light and darkness, God and Satan.

"A wise son makes a glad father." I have seven sons and five daughters. I have taught them the meekness of wisdom and the wisdom of meekness. Moses was the meekest man on the earth. He was also the wisest and most holy of his time:
Nu 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)
Pr 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Pr 11:2 When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.
Da 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.
Da 5:20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Jas 4:7 Subject yourselves therefore to God; and stand firm against Satan, and he will flee from you.

Shema, Israel! The wise man knows how to hear; he knows how to listen; he is a really good listener and hearer.

"He that has an ear, let him hear."

I know you,Dawid. I know where you are. I know in my spirit. I was there when I was a young man. You will think me presumptuous, no doubt, to say this.

I used to know everything too. My oldest son, now 30 years old, was also such a person as a teenager, and I realized where it came from. It is always harder to take when seeing it in someone else rather than in oneself.

Thankfully, he has grown wiser and humbler with the years and raising a family of his own. You will also.

God bless you with His grace,

Dave

[Dawid]

lol. Touche.

Yes, in some cases the upper three are mentioned together (we could also point out the calling of Betsal'el). However, that does not limit Him to three. Hebrews 1:3 brings all ten to light, showing that Yeshu'ah embodies all of them, that he is what is called the Adam Kadmon.

Present is included in the imperfective. You know this. In Hebrew thought time is not abstract, but is thought of in terms of actions. There is only that which has been finished, and that which has not been finished. Imperfect and perfect. The present falls under the imperfect tense.
You also know that your example is not accurate. There are two different words involved here. Hayah and Howeh are from the same shoresh. But Yavo' is from a different shoresh entirely. Hayah, perfect, "He has existed." Howeh, imperfect, "He is existing." Yavo', imperfect, "He will come." Not, "He will exist." Hayah is the shoresh of the first two, ba' is the shoresh of the last one.

Yes, you said space. But space is only part of the universe. You are only taking into account those things which help you prove your point. We must look at all of the facts, not merely the ones we like. I didn't like it when I found out Kabbalah had some things right. I started studying Kabbalah to refute it. To disparage it. Imagine my disappointment when I started realising that some of it is straight out of the Epistles.

I play word games because I find that is mostly what I can use them for. Deeds are better to learn holiness and wisdom and truth than words are. Any day. Compared to deeds, words are simply playthings. I admit, that does not excuse my sophistry. But controlling words is the only way I've survived and maintained sanity.

Khaver, amongst those who have told me I ought to seek the wisdom of my elders have been cultists, Orthodox Jews, and people of so many different persuasions that to respect and obey one is to disrespect and disobey another. If I were to do as all of them have said I would have multiple personalities disorder like nobody's business. I do respect your opinions. Just like I respect the opinions of my various elders, parents, and mentors. I also respectfully disagree with you on many things. I try to weigh the influence and advice of each one of my teachers and mentors carefully against eachother and against the Scriptures. But to be honest, I have a very hard time trusting anyone. I've been lied to (both accidentally and purposefully) too many times.

I know that I am not as humble as I should be. And my twisted personality takes pride in the fact that I admit it, because I know that most people are and refuse to admit it. It's like the movie, Patton, "I know I'm a primadonna, I admit it. What I can't stand about Monty is he won't admit it."
Yes, that's strange. Yes, it's wrong. The more I try to change my attitude the more it seems to stay the same.

Hear, yes. But, na'aseh, wenishm'a. First obey, then hear.

Yes, I think you are rather presumptuous. But that is a natural reaction, and not necessarily accurate. Considering what and where I've been "you don't understand" is the classic reaction.

This may seem cavalier to you, but I don't think I know everything. I just don't like being told when I'm wrong.

"You will, too." Bezrat HaShem. He knows I could use more wisdom.

[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

[Dawid]

I find the distinctions between persons and beings to be arbitrary philosophical nonsense. Which is probably one reason I'm such a rotten haggadist.
No, I am not putting Kabbalistic texts on par with the NT. As I stated before, I began studying it in order to refute it. Then I found that in a number of places its view and comments helped make sense of things. I never understood Hebrews until I had a little Kabbala under my belt. Looking at Hebrews in the context of a Jewish mystical commentary like Kabbalistic or Essenic works finally made sense of it to me.
I do not think that it is on par with the "New Testament" books. I simply think that they had a few things right. We've really only discussed one issue based on Kabbala, that is why I seem so gung-ho about it. If we were to get into reincarnation, the afterlife in general, or any of a number of other issues I could tell you where I disagree with Kabbalistic principles.

Perhaps the concept existed, but I do not think it originated with the Hebrews, and I do not think it is the essence of tenses. Tenses, as everything in Hebraic philosophy, come back to action. Action comes down to two forms, the complete and the incomplete.
Maybe it was written in Aramaic. I tend to think Revelation was written in Hebrew, and this is one case where even the Greek attests to that idea, but I'm not going to press that issue.

I have admitted no such thing. I have merely attempted to point out that things that are happening can be expressed without a present tense being necessary. Any way I try to communicate these Hebrew concepts in English will be used as evidence against me, because one must make these points cross-linguistically. Please don't stoop that low. You know Hebrew better than I do, so don't try to twist my words. I am merely pointing out that there is no gap here, that all that need be expressed is perfect and imperfect. These are the basic tenses.

If you understood what you are speaking of, if you had studied Kabbala yourself you would know that saying that something is a Divine Attribute is not a relegation. It is as much a part of God as the "persons" of the trinity theory.
I have already answered you, but you did not believe me. I will let the words of the prophet speak for me, I looked, and there was none to help and I wondered that there was none to uphold, therefore My own Arm brought Salvation to Me, and My Fury upheld Me.