This Just In


This just in

concerning the Lineage of Melkizedeq.

After the Flood; Noah had to be in the line of Melkizedeq who passed that Melkizedeq mantle on to his son Shem. The book of Jasher clearly ID’s Shem as the Melkizedeq Priest of Gen.14 (Gen.14:8-21/Jasher 16:8-12)

This is from an exchange on the subject of Shem to Eber to Issac to Jacob to Levi (originally)

… However – Your Judah focus may have merit – In the absence of direct scriptural mention – It does stand to reason from retro- engineering the situation.

At the time – these Gen.48-49 pronouncements were under Melkizedeq

How could Jacob/Israel pronounce a sceptre to Judah if he did not have it to give? – Then where did he get it from?

Isaac was the foreshadow of Messiah – the Melkizedeq – It would make poetic sense that Isaac was too.

Now here for me is where it gets dicee;

Rico Cortes maintains a transfer by Shem to Abraham at Gen.14 – Which could make sense in light of Gen.15 and direct verbal exchange with Yah (the Melkizedeq) and ensuing Family exchange style Covenant.

In that scenario – Abraham would have bestowed the Melkizedeq mantle/title to Isaac – and then such to Jacob.

And – more so if Eber was made ineligible in some way – which scripture is silent on.

You maintain a transfer by Eber to Isaac – despite the fact there is no verbiage indicating such – ergo you argue from a position of silence.

Gen 49:10 “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; …”

“lawgiver from between his feet” – in retrospect indicates Levi

“until Shiloh come” – is a definite Melkizedeq reference combining 1] The sceptre of a ruling King – Melek & 2] issuance of law ie righteousness – Zedeq

All in all -something plausible to consider


ps Alert! This just in!

Rico Cortes maintains a transfer by Shem to Abraham at Gen.14 – Which could make sense in light of Gen.15 and direct verbal exchange with Yah (the Melkizedeq) and ensuing Family exchange style Covenant.

This is an Ah-ha moment for me this was a family exchange – This is where Abram becomes Abraham part of Yah’s Name and becomes Melkizedeq with Yah – because of this Covenant with Yah! – regardless of / forget about Shem or Eber!

Christian – I humbly thank you for your part in this realization and hope this answers this question for you as well.

Yah’s Esteem”

So – Abraham because of the Gen.15 Covenant with Yah (the Melkizedeq) exchanging Name, Scars, Firstborn, etc. – did have the Melkizedeq mantle to bestow on Isaac and he to Jacob and he to Judah via the Gen.48/49 pronouncements – in a divided way to include Judah with the scepter of Kingly rule, (presumably for direct mention is silent – possibly a deliberate engineered option depending on who would distinguish themselves) Levi as it turned out (from retrospect) would be that Law giver instead of Yah’s first choice of the first-born (Ex.13) and Joseph with the double-portion Birthright Blessing involving Ephraim and Manasseh.

BUT – This was suspended / void / modified from the original Melkizedeq intention after the Covenant-breach of the ‘Gold Calf’ and Yahweh’s judgment of total Israelite annihilation (Ex.32:10).

The Sons of Aaron (Levites) did distinguish themselves in that affair – then YHWH added the rest of the tribe of Levi (Num.3:12); the Levitical Priesthood was born.

Yah’s Esteem


The Jos.5:5 Connection


The Jos.5:5 Connection

Jos 5:2 At that time YHWH said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

Jos 5:5 Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.

These verses even though not Torah tell a huge part of the Torah story – one that I dare say most Messianic, Hebrew Roots, Netzarim Israel, Torah Observant, etc. are ignorant of and do not understand; including even the the Jews themselves. If there be Jews that understand this point be they Orthodox, Rabbinic, Conservative, Reform to Karaite , etc. they certainly would want to turn a blind eye and claim no knowledge as to keep silent or to silence what this verse reveals.

Jos 5:6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of YHWH: …

What happened 40yrs prior?

We have to start with the 1st Passover (Ex12) – when the Israelite left Egypt the day after the Passover (Num 33:3, Dt 16:1) – Moses called all Israelites to circumcise (Ex 12:48-49). We can safely assume that all Israelites (and converts) were circumcised by the time they reached the Sinai wilderness ‘in the 3rd month’ (Ex.19:1). Or possibly that was what the 3 days was for to ready themselves – in any case; they were circumcised.

Now they were ready to receive ‘The Book of the Covenant’ (Ex.19:5-24:8). But they broke this Melchizedek Covenant with the breach of the Gold Calf (Ex.32) 40 +/- days later and were no longer eligible to be Melchizedek Priests (Ex.19:5-6) and were thrust under the Levitical Priesthood (Heb.7:11).

I know I am just hitting the high points for the definitive study you can get my books.

Now we can do some basic math – the day after the Passover is Abib 15 – Most scholars and Jews alike teach that the original Sinai Covenant was given on Shavuot. Seven weeks from Abib 15 (and a few days) would put you ‘in the 3rd month’. Now add 40 days to that would put us in the 4th month.

That is when the Israelites breached the Covenant and evoked Yah’s sentence of death (Ex.32:10). But Moses pleaded for the people and YHWH relented – but were thrown under the Levitical Priesthood. There is a huge difference between a nation ‘of’ Melchizedek Priests and being a nation ‘with’ Levitical Priests. And evidenced by Jos.5:5 this is when the Israelites stopped circumcizing their young.

Think about it the Covenant required circumcizion – BUT – they broke the Covenant; now there was nothing to circumcize for. That is Paul’s point;

Rom 2:25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

The Israelites not circumcizing their young for the next 40 years proves that point.

Now; What else happened in that 40 years after breaking Covenant? – tzitzits (Num.15) – tzitzits are to attest to, signify and remind the wearer to keep the Com’dts; Right? So what gives? These tzitzit wear’n Israelites stopped circumcizing their young – a Com’dt! They wrote the law on stones (Dt.27:8) the same law that specified circumcizion that they weren’t doing! Moses gave ‘The Book of the Law’ (Dt.31:26) over to a mostly un-circumcized Levite Priesthood and Israelite nation.

That same un-circumcized crowd commanded by Joshua to;

Jos.1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

Jos 1:16 ¶ And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we (the un-circumcized) will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go. 17 According as we hearkened unto Moses (who was circumcized) in all things, so will we hearken unto thee: only YHWH thy Elohim be with thee, as he was with Moses.

From the same un-circumcized crowd came the duo that spied out Jericho (Jos 2:1)

These same un-circumcized Levite Priests carried the ark (Jos 3:6) across the miracle of a parting Jordan river (Jos 3:17)

From the same un-circumcized crowd, 12 are chosen and told to set stones as a monument (Jos.4:5-6)

Jos 5:10 they kept Passover – well at least then they were circumcized (Jos 5:7) – but that begs the question what about the prior 40yrs.? Either the tzitzit wear’n Fathers kept Passover with their tzitzit wear’n un-circumcized sons – OR- They did not keep Passover for 40yrs. Either way is a break of the law.

OK – Jos 5:2 says to ‘circumcise again the children of Israel the second time’ – So when was the 1st time? Gen.17 was the initial (1st) command to circumcize under the Melchizedek Priesthood. Jos 5:2 was the ‘second’ command coming under the Levitical Priesthood.

So; logic would dictate that those today that are convinced to circumcize for a religious value, think they are being obedient to Gen.17 which is (whether realized or not) Melchizedek – the Covenant break and the 40yr. secession void proves the opposite. These convinced ones are really being obedient to Jos.5:2 which is (whether realized or not) Levitical.

Heb 7:11 ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) …

1Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of Elohim.

Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offence of the cross ceased (?)

This is a rhetorical question

According to Gal 5:11 one of the many offences of the cross/stake was physical circumcizion.

It is interesting that the 1st place that you see ‘Circumcizion of the Heart’ mentioned is Deut. (Dt 10:16; 30:6) after the Covenant break. Making their Physical Circumcizion as un-Circumcizion

Interesting that ‘Circumcizion of the Heart’ is the New Testament/Covenant standard (Rom 2:29)

Choose Wisely – Yah’s Esteem – DrDave

The Ultimate Ignorance


“… Opinion breeds Ignorance” – Hippocrates

Those that will not read have no advantage over those that cannot read – Mark Twain

“The ultimate ignorance is the blind opinion charged rejection of any issue; coupled with the arrogant absence of correct knowledge which refuses to investigate what is known little or nothing about” – Dr. David L. Perry Th.D.

Yah’s Esteem – DrDave



Books & Literature

Those that will not read have no advantage over those that cannot read – Mark Twain

“The ultimate ignorance is the blind opinion charged rejection of any issue; coupled with the arrogant absence of correct knowledge which refuses to investigate what is known little or nothing about” – Dr. David L. Perry Th.D.

Brief Synopsis outline of;

‘The Covenants of Promise’
– Deals with the ‘The Covenants of Promise’ of Eph.2:12. Identifying the Biblical Covenants that attach directly to Abraham’s Promise Covenant of Gen.15. Distinguishing these various Melchizedek Covenants as distinct from Levitical Law (Gal.3:10; 19 / Heb.7:11-12). And the caveats involved with these various Melchizedek Covenants – Which always involve 5 issues – 1] a Proposal, 2] an Acceptance, 3] a Blood Ratification and 4] a ‘Covenant Confirming Meal’ – Which always involves 5] a direct attachment to Gen.12 thru Gen.15

‘Back to the Melchizedek Future’
– Deals with the return to the original Melchizedek Priesthood (1Ptr.2:9). Ex.19:5-6 is the original open invitation call to that Melchizedek Priesthood. When the Israelites broke the Ex.19 Covenant with the ‘Gold Calf’ (Ex.32) – They had defiled themselves; no longer eligible to be Melchizedek Priests (This included Aaron and Aaron’s Sons). They were thrust under the Levitical Priesthood (Num.3:12 / Heb.7:11-12) for the next 15 centuries until Yahshua – the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek (Heb.7:17; 26). Reconnecting the New Covenant Melchizedek Priesthood (1Pt.2:9) with the Melchizedek Priesthood of the Original Covenant.

Book – ‘The Covenants of Promise’ – PDF Download – minimum $15 Donation

Book – ‘Back to the Melchizedek Future’ – PDF Download – minimum $15 Donation

Dissertation – ‘The Book of the Covenant distinct from The Book of the Law’ –
PDF Download – minimum $15 Donation

The entire 613 law list (18 pages) – Along with my findings –
PDF Download – minimum of $5.00 dollar donation

Complete FaceBook Article postings from 2012 to 2014 –
PDF Download – minimum of $10.00 dollar donation

Or to Donate to ‘Yah’s Spirit of Truth’ and/or ‘Torah Without Rabbinics’ – Thank You for your ministry donations

Remember with PDF you have the power to word search any point

Send to Dr.Dave – via PayPal –

Please use through Paypal using this email address.

Or send check to;

Dr. David L. Perry – POBx 1111 Bloomington, California 92316
Be sure to include your eMail eDdress


In the Name of


In the Name of

My apologies if there be a few that do not – But – Many to Most (dare I say all) Messianic use many names interchangeably for the Most High and His Son – God, Lord, Adonai, Jesus, etc.  It is basic knowledge that ‘LORD’ hides the ‘tetragrammaton’ Paleo-Hebrew YHWH – Yahweh – AND – That ‘Jesus’ is the Greco-Latin hybrid word that hides the name ‘Yahshua’.

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. ***{JESUS: that is, Saviour, Heb} (KJV)***

This is KJV. Look at the sloppy scholarship the translators purvey –  Quote – “JESUS: that is, Saviour, Heb”. They are claiming that ‘JESUS’ in Hebrew means ‘Saviour’ –

The point is ‘JESUS’ – The teary eyed supposed ‘name above all names’ in Hebrew does not mean a ding dong thing. It is a Latin prefix with a Greek suffix.  ‘JESUS’ in Hebrew is an impossible word – one main reason is that there never has been a ‘J’ or ‘J’ sound in either Hebrew or Greek ever – or – even in the English till the 1600’s or 400+ years ago – Making ‘Jesus’ and ‘Jehovah’ an audio and scripted BC/AD impossibility in itself.

But the Messianic/Hebrew Roots people don’t do much better – They call the Messiah ‘Yeshua’ if they use a name at all. Basically denying Yahshua access to His Father’s Name ‘Yahh’ (Ps.68:4). Yet they will say (and even with the Christian Church); Hallelu-Yah (note – not Yeh or Je). Even so they relegate the Son of the Most High to the feminine tense of the word *salvation* <yesha’>, <yeshuah>.

Ps 68:4 Sing unto Elohim, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name YAH <03050>, and rejoice before him.

03050.  hy  Yahh,  yaw  – Search for 03050 in KJV – that search will yield 45 times ‘Yahh’ is used – and – that 44 of those times that Name is hidden for ‘LORD’ – Just like the other 6800+ times ‘YHWH’ is hidden for ‘LORD’.

Yahshua did say; at John 5:43 “I am come in my Father’s name …”  – Yahh – This is both Literal and Figurative.

Yeshua/h is primarily a verb – Yahshua is a name; the Saviour’s Name.

Gen_49:18  I have waited for thy salvation,H3444 O YHWH.

ישׁוּעה – yeshu^‛a^h – yesh-oo’-aw
**Feminine passive participle** of H3467; something saved, that is, (abstractly) deliverance; hence aid, victory, prosperity: – deliverance, health, help (-ing), salvation, save, saving (health), welfare.

2Sam. 22:3 The Elohim of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my *salvation* <yesha’>, my high tower, and my refuge, my *saviour* <yasha’>; thou savest me from violence.

This is the only verse in the entire Bible that ‘salvation’ and ‘saviour’ appear in the same verse

03468.  evy  yesha`,  yeh’-shah (**Feminine passive participle** of H3467) – or yeshai {yay’-shah}; from 3467; liberty, deliverance, prosperity:–safety, salvation, saving.
See Hebrew 03467 (yasha`)

03467.  evy  yasha`,  yaw-shah’
a primitive root; properly, to be open, wide or free, i.e. (by implication) to be safe; causatively, to free or succor:–X at all, avenging, defend, deliver(-er), help, preserve, rescue, be safe, bring (having) salvation, save(-iour), get victory.

Yahshua is the composite name contraction of the Father’s Name Yahweh (Yahh) and the Hebrew words for ‘salvation’ <yeshuah>, ‘saviour’ <yasha’> and riches <shuwa`>.

Job 36:19 Will he esteem thy riches <shuwa`>? no, not gold, nor all the forces of strength.

07769.  ewv  shuwa`,  shoo’-ah
from 7768; a halloo:–cry, riches.

So; In the Name of “Yahshua” the true ‘Name above all names’ now you know the rest of the story.

Embrace the truth – Repent of ignorance – Resist arrogance – Be honest – Choose Wisely.

Acts 4:12 “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is **no other name** under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Yahh’s Esteem – Shabbat Shalom

Did some more research
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יְהוֹשׁוּעַ
yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
yeh-ho-shoo’-ah, yeh-ho-shoo’-ah
From H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: – Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.
This does seem to uphold the extra ‘o’ or ‘u’ sound – however as I have said this leaves no opening for the usha written or vocalized pronunciation
Gen_49:18 I have waitedH6960 for thy salvation,H3444 O LORD.H3068
Feminine passive participle of H3467; something saved, that is, (abstractly) deliverance; hence aid, victory, prosperity: – deliverance, health, help (-ing), salvation, save, saving (health), welfare.
Again shua Not usha
So –
Yahweh/Ah/ah and Yahshua can become
Yahuweh/Ah/ah and Yahushua but never usha
Barring ‘usha’ you do have a choice within these confines

And this just in 1.12.16 in answer to an exchange

Name Evidence


יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יְהוֹשׁוּעַ

yeho^shu^a‛ yeho^shu^a‛

yeh-ho-shoo’-ah, yeh-ho-shoo’-ah

From H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: – Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.
I am surprized that you did not make/showcase this observation – But if I am honest I must concede in as much as there does seem to be an apparent anomaly

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יְהוֹשׁוּעַ

yeho^shu^a‛ yeho^shu^a‛

yeh-ho-shoo’-ah, yeh-ho-shoo’-ah

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ * – * יְהוֹשׁוּעַ With the 2nd ו (o/u/w) missing –

Hebrarically spelt differently but phonetically anglicized the same – Interesting – I am not up with the vowel pointing; top or bottom – 1st off; I do not care for the Babylonian Jewish script dubbed ‘Hebrew’ but the *kubutz* ‘…’ at the bottom of the ‘shin’ is to have an oo sound; which would make it understandable that ‘yeh-ho-shoo’-ah’ is sited in both cases. I realize you will site Mazoretic tampering – But there’s a difference in crying ‘foul’ and proving it – and that in every case. Happy hunting – knock yourself out. And there’s a point the whole Babylonian Jewish script itself is 1 gigantic ‘tamper’.

And consider this;



From H4428 and H7769; king (male) of *wealth; Malkishua, an Israelite (male) : – Malchishua.: – Malchishua.

I understand in your rush to expunge ‘shua’ and standardize all understanding to sha / usha but this summarily ignores some indelible facts; for instance that Yahshua is foremostly valid from ‘yeshua/h’ Gen.49:18 – Some stating ‘shua’ means vain – This is not so – neither ever, only or always. So your saying Jacob/Israel waited for Yah’s ‘vain’ salvation ??? Preposterous! And the remaining fact that ‘sha’ is not a stand alone Hebrew word and means nothing – that ‘usha’ is not a stand alone Hebrew word and means nothing. The same point could be made of ‘Yahu’ it is not a stand alone Hebrew word. It is a prefix; it is a suffix but it does not stand alone.

I admit now; you do have a velum of potential proof. You turn your point on a pinhead hint the supposed whisper of potential proof while manufacturing other unsustainable ‘proofs’; cookie cutting from words to be words – Yet ignore direct indelible proof in favor of your chosen pick – wish it were exclusively so pronunciation. That coincidently makes you the purveyors with the reservoir of special untapped secret (so-called) knowledge. What could be wrong with that picture?

Yet indisputably for all time ‘Yah’ and ‘Shua’ (call/riches) & yeshua/h are all stand alone Hebrew words with definable evidence and meaning.

That being the normative; the honest cannot exclusively ignore either.

Hallelu-Yah (Praise Yah not Praise Yahu )

PS – You prefer Yahuah ‘yah-hoo’-ah’? Consider; Yahshuah ‘yah-shoo’-ah’ – Phonetically is a nice fit. Eh? (A) get it?

And this in –

It is almost comical that the 1’s that demand Uah over Weh/ah cannot but consistently spite themselves for it is self evident that the natural vocalized transition from U to ah/Ah cannot help but produce the unmistakable audible W (Double U) sound no matter how you try not to.