I said a verb must be present if we are to make a point about it's tense. How is that the same as theological significanceof the words that are present?So a verb must be actually present, as opposed to implied, in order for it to carry theological significance? The critical portion of 1 Tim 2:5 is that the present tense mediator is "the man Jesus Christ". The " is" is a rabbit trail, as you have admitted that the present tense is the appropriate translation, and the present tense is cleary written in Hebrews, so your present argument is invalidated.
Moreover, I am still waiting for you to prove your thesis:
"...no language, syntax of lexical facts are going to provide your understanding of Mediator. Your understanding comes from the church"
Thus, you would need to demonstrate that, a) you can express my "understanding of Mediator", and that b) the language, syntax, an lexical is contrary to "my understanding of Mediator."
Unless you are saying you are making theological significance from the tense of the verb that does not exist.
mediator is a noun and has no tense.
As far as the appropriate translation, that is not a black and white issue. I am familiar with three languages to varying degrees and the way thoughts are expressed in those languages. If I use a verb to express a japanese concept that does not have a verb in the original language, then a detailed study of my English sentence is not really a detailed study of the Japanese. The fact is. there is no "IS" in the verse and so discussion about the verb tense is irrelevant. Numbers don't have tense
I have already explained by reference to a lexicon entry and reference to the court system, what is meant by mediator. If you read that here, it will do no good for me to repeat it. If you cannot find it, for you, I will write another version and post it here