“No respect of persons with God?” What did Yashua Messiah mean by this statement and why didn’t He say that He is: “No respecter of men”, or could it be that He does have respect for men, but not for persons? So from this we could ask, is a person a man or can a man be a person or, as my title question asks, what is a person?
Peter utters the same statement in Acts:
Acts 10:34 (KJV) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.
We find this same term in the Old Testament as well:
2 Chron 19:7 (KJV) Wherefore now let the fear of The LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with The LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. (Emphasis mine)
Now before we get into the Holy Scriptural explanations, let’s take a look at some dictionary definitions for this peculiar word ‘person(s)’ because, as per usual, nothing is straight forward nor is it what it seems, and from Webster’s we get this as the primary definition:
PERSON, n. per’sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
As we can see, and, like the words ‘Lucifer’ and ‘gentile’, we have a word of Latin origin, the word ‘persona’, which means a ‘mask’ as used by actors on stage, so already it’s all beginning to look fake, artificial, fictional and false and very different from being a breathing, flesh and blood, man or woman.
Webster’s also says this as a secondary definition:
“1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.”
They say here that a ‘person’ is an individual hu-man being consisting of body and soul, but why not say that a ‘person’ is a man or a woman, i.e. come right out with it? Answer: because they know that ‘person’ is not a man or a woman. So is there some kind of agenda at play (pardon the pun) here? Notice that the word is applied to a man, woman or child as an appendage, but is it lawful or even legal to do so? Are our God given rights being infringed upon? If we go a little deeper we get this from the Online Legal Dictionary:
“PERSON, In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labour organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.
A corporation is a “person” for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.
Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in United States courts are “persons” entitled to institute a suit for treble damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.).”
Have you noticed the omission of the one crucial word from the above legal definition? MAN. It says a hu-man being by Sonus Complete statute, but not MAN. Then it lumps hu-man beings in with ‘firms’ and all manner of other abstract bodies including corporations and foreign governments, no less, so what’s going on? Gross deception is the answer to that.
So are you saying that a hu-man being is not a man? Yes, absolutely. The word ‘hu’ from the Hebrew/Gaelic and Hebrew/Old English tongues means ‘serpent’, so a ‘hu-man’ is a ‘serpent man’ with his origins from Eve and The Devil in The Garden. A hu-man is no son of Adam, so not a man.
The Legal Dictionary then goes on to say:
“PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.”
Leave a Reply