“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 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.”

Notice first how they contradict themselves for in one breath they say a person is a hu-man being by statute so thereby created by legal fiat and in the next breath: “Any hu-man being is a man”. Moreover, the word ‘person’ is applied to men and yet it says “In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms”. So ‘man’ and ‘person’ are not the same thing and yet the word ‘person’ is applied to a man and he is then referred to as a natural person, which is an oxymoron. So how does this work? Well it tells us, doesn’t it? “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.

Right, let’s keep in mind here that the primary meaning of the word ‘person’ is a mask or false face – a fiction and yet it is being applied to a man as if to make him something else and this something else is then given a rank which he then holds in relation to a society. What is this society called and does it even exist in reality? Furthermore, with this applied personage and rank within a mythical society come rights and entitlements along with imposed duties. We can see, too, that titles are also involved and all to embellish those fictional ranks within an equally fictional society, I presume. Now these titles range from the all important ‘Mr’ and ‘Mrs’ right down to the bottom of the heap Prime Minister or President (here I’m being deliberately facetious). So what is this all about other than one huge masquerade – a fake or a lie?

Are you beginning to see why God is no respecter of persons? I do hope so, but let’s continue, because we need to check this out Scripturally along with unravelling the usual satanic agenda shenanigans of the Freemason and Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religious KJV translator’s.

The word ‘persons’ can be found 56 times in 54 verses of the KJV and the word ‘person’ can also be found 56 times in 54 verses of the KJV. Coincidence or contrived? I will leave you to answer that, dear readers.

Furthermore, the word ‘persons’ is italicised three times and the word ‘person’ is italicised eight times so this means that in eleven instances the translators have openly added the words ‘person’ and ‘persons’ to the original Hebrew or Greek text when translating into English.

Matt 22:16 (KJV) And they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in Truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Out of all the verses containing the words ‘person’ or ‘persons’ I have chosen Matthew 22:16 because this verse says it all. Notice, first of all, the italicised word ‘man’ which was added by the KJV translators, so I have removed it with square brackets as it was/is an erroneous agenda based addition. Then we have the term: “The person OF men”. This makes two things very apparent: 1) The word ‘of’ can mean ‘without’ or ‘ to separate’ so we have: “The person without men” or the person that is devoid of the man and 2) Yashua Messiah holds no value in the ‘person’ for He does not regard them and He does not regard them because He cannot see them. Why would He, they’re only a façade, a mask, a fake and a lie.

Here is Matthew 22:16 from another source, i.e. from Young’s Literal Translation:

Matthew 22:16 (YLT) And they send to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Teacher we have known that Thou art true, and The Way of God in Truth thou dost teach, and Thou art not caring for anyone, for Thou dost not look to the face (mask or façade) of men. (Brackets mine)

Romans 2:11 (KJV) For there is no respect of persons with God.

In this verse we encounter another problem where the meaning has been changed to “partiality in general” but is this correct? Let’s look at Strong’s for clarification:

G4382 – Respecter of persons – prosoÌ„poleÌ„psia – pros-o-pol-ape-see’-ah – From G4381; partiality, that is, favouritism: – respect of persons.

G4381 – prosopoleptes – pros-o-pol-ape’-tace – From G4383 and G2983; an accepter of a face (individual), that is, (specifically) one exhibiting partiality: – respecter of persons.

G4383 – prosopon – pros’-o-pon – From G4314 and the visage; from G3700); the front (as being towards view), that is, the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication presence, person: – (outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men’s) person, presence.

The same verse from Young’s Literal Translation:

Romans 2:11 (YLT) For there is no acceptance of faces (masks) with God. (Brackets mine)

In the above we can see how the agenda of the translators has been served and the real meaning of ‘persons’ hidden via dissembling and disingenuous behaviour. In Truth, this word ‘persons’ has nothing to do with partiality at all but, rather, everything to do with Truth or falsity. What this means for everyone is the question as to whether you are a mask – a person, a fake, a falsehood, a lie or a man or woman?

In part two, I will continue with the context issues of Romans 2:11 and give some more Scriptural examples of the mythical person – the mask of which God is no respecter.