For There is No Respect of Persons With Yah – Romans 2:11 – But What is a Person? – Part 1

Special Announcement: I am currently publishing a new version of the Set Apart Scriptures – The MCV Bible, link here:

“No respect of persons with Yah?” 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 (MCV) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a Truth I perceive that Yah is no respecter of persons.

We find this same term in the Old Testament as well:

2 Chronicles 19:7 (MCV) Wherefore now let the awe and respect of The Yahavah be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with The Yahavah our Yah, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Now before we get into The 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, 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. Which means it’s 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, that is, come right out with it? Answer: because they know that a ‘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 Yah 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 a 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 (see link No. 1 below).

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. 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 Yah 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 (MCV) And they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of Yah in Truth, neither carest thou for anyone [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, or separate from 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, that is, 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 (MCV) For there is no respect of persons with Yah.

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 – prosōpolēpsia – pros-o-pol-ape-see’-ah

From G4381; partiality, that is, favouritism: – respect of persons.

G4381 – prosōpolēptēs – 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 – prosōpon – 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 The Truth, that is, reality or falsity. What this means for you and me is the question as to whether we are masks – persons – fakes – falsehoods – a lie, or flesh and blood men and women?

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 Yah is no respecter.

For There is No Respect of Persons With God – Romans 2:11 – But What is a Person? – Part 2

In part one I left it incomplete with regard to the contextual issues surrounding Romans 2:11 so let’s clarify those issues here and now:

In the latter verses of Romans chapter 1, Paul accurately describes the evil, sinful world in which he lives, so when we read those verses and look around us today we can see that nothing has changed, nor has it improved since those days in first century Rome, even the carnage that took place in The Colosseum, only we do our butchering abroad in order to export democracy. Moreover, if anything, the people of our modern western ‘civilisations’ are even worse (more debauched and dissolute) than those of first century Rome. The truth being that people of first century Rome had some excuse due to their gross ignorance.

Romans 1:28 (MCV) And even as they did not like to retain Yah in their knowledge, Yah gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Here above we can see that Yah washed his hands of these heathen people and, in effect, gave them over to The Adversary; they, having rejected whatever knowledge of right or wrong they had ever possessed:

Romans 1:32 (MCV) Who knowing the judgment of Yah, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Today, though, people in the west have knowledge of Yashua Messiah, to one degree or another, even if it’s mere tokenism through the counterfeit Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religion, or religious teaching in secular conditioning centres called schools, where they give credence to any religion going. This means that most people do have some inkling of what is right or wrong, thereby making their sins worse than those of the people of first century Rome, especially if they condone and have pleasure in the sins of other people.

Returning to the thread. So this is the backdrop to Romans chapter 2 where Paul then goes on to say:

Romans 2:1 (MCV) Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are judging: for the things that you are judging them of doing, brings about self-condemnation; for you, as self-appointed judge, are doing exactly the same things.

In this verse we get a picture of what was really going on, that is, sinners judging sinners, the wicked judging the wicked, or pots calling kettles black on a grand scale, so gross arrogant hypocrisy was the order of the day.

Does this bring any modern day parallels to your minds dear readers? Does it not bring The White House and/or Whitehall in the 21st century to your mind? If not, then it should, and we should hang our heads in shame, if we have voted for these treacherous murdering criminals, who have shed innocent blood all across the Middle East and North Africa, and yet have the gall to criticise Putin for his bloodless actions in the Crimea. This is the same level of hypocrisy as heathen Rome or the Pharisees of Yashua Messiah’s day.

Furthermore, is it a timeless coincidence that Yashua Messiah called the hypocrites of His day “Whited walls” and “Whited sepulchres”? Is that what The White House and Whitehall are – giant sized Whited walls and sepulchres containing thousands of 21st century arrogant self-righteous hypocrites? I know what I think, but I will leave you all to answer that question for yourselves.

Moving on, we then have Paul saying this:

Romans 2:9-10 (MCV) with pressure and pain (tribulation and anguish) which awaits every spirit of man that doeth evil, of the Israelite first, and also those of the Adamic Nations; 10 But Glory, Honour, and Peace, to every man that worketh and doeth good, to the Israelite first, and also to those of the Adamic Nations:

In the previous verses we have Paul warning the wicked judges of the day that they will be judged themselves by Yah for their hypocrisy, and so it will be for our modern judges who are even more evil than those of ancient Rome, who deny the people any justice at all in their de-facto administrative non-courts with no juries. Judges who refuse to identify themselves (hiding behind their masks) and fraudulent unsigned court orders – well how could a mask (a person) sign a court order?

We then have Paul making reference to the Canaanite Jews and Adamic peoples, but in what sense? Is he making a racial comparison here or a religious/intellectual comparison? Don’t forget that in verse 11 he is making reference to people’s faces, or their masks, their persons and persons (masks) can have no race. So what will be the faces and masks of the Canaanite Jews and the Adamic peoples if it’s not a racial difference mask? As I have already stated, a religious mask or an intellectual mask.

The word ‘Jew’ here is translated from ‘Judean’ or ‘Judan’ – a person of Judea who could be racially of Judah or not. Many in those days were Judaic converts, converts to the religion of Judaism, especially Edomites, but they all had one thing in common – their person or their mask, or the thing they were identified by – their Judaic religion combined with their geographic location.

On the other side of the coin we had the Adamic peoples, but were they all Greeks? No way, for the word Greek is translated from ‘Hellenos’ or people who were Hellenisers or intellectuals. These could quite easily be Roman intellectuals as well as Greek intellectuals or even Jewish intellectuals who no longer believed.

Alexandrians in Egypt also had a reputation for being of the intellectual class, so they, too, all had their person or their mask – intellectualism. Were they called Professors or Doctors and did they have letters after their titles? I have no idea, but like their modern day counterparts they carried their mask, their person wherever they went and were identified by it.

These people also held great store in these mask identifiers, because to be identified as just a man or a woman would have been deemed total humiliation. Yet at the same time this is all that matters to Yashua Messiah, for He is not the least bit interested in our persons, our masks, our titles, our ranks or positions in our fictional mask societies, they mean nothing to Him, so He naturally has no respect for them.

I therefore hope that you now understand what your ‘person’ is and that it can be easily discarded as one would discard a coat or a robe.

Finally, I will use one more Scriptural example to make Yashua Messiah’s case:

Psalms 82:2 (MCV) How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons (faces or masks) of the wicked? Selah.

From Strong’s Concordance:

Persons – H6440 panıym – paw-neem’Plural (but always used as a singular) of an unused noun (paneh, paw-neh’; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively);

“Accept the persons of the wicked” or “Accept the faces (masks) of the wicked”, which is telling us clearly that the wicked have masks to conceal their real identities, and yet they are accepted on the strength of these fake identities – their faces or masks.

1. Hu; Hu-mans; Cainites; Canaanites; The Serpent Seed:

34 thoughts on “For There is No Respect of Persons With Yah – Romans 2:11 – But What is a Person? – Part 1

  1. Pingback: Why Did Yashua Messiah (The Lord Jesus Christ) Walk on The Sea? – Part 2 of 2 | Is The Father Calling YOU to His Son, Yashua Messiah?

  2. Hi Charles, have you got any further reference on how you have determined that: “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”? I have been trying to find dictionary or otherwise sources that indicate this but cannot. I cannot speak ancient Hebrew so I can’t make it out from that either.


    • I think we have covered this subject before, but I believe it’s timely in relation to your Spiritual development. And please do not take any of this as a criticism, for it’s ALL PART of the learning curve that we all must go through.

      In our previous discussion, on this topic, I think I explained that I had read it somewhere online on a web page that was into Ancient British customs and history and in particular the Welsh and Irish/Scottish Gaelic tongues, which, as you know, are Hebrew in origin, as is Old English.

      This site, from memory, was not the least bit religious, so it had no axe to grind in that direction, so I accepted what they said, and ran with it, as it seemed to me that God’s hand was in it, and the information resonated with me Spiritually. I may have been penning “Did Eve Have Sex With The Devil” at that very moment in time. So ‘coincidence’ was not in the frame for me with this heaven sent snippet of information.

      So, if you don’t mind me saying, from now on I feel it would be good for you to work on not relying so much on facts and hard evidence = head knowledge, and focus more on resonating heart knowledge, that is, KNOWING without knowing – trusting your inner Spiritual man, to give you the answers you’re looking for, that is, does this thing FEEL RIGHT deep down? Even if you put things on the back burner and wait for more Divine inspiration to confirm your first thoughts.

      In turn this maybe (and I say maybe) an issue re your Baptism, and The Father is waiting for you to trust more in Him, than rely on your diligent self. Not that I am knocking diligence, but I am sure you know what I mean. Please let me know your thoughts.

      In the mean time I have found some more info for you that should confirm what I discovered earlier, is True.

      Here too is a snippet from another site:

      “The Druids had a high veneration for the Serpent. Their great god, Hu, was typified by that reptile; and he is represented by the Bards as ‘the wonderful chief Dragon, the sovereign of heaven’.” George Oliver, Signs and Symbols, New York, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1906, p. 36″

      Just to finish off, have you ever wondered why those back slidden Levitical priesthood Welshmen have a DRAGON/SERPENT on the their flag?

      • Thanks Charles, don’t worry I take no personal offence. I do tend to go with the heart and that is what is driving everything, but I often want to get some factual basis on things and perhaps it is because I spend too much time worrying about how to explain things to people who are ultimately spiritually dead or called elsewhere. To wit, I am currently engaged with 3 against me from a Presbo church and our conversations have been interesting and even to some degree I would say I’ve certainly pulled their pants down or jogged their heads but we will see if they are dedicated mainstreamers soon enough. I’ll be taking some of your articles just in time for blasphemous Easter.

        No, I have never wondered about that, however I found a link or two somewhat similar that has made it’s way into my ATJFTP series #5

        I’ll check this one and have a go on that ancient linguistic research topic.

        Yours respectfully so.

      • Presbyterians? LOL. All the best with that!! All you will do there is silence them, just like Yashua Messiah silenced the Pharisees.

        Generally, they’re not persuadable, in my experience. They’re very earnest and devout about their denomination, much like English Strict Baptists. All a bit legalistic and Judaic, if my memory serves me correctly. Three against one, eh? You big bully! LOL

      • Ha, actually spoke to soon. I thought the site title looked familiar and that’s because i was here about 3-6 months ago when working on #5 and sure enough used some of the flow on links. ta

      • Just thought I would share this with you. You’ve probably already seen it?

      • No, not seen it and boy what a monotone motor mouth! LOL. 1) He fails to name the Jews outright as the Serpent Seed = Canaanites. 2) He fails to explain how Cain’s bloodline bridges The Flood through Canaan. 3) Explains much away as it being mostly spiritual, and not equally as much physical. 4) Fails to identify the Twelve Tribes as Britain/USA and the rest of north western Europe. Apart from that, no too bad.

      • Nah, I’ll let Yashua Messiah do that – plus I couldn’t even if I wanted to – the coward doesn’t allow comments on his videos – LOL

      • Ha ha I noticed that. Shame, otherwise someone might have found you instead passing through as it were.

        While we are back in touch perhaps you could please explain to me who can perform a baptism and why? I know we’ve had communication on this before however, as I have come to understand something I previously didn’t quite so well, it occurs to me that all these 1-in-3, 3-in-1 mono-trinity nutters don’t really understand Jesus any more or less than a JW for example, so if they don’t really understand the Godhead than what difference does it make? None of these people understand 1 John 2:22-24 so why would any of them qualify?

        What would I require from a celebrant for example? I’ve just wondered if someone like that might be a bit more open and flexible and yet what is it that they need to profess (or confess as the case may be) to be used by The Father?

        Thanks for any clarification for the five thousandth time ha ha

      • Here is one possible scenario. The one who will perform your Baptism will be the one The Father sends, and he or she will most likely come out of the blue, and very likely take you by surprise. You will then have to drop whatever it is you’re doing, and go for it. It has been so long now, in terms of people known to you, I cannot see it happening any other way.

        If you’re still organising it, then it must be someone who believes in Jesus Christ as God come in the flesh, and is happy with your instructions and wording for the Baptism. They may themselves be a trinitarian, but if happy to go along with your stipulations then do it, but you cannot use a monotheist, (JW, Unitarian or Pentecostal Oneness) for they are totally apostate (I have changed my views on these people).

      • Like a thief in the night, and doesn’t that just make so much sense? Let the dead bury their dead!

        As for these apostate folks, what exactly is the act of apostasy, that they have entered a realm of total fiction?

      • Yes, that’s one way of putting it. A better way might be that they have committed the sin of denying Yashua Messiah completely, so will have no part in the first resurrection, whilst all the time thinking that they will be a part of it – like so many Judases.

      • I’m not really familiar enough with what these people are on about to comment, but regarding those qualified to baptise I take it you are essentially saying they must believe that Jesus Christ came to live among us as a man and that He is the son of God?

      • No, that He was God come in the flesh through a woman – sired through the POWER of The Holy Spirit – The ONLY begotten of The Father – a sinless perfect man.

        We are sons of God redeemed from sin and death.

  3. OK. So, if he was a sinless perfect man, was He of the Holy Spirit His whole life or just after His baptism?

    • The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in His case was 1) in order for Him to be recognisable to Satan = no indwelling, no crucifixion and no resurrection. 2) To empower Him to enable Him to do His miracles and mission. 3) and as an example to us who would follow and emulate Him.

      • That is how I have understood that for some time now. OK

        It’s so fun when we agree!

        So this perfect sinless man where does that arise or what does it really mean? No carnal conception? Is that what the whorehouse in Rome calls immaculate conception?

        Now we’re getting somewhere. Took a while heh? You have put a lot of time to me and I cannot thank you enough. It really should be you who would baptise me. Alas you are in formally Great Britain.

        Any progress with Worried Mum?

      • “So this perfect sinless man where does that arise or what does it really mean? No carnal conception?”

        In the womb of Mariam, if not before. At the age of 12 He declared that He MUST be about His Father’s business = no carnality.

        “Immaculate Conception”? Don’t even go there. Avoid everything and anything that has been given corporate jargon titles and/or meaningless religious slogans.

        It’s not just fun that we agree, it’s crucial – “be ye likeminded” as Paul instructed his first century learner brothers and sisters.

        No, I have not heard from her again. Here’s another tip, when people sign off with the gratuitous throw away “God Bless” always be wary.

      • Interesting.

        Just for the record I didn’t really imagine that IC would be anything useful. Official corporate indeed.

        Yes, I quite dislike those throw away type lines people use, somewhat like that fellow and his praying routine.

        More from the great Paul. 10-4

  4. Pingback: Faith…. | Is The Father Calling YOU to His Son, Yashua Messiah?

  5. Pingback: Are You a Cultural Jew Marxist or a Christian?…. | Is The Father Calling YOU to His Son, Yashua Messiah?

  6. Hi
    I’ve seen many of your comments on Hugo
    And also see you get a lot of stick
    I’m no scholar but am self educated and awake and I would not give you any stick for your comments as I do get where your coming from (meaning historically with our history of lies during and since the war, but not necessarily with religious comments only because that’s not what I know know not meaning I disagree)
    However I’m not a religious man in the sense of the bible, I’ve read the bible but not the Old Testament
    I’m interested in the 12 tribes being certain nations you’ve mentioned and will look more into this
    Just wanted to ask are you aware and watch a Anthropologist call Robert Sepher
    And also are you aware of Pierre Sabbaks work?
    Many thanks

    • Hi,

      God’s messengers always get a lot of stick even to being sawn in half, as was the OT prophet Isaiah and Stephen the apostle stoned to death in Jerusalem. Hence Yashua Messiah told all His followers that they MUST “count the cost” before following Him.

      First golden rule you must learn is that the The Holy Scriptures are THE foundation to ALL knowledge, and without them you will flounder, no matter what educational avenue you take.

      Even expert scientists have to learn this lesson:

      “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a Force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this Force the existence of a *conscious and intelligent Mind.* This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

      — Professor Max Planck, the father of quantum physics

      I have heard of Sepher, but know virtually nothing about him, and likewise with Sabbaks, only with regards to him I know even less. To be honest I pay very little attention to secular intellectual sources.

      I am not a religious man, either, for God has no religion and the word ‘religion’ cannot be found in The Four Gospels, which means Yashua Messiah never uttered the word. Religion is 100% hu-man made.

      Britain, her white Commonwealth and White USA are Israel, along with the Gallic French, The Dutch, The Swiss, The Nordics, The Irish, Finland and the Flemish. However the Germans are not a tribe of Israel as they are descended from The Assyrians.

      Thanks for your comment.

      Messenger Charles

  7. Pingback: Paul’s Letter to The Ephesians | The MCV Set Apart Scriptures

  8. Pingback: The MCV – Paul’s Letter to The Colossians | The MCV Set Apart Scriptures

  9. Pingback: The MCV – Paul’s Letter to The Romans | The MCV Set Apart Scriptures

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s