The information presented is not intended to encourage terrorism or a disregard towards the law or government.
Are you man or do you belong to man?
The term “human” was originally just an adjective referring to the form, characteristics, or aspects which belongs to man [of, or belonging to man]. Most modern dictionaries will show the adjective definition above the noun, hinting importance and indicating it’s precedence. The use of the term “human” as a noun to refer to a man was condemned by some authorities, describing it as an affectation, vulgar, jocular, manifesting suddenly and whimsically. They think it’s downright hilarious that the vulgar masses have suddenly taken claim to be of, or belonging to man instead of just being man. Later, ‘scholars’ proclaim the notion that human as an adjective and not a substantive is a double negative. In reality they are twisting the diction to aid in the enslavement of people through language. Interestingly the word “human”, since English belongs to the Germanic group, can be traced to the Gothic word “ghman” which means both slave and servant. And according to a definition that has been floating around the internet for over a decade, written by Frank O’Collins [Jesuit educated, nephew of Gerald O’Collins S.J.] who claims that the modern system of citation is fraudulent, the term ‘human being’ was created to distinguish “a lesser/inferior man or woman… as an animal or monster” who was under the laws of property as opposed to being “subject to the laws of free men.” Based on what I have researched, that definition should be considered.
“You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.” — 1 Cor 7:23
mid-15c., humain, humaigne, “human,” from Old French humain, umain (adj.) “of or belonging to man” (12c.), from Latin humanus “of man, human,…” — https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=human
“human – 1. Having the qualities of a man. 2. Belonging to a man.“— The New Encyclopædia: or, Universal dictionary of Arts and Sciences 1807
“The use of human or humans for human being or human beings is severely condemned by some authorities and censured in varying degrees by most. The condemnations run from “affectation” and “jocularity” to “simply a vulgarism.”…” — A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage 1957
“All live languages in accordance with their origin form a common linguistic ancestor, genetically; English belongs to the Germanic group… Gothic word ghman means both slave and servant, in other words it is a part of Germanic group (East Germanic) and the word semantically means man or human being of either sex.” — Azad Hamawandy. Prefix (hu) as a Cognate Morpheme in Old English and Avestan. International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 3, No. 4, 2015, pp. 239-243
“HUMAN BEING: From Latin ‘Humanus’: ‘a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo: man.’ A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction—that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior ‘animal’ man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century—to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as ‘humans’—therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.” — Frank O’Collins, http://www.one-evil.org/glossary_legal_terms/glossary_h.htm
Perhaps the writers of the New World Translation Bible of 1984 were trying to inform us of this notion.
“… Hear this, all ye people; give ear, all ye inhabitants of the world:
Both low and high, rich and poor, together.” — KJV, Psa 49:1-2
“Hear this, all you peoples. Give ear, all YOU inhabitants of the system of things,
YOU sons of humankind as well as YOU sons of man, YOU rich one and you poor one together.” — NWT (1984), Psa 49:1-2
“… we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” — Unam Sanctum, Pope Boniface VIII (1302)
The term hu-man, in it’s latin origin and in man’s law, means belonging to man. It is said that the New World Translation of 1984, in some aspects, is more adherent to legalese [the king’s language; the terms of art that controls us]. In Psalm 49:2 most Bibles say “Both low and high…”, but in the NWT it says “YOU sons of humankind as well as YOU sons of man…” To be hu-man means to be of/belonging to man’s “system of things” and not God. It is to be worldly. This is because you must take on and act in agency through a government issued [G.I., disposable government property] legal entity [person] that requires allegiance [submission] to man’s law above God’s. It is a lower heretical status to be a creation of man [human creature]. Satan’s world has manipulated us into adhering to these terms. It is not good to be “human.” We should be just “man”; a pure product of God without any additions [citizenship, legal identity, legal surname, etc].
The Roman Pontiff proclaims sovereignty over “every human creature.” This has not been recanted and has been repeated several times since 1302. Pope Boniface VIII intentionally chose the term “human creature” instead of “man.” I believe it is because the Roman Pontiff knows he does not have control over the pure man, but the man that volunteers to be part of ‘the world’ [a per-son, human being/creature, citizen, subject of secular nations/”the system of things”].
“human – Of the form and characteristics of man.” — Ballentine’s Legal Dictionary 3rd Edition
“human – 3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)” — Oxford New English Dictionary 1901
adj. [from world.]
1. Secular; relating to this life, in contradistinction to the life to come.
2. Bent upon this world; not attentive to a future state.
3. Human; common; belonging to the world.”
n.s. [ allegeance, Fr.]
1. The duty of subjects to the government.”
n.s. [from due.]
3. Obedience or submission due to parents, governors, or superiours; loyalty; piety to parents.”
n.s. [ obedience, Fr. obedientia, Latin.]
1. Obsequiousness; submission to authority; compliance with command or prohibition.“
n.s. [ soumission, Fr. from submissus, Latin.]
1. Delivery of himself to the power of another.” — Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. 1755, 1773
“belong, vb. 1. To be the property of a person or thing“— Black’s Law 9th
“Human being – Natural man: Unenlightened or unregenerate.
Unregenerate – Not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute.” — Random House Dictionary of the English Language 2nd Edition
“Natural – An idiot; one whom nature debars from understanding; a fool.” — Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. 1755
c. 1300, “anything created,” hence “a thing” in general, animate or not, but most commonly “a living being,”…” — https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=creature
also GI, 1936 as an adjective meaning “U.S. Army equipment,” American English, apparently an abbreviation of Government Issue, and applied to anything associated with servicemen. Transferred noun sense of “U.S. Army soldier” arose during World War II (first recorded 1943), apparently from the jocular notion that the men themselves were manufactured by the government.
An earlier G.I. (1908) was an abbreviation of galvanized iron, especially in G.I. can, a type of metal trash can; the term was picked up by U.S. soldiers in World War I as slang for a similar-looking type of German artillery shells.” — https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=g.i.
Scholars have speculated if “human” can be further traced before it’s Latin usage. The Latin term for human/humanist is “humanus” whereas man is “homo.” Some make the ‘educated guess’ that humanus derives from homo because the “u” and the “o” are interchangeable, but oddly only with those two words and none other. Others disagree and claim it comes from a combination of Hebrew words [huw’ and min] and pagan gods from Ancient Egypt; Hu and Min who were “among the false-Christ figures (god-men) of Egypt’s several false-trinities.” Hu was the power of the spoken word, and personified divine utterance; the voice of authority. Hu was also seen as a creator, for when he expelled his breath the sound was that of his name, and creation took place. “Of or belonging to” is synonymous to being a “creation of.” The notion of the prefix ‘hu’ in “human” being derived from the Egyptian god Hu is a possibility. In Hebrew the word “he” is “huw'” and pronounced “hoo” like the god Hu. Min, on the other hand, was a sky god and god of fertility and harvest. In Hebrew ‘min’ means heretic. According to Gail Riplinger in his book The Language Of The King James Bible, combining the Egyptian gods with the Hebrew words “Hu/huw'” and “Min/min” leads to “human” with the common English pronunciation “hu • min.” In this sense, human can be defined as a pagan created heretic.
“… ‘Humanism’ comes from humanus which comes from homo. Although modern linguists can question whether Latin “o” can change into “u”, both terms have been regarded as relating with one another since antiquity which is what matters here… There is no other evidence of an “o” changing into a “u” in Latin phonology.” — HOMO, HUMANUS, AND THE MEANING OF ‘HUMANISM’ by Vito R. Giustiniani
“הוּא hûwʼ, hoo;… — he, as for her, him(-self), it, the same, she (herself), such, that (…it), these, they, this, those, which (is), who.” — Strong’s Definitions, H1931
“מִין, min — heretic” — https://www.pealim.com/dict/5054-min/
“… The word ‘human’ can be traced back to Hu and Min, the man-faced deity of the Egyptians. When Humanity Comes of Age, one of the most popular New Age books promoting the divinity of man, depicts Hu, the Egyptian god-man on the cover. Along with Horus, Hu and Min were among the false-Christ figures (god-men) of Egypt’s several false-trinities.
Just as Abel was the first to be called hu (Hebrew for ‘he’) so the Egyptian counterfeit, Hu, and all of his followers throughout history are called ‘hu’ and noted in Isaiah 9:15 (“the prophet that teacheth lies, he [Hebrew ‘hu’] is the tail.”)
‘Human’ is usually pronounced hu • min, not hu • man.
It does not come from the word ‘man.’
The Hebrew term for heretic is min. Hu and Min were no doubt derived from the vowel-less Hebrew ‘hm’ for Ham. It can be seen in the earlier Old French as hu • main and in Latin as ho • min.
New Age tee-shirts, emblazoned with the word ‘Human,’ depict a divinized person who is sexless, raceless, and ageless…” — The Language Of The King James Bible by Gail Riplinger, pg. 113
“The Egyptian god Hu was one of the minor gods in some respects, but he was one of the most important gods for those serious about Egyptian deities. Hu is the power of the spoken word. He personifies the authority of utterance.
Hu and Sia were partners. Sia was the personification of Divine Knowledge/Omniscience, the mind of the gods. Hu was the personification of Divine Utterance, the voice of authority. During Ancient times, Heka, the personification of Divine Power accompanied these two gods. Together, the three gods were very important to the rulers of Ancient Egypt.
… some legends maintain that he was not just a part of creation, but that he was the creator. It is said that as Hu drew his first breath, there was in that sound the essence of his name. Hence, we have the name Hu, which sounds remarkably like the sound of an expelling breath.” — The Egyptian God, Hu by Catherine C. Harris
One thought on “You should not claim to be human”
Men use their real Christian proper name. Humans use a surname.
LikeLiked by 1 person