The information presented is not intended to encourage terrorism or a disregard towards the law or government.
Every citizen has allegiance to their nation. It is an innate condition of being a citizen. One with this status should comprehend that having allegiance to a nation is worshiping it as a god. The term god (lowercase) refers to a sovereign. This sovereign can be a pagan deity, or it can be a king, president, prime minister, prince, governor, landlord, magistrate; basically it is one who has prerogative over the subjects under him [a ruler]. If you consider having allegiance to a nation, you are actually following the ones who administer and control that nation, for a nation can not operate in self-existence. It needs men to provide agency to the administrative offices. Trusting in man [regardless of their condition] will always lead to destruction, but the men who have and are occupying these offices are of an esoteric sect. They are not common everyday people. They are ultimately satanic because they do not adhere to the message of Christ. They believe in their own idea of man’s self enlightenment. They are “humanitarians” and they proudly wear that title.
A citizen’s allegiance is duty to their government. This duty is to follow all the laws and codes [none of them being moral, but civil], and to be summoned on command. Duty is obedience/submission to superiors, and submission is to deliver yourself to the power of another. This submission is considered worship. To worship God or any other pagan god is to be obedient and to fully follow it’s laws, to deliver yourself to it. Worship is also defined as civil deference, and deference is submission. Being a citizen is submission to artifice [man’s law, legal fictions], and having your liberty being completely dominated [free-dom].
It doesn’t matter what YOU believe. If you are a citizen you are worshipping your nation. You are a gentile, a sinner, a transgressor, a worldling, a left-hand path taker, and maybe even a mammonist. You have denied following God’s Law through the example of Christ, and through temptations of civil luxury have chosen to follow man and his system of things [world of nations, legal world].
“humanitarian – n. 1.One who affirms the humanity (but denies the divinity) of Christ. 2. One who professes the ‘Religion of Humanity’holding that man’s duty is chiefly or wholly comprised in the advancement of the welfare of the human race: applied to varies schools of thought and practice.
adj. 1. Holding the views or doctrines of humanitarians; held or practiced by humanitarians. 2.Devoted to humanity or the human race as an object of worship.“— Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 1992
“Alle’giance. n.s. [ allegeance, Fr.] 1.The duty of subjects to the government.”
“Du’ty. n.s. [from due.] 3.Obedience or submission due toparents,governors, or superiours; loyalty; piety to parents.”
“Obe’dience. n.s. [ obedience, Fr. obedientia, Latin.] 1. Obsequiousness;submission to authority; compliance with command or prohibition.“
“Submi’ssion. n.s. [ soumission, Fr. from submissus, Latin.] 1.Delivery of himself to the power of another.”
“Wo’rldly. 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[man’s system of things, legal world; not the Kingdom of God].” —Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. 1755, 1773
“worldling – A person whose soul is set upon gaining temporal possessions; one devoted to this world and its enjoyments.”— GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
“mammonist – One who is devoted to the acquisition of material wealth; one whose heart is set on riches above all else; a worldling. “— The Century Dictionary
“God – 3. god(B.) a ruler“— Chambers’s Twentieth Century Dictionary
“god – 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel.”— Webster’s 1828
“gentile – One neither a Jew nor a Christian; a worshiper of false gods [pagan deities, rulers]; a heathen.”— Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
“gentile: 3. In gram., expressing nationality, local extraction, or place of abode; describing or designating a person as belonging to a certain race, country, district, town, or locality by birth or otherwise: as, a gentile noun (as Greek, Arab, Englishman, etc.); a gentile adjective (as Florentine, Spanish, etc.). 4. In gram., a noun or adjective derived from the name of a country or locality, and designating its natives or people: as the words Italian, American, Athenian, are gentiles.”— 1889 Century Dictionary
The information presented is not intended to encourage terrorism or a disregard towards the law or government.
Many people proudly claim to be patriots of their country, believing in it’s founding principles and supporting it’s welfare. They will be disheartened if they find out the real meaning behind being a patriot. According to the actual definition of ‘patriot’, part of being one is supporting the country’s current interest, but many so-called patriots do not and want to bring it back to a time when they think it was better. In reality of the legal fiction, if one does not support the nation’s current interests they are deemed to be an enemy of the state.
Patriots have love for their nation despite the fact that their relationship to it is serfdom and debtorship. Humorously in America many patriotic republicans have been swayed by the political rhetoric of Donald Trump, believing he’s some kind of patriotic savior, and they still have hope in him becoming president again. I suppose they are unaware that Trump is not a zealous supporter of the US Constitution. The fact is that looking up to men to govern your affairs will always lead to inevitable destruction. “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”— Psalm 146:3
Patriots are under the delusion that the country is theirs and that it’s purpose is the citizen’s welfare. That is far from the truth as history has certainly proven. In the Constitution it starts out “We the People” with “People” being capitalized as a capitonym with a different meaning which does not refer to public citizens, but the ‘inhabitants’ of the States in their sovereign capacity. A US citizen is not an inhabitant of the State in which he ‘resides’. His inhabitance, or ‘domicile’, is the United States Corporation in the District of Columbia. He has mere residency in the state, but not domicile. The legal scribes intentionally make their legalese difficult to comprehend to the layman; as Thomas Jefferson said that in drafting statutes his fellow lawyers were accustomed to “making every other word a ‘said’ or ‘aforesaid,’ and saying everything over two or three times, so that nobody but we of the craft can untwist the diction, and find out what it means…” For a better explanation on how we are not the “People” I’ll direct you to an article that explains it well enough.
“PEOPLE. Ordinarily, the entire body of the inhabitants of a State. In a political sense, that portion of the inhabitants who are intrusted with political power… The words “the people” must be determined by the connection. In some cases they refer to the qualified voters, in others [i.e. “We the People”] to the state in its sovereign capacity…”
INHABITANT. Implies a more fixed and permanent abode than “resident;” frequently imports many privileges and duties to which a mere resident could not lay claim or be subject.’ One domiciled: one who has his domicile or fixed residence in a place, in opposition toa mere “sojourner.” – A Dictionary Of Law by W.C. Anderson 1889
The definition of patriot is one “who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.” The word derives from Greek patrios which means “of one’s father”, patris “fatherland”, and pater which is “father” To be a patriot is to claim your father is the worldly government that is your nation, not God. Jesus said in the book of Matthew [Mat 23:9] that followers are not to call anything in the world your father. The translators intentionally added the term “man” or “one” in that verse as a misdirection giving the notion that it is not okay to call any man your father, but it is acceptable under God to call a secular nation your father/fatherland, for a nation is not a man. Our Father is not of this world, and we are patriots only to the Kingdom of God where our citizenship is supposed to be domiciled. If one claims not to be a patriot to his nation he is still a citizen which means he has voluntarily alienated adherence to a former foreign sovereign and is standing under his current secular sovereign that is the nation. If you were born in said country, at first your ‘father’ is God/Christ [a foreign sovereign to the nation, the Prince Of Peace] until the age of legal accountability. The naturalization oath of citizenship clearly states that you “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince [Christ, the Prince Of Peace], potentate, state, or sovereignty“
When breaking the word down [pat-riot], the government has always viewed patriots as terrorists even before the notion of the law labeling it’s citizens as possible ‘enemies of the state’. A ‘pat’ is one who adheres “to an existing/former status or policy and refusing to consider proposals of change or reform.” And ‘riot’ is an ‘assembly that is seen by the law as a breach of peace, a terror to the public, and to execute and unlawful purpose.’ That is how the law defines those words. The word patriot is also “used for a factious disturber of the government.” In this sense, the government sees patriots who refuse to consider proposals of change or reform as a threat to its future endeavors.
“patriot (n.) 1590s, “compatriot,” from French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota “fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Greek patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (genitive patros) “father” (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition. Liddell & Scott write that patriotes was “applied to barbarians who had only a common [patris], [politai] being used of Greeks who had a common [polis] (or free-state).”
Meaning “loyal and disinterested lover and defender of one’s country and its interests” is attested from c. 1600, but it became an ironic term of ridicule or abuse from mid-18c. in England, so that Johnson, who at first defined it as “one whose ruling passion is the love of his country,” in his fourth edition added, “It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government.”
The name of patriot had become [c. 1744] a by-word of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that … the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot. [Macaulay, “Horace Walpole,” 1833]
It was somewhat revived in reference to resistance movements in overrun countries in World War II, and it has usually had a positive sense in American English, where the phony and rascally variety has been consigned to the word patrioteer (1928).” – https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=patriot
“pat – In politics, to adhere obstinately to an existing status or policy, refusing to consider proposals of change or reform; stand still, in a blind or stubborn refusal to disturb existing conditions when they are profitable to one’s party or one’s self.” – 1889 Century Dictionary
“riot – Specifically In law, an unlawful assembly which has actually begun to execute the purpose for which it assembled by a breach of the peace, and to the terror of the public, or a lawful assembly proceeding to execute an unlawful purpose…” – 1889 Century Dictionary
“PAT’RIOT, noun [Latin patria, one’s native country, form pater, father.] A person who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.” – Webster’s Dictionary 1828
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” – Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” – KJV, Isa 9:6
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is notofthisworld” – KJV, Jhn 18:36
“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not thatthefriendshipof theworld is enmity withGod?whosoever therefore will be a friend oftheworldisthe enemy of God.” – KJV, Jas 4:4
If you are not a “Christian” you already denounce Christ, but those who claim to be a ‘follower’ and also a ‘patriot’ have turned away His sovereignty. Being a Christian is following the example of Christ Jesus, but Jesus was not of this world [earthly kingdoms/governments, Satan’s world], and being part of it and actively participating in it is in fact renouncing Christ. Even His parents were not of this world, but they were subject to it [being subject to =/= being a subjectof].
Christ Jesus, his Kingdom is not of this world [earthly kingdoms/governments], therefore his dominion is not of the United States nor any nation or state. He never participated in civil pursuits, and never registered to become a member under any nation. We are not to have membership of the world, for friendship of it is enmity with God, and this friendship is done by voluntarily enrolling/registering into it. Joseph sought to not make a public example of Mary; they wanted to stay private in the “heavenly register.” Some people will point to Luke 2:1-5 that mentions the decree by Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed [registered into the census] and that Joseph was taxed with Mary. In Luke 2:2 “this taxing” was so “that it might appear how much tax should be levied upon each one.” In order to tax someone they would need to be registered into the public [census]. In the original Greek translation the word for “tax” in the KJV means to register [voluntary enrollment], and it is understood as that this enrollment was in the “heavenly register” for Joseph and Mary. The public register of a nation is clearly not the heavenly register. It is more likely that Joseph with Mary claimed privacy on record that he was of the lineage of King David and had no intentions to participate in the public business world. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon makes the claim that in Luke 2:3 “all” went to enroll in the heavenly register, when it is biblically clear that did not happen. Joseph and Mary enrolled in the heavenly register, pronounced their privacy and complete adherence to God through the lineage of David (it is possible that Mary’s pregnancy prevented them from publicly registering). Then when Mary brought forth Jesus she “laid him in a manger; for there was no room for them in the inn”, and back then the inns were for those who were publicly registered and could be accounted for. A ‘manger’ is in a barn; “a trough or box in which fodder is laid for cattle”, and although Jesus never confronted problems of being an illegitimate child, “one conceived in a barn” is worldly considered a ‘bastard.’
“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publickexample, was minded to put her away privily.” – KJV, Mat 1:19
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David: ) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” – KJV, Luke 2:1-7
“STRONGS NT 583: ἀπογράφω [tax] a.to write off, copy (from some pattern). b.to enter in a register or records; specifically, to enter in the public records the names of men, their property and income, to enroll (cf. ἀπογραφή, b.); middle to have oneself registered, to enroll oneself [Winer’s Grammar, § 38, 3]: Luke 2:1, 3, 5; passive οἱ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογεγραμμένοι those whose names are inscribed in the heavenly register,”
“STRONGS NT 582: ἀπογραφή [taxing] a.a writing off, transcript (from some pattern). b.an enrolment (or registration) in the public records of persons together with their property and income, as the basis of an ἀποτίμησις (census or valuation), i. e. that it might appear how much tax should be levied upon each one: Luke 2:2; Acts 5:37; on the occurrence spoken of in both passages, cf. Schürer, Ntl. Zeitgesch. § 17, pp. 251, 262-286, and books there mentioned; [McClellan 1:392-399; B. D. under the word Taxing].” – Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
“MANGER, noun 1. A trough or box in which fodder is laid for cattle, or the place in which horses and cattle are fed.”
“B’ASTARD, nounA natural child; a child begotten and born out of wedlock; an illegitimate or spurious child. By the civil and canon laws, a bastard becomes a legitimate child, by the intermarriage of the parents, at any future time. But by the laws of this country, as by those of England, a child, to be legitimate, must at least be born after the lawful marriage.” – Webster’s 1828
“bastard, noun Word origin ME < OFr < bast- (also in fils de bast) (< ? Goth bansts, barn) + -ard,-ard: hence, one conceived in a barn” – collinsdictionary.com
“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”, Psalm 146:3. Protestant pastor David Guzik explains eloquently how leaders of this day are nothing to revere. I believe it’s not just the leaders of these days, but of all time. Either way he makes a good point here.
“Politicians of this day look for what they can get from you. Jesus looks for what He can do for you.
Leaders of this day surround themselves with servants. Jesus surrounds us with His servanthood.
Leaders of this day use their power to build their empire. Jesus uses his power to wash our feet and make us clean and comfortable.
Leaders of this day trade their influence for money. God so loved that he gave …
Generals of this day need regular wars to keep their weapons and skills up to date and insure their own advancement. Jesus brings peace and rest to hearts.
The higher the plane of importance one reaches in this world, the more inaccessible he becomes. Jesus was Emanuel, “God with us.”
Leaders of this day are desperate to be seen and heard. Jesus sought anonymity so He could be useful.
Obviously, Jesus is not in charge of the halls of Washington, London, Moscow, Baghdad, Paris or Bonn.” – David Guzik
The spiritual way of Christ involves not volunteering to be enrolled in the world of man [legal world, world of nations, Satan’s world], and Christ was obviously not of this world. If you are publicly registered it is your spiritual duty to abjure from it.
“Leave Babylon; flee from the Babylonians! Shout for joy as you tell it and announce it. Shout it out to the ends of the earth…” – GOD’S WORD Translation, Isa 48:20
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
“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
“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
“Wo’rldly. 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.”
“Alle’giance. n.s. [ allegeance, Fr.] 1. The duty of subjects to the government.”
“Du’ty. n.s. [from due.] 3. Obedience or submission due to parents, governors, or superiours; loyalty; piety to parents.”
“Obe’dience. n.s. [ obedience, Fr. obedientia, Latin.] 1. Obsequiousness; submission to authority; compliance with command or prohibition.“
“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
“G.I. (adj.) 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
“… 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.
“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