(#u6tquya) New Blog Post Is Anosh "category of being" or "functional descriptor"? by @rob 📝

(#u6tquya) Bill: Anosh is humanity created in the image (ruwach) of Yahweh: John 3:6; That which hath been born of the flesh IS flesh (humanity,anosh); And that which hath been born of the ruwack IS ruwack Rob replies: Let look at the verse you quote: Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. In Greek these words are : "sarx" and "pnueumia" In Hebrew these words are: "basar" and "ruwach" (I get these quickly from Jeff Benner's Greek to Hebrew lexicon, or you cross reference the NT word to a quote from the OT verse)

(#u6tquya) So that means you are using the word "anosh" as a word you think to use for "basar"--- different word meanings... I agree "basar" means "flesh", but "anosh" meaning "man" according to Jeff Benner, is more of a functional action for man "The Hebrew word for man is "adam".

(#u6tquya) Bill you also mention "John 3:1-3; " the story in the NT regarding the second birth, where "adam make of basar" during the first birth, are created with new "ruwach" during a second birth. This is a different topic. The Hebrew word "anosh" is not used here, only "basar" and "ruwach" are.

(#u6tquya) Bill replies: "V 24; God IS ruwach; He does NOT function AS ruwach in the second or third person, of Trinity doctrine Rob says" Bill you are changing topic again" this is NOT about "anosh". This is about who is elohiym? You added emphasis to "elohiym IS ruwach" a English KJV translation, the "IS" is not there. Again this is off topic: ruwach elohiym, in say Genesis 1:2 and scholars call this a noun noun use of Hebrew as a "construct state" so they translate the two nouns as "ruwach of elohiym" . I do not really agree with this idea, because it's not consistent,

(#u6tquya) In your replies Bill, you didn't really discuss "anosh" as a category of being or a description of function? Let's review what I actually said:

(#u6tquya) Bill said before: "In Gen18:2; The account does not say Abraham saw Yahweh and two men. It says three men appeared to him. Hence, we should not suppose that two of the visitors/messengers belonged to one category of being but the third visitor/messenger belonged to another category. All three visitors/messengers are categorized in the same manner: men. Rob replies: OK Abram saw YHWH, but than it says there were three ANOSH. Consider this, CHERUB are not ANOSH either, nor is YHWH also ANOSH. The two angels are cherub but are also ANOSH

(#u6tquya) The Great Uncaused Cause "He who exists" (meaning of YHWH), also appears as ANOSH. None of the heavenly visitors are of "adam" or "basar", they come to Abram as "ANOSH". Hence functional descriptor.

(#u6tquya) I will leave comments here for now Bill, This is a brand new blog program written by my Son, James, so please cope with its functional limitations. The program is not gov regulated, only private/public with ads or censure. Comments are limited too, bother.