No, it's actually everything man is not. (aka apophathic thinking). But calling God a "person' is anthropomorphism.
God did that as per the parable of Gen., in Gen. 1:26,27. He created man in His Image. Your claim is that God was being anthropomorphic before He created man
There is no being a "person" in any of that. Image and likeness refer to man's role and capacity in this world: image is the sovereignty (kingship) on earth and likeness is man's ability to be merciful, compassionate, i.e. Christlike (animals don't have it); the latter aspect of humanity was lost in the Fall. Salvation is re-acquiring the likeness of God, i.e. becoming Christ-like, or divined, perfected, etc., according to Christian theologians.
Nothing you said, or presented indicates the 3 Persons that are God equate to any adjective. He's a Person
Stubbornly repeating that he "is" a Peron doesn't mean he is. You can say you believe it, but that's not Chritainity. Christianity believes the three are hypostatic—that is, self-existing realities of the same divine essence (or nature), that is Theotes.
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
The Hebrew word tselem mean semblance. Obviously an image is not the thing it represents. Man is like a god on earth. The word semblance has nothing to do with being a "person." It has to do with the dignity and man's role in the world.
According to Scripture(Ezekiel 37) He was raised. I doesn't matter what day He was raised other than that's the day Paul noted from the testimony of the Apostles.
There were no bones. There was no resurrection of the two Jewish kingdoms or Davidic rule. The context and the implication of Jesus' Resurrection is night and day from Ez. 37. A real stretch.
Only from the reference point of a pious Jew
No, just from the alleged experience of an OT "inspired" writer.
"No, it's actually everything man is not. (aka apophathic thinking).
In order to know what man is not, one must have an idea of what man is. Only then can the transcendent BS be contrived to differentiate man from his transcendent creator and overlord.
That stuff contradicts Gen 1:26,27 that says man is an Image of God.
"But calling God a "person' is anthropomorphism."
No. If Gen1:26,27 is to hold, there must be an inverse image which obtains the original. That means that the creation event must be a function that provides for the appearence of a set of sentient rational beings that all have in common the same set of functional capacities Y, that has a one to one correspondence with, and has identically one functional capacity for each capacity in the set X. So the creation function f and set X; X:f(x)->Y has an inverse Y:f(y)->X. That is what an Image is and it is a fundamental concept in Christianity.
"compassionate, i.e. Christlike (animals don't have it)
They shure do. Here's a video of a stray dog rescuing another stray dog from an expressway somewhere in S. America. I've seen while hunting, emotional connection in animals which indicates they have the feelings of love between them.
"the latter aspect of humanity was lost in the Fall. Salvation is re-acquiring the likeness of God,
There was no fall. Gen 3 is a parable. Each man is Adam and Eve and each woman is Adam and Eve, male and female they are. God never recinded the original gift of life, or corrupted the set Y which would destroy the inverse function. John 9 shows where the doctrine of original sin comes from and Ezekiel 18 refutes the doctrine entirely.
"Salvation is re-acquiring the likeness of God, i.e. becoming Christ-like, or divined, perfected, etc., according to Christian theologians."
Salvation is eternal life in Heaven. It is not reaquiring the likeness of God, because that was never lost, or taken away. The likeness of God is the image, which is function. The relevant functions regarding salvation are involved in Free Will.
It is by Free Will that folks determine if they live in Heaven. Matthew 12:32, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
"You can say you believe it, but that's not Chritainity."
Thre's only one truth, not many. You previously listed more than one "Christian" groups as mainline. They all have contradictory teachings which contradict even the Bible. Christianity must hold the correct identity of the Person of God and the true identical values of the Holy Spirit. Doctrinal decisions made by past councils do not determine truth. The opinion of Jewish scholars regarding OT passages that Christians believe refer to Jesus is likely to be irrelevant. for instance in Psalm 110 that I mentioned above, I capitalized the word lord, which was a translation of the Hebrew adonee, because Jesus was counted among the wicked and God's day of vengeance and salvation is given in Isaiah 63. That day was Good Friday.
"There were no bones. There was no resurrection of the two Jewish kingdoms or Davidic rule. The context and the implication of Jesus' Resurrection is night and day from Ez. 37.
Christians don't believe the passage refers to some future Davidic rule. The passage refers to the resurrection of the dead. Jesus raised some others, then Himself and the rest would follow. The rule comes in the Kingdom of Heaven.