Jesus a Religious Reformer, or Transformer?

[Shermana]

Then either you deny the Bible or you do not believe it.

1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit

Then you believe Psalms contradicts where it says Man HAS a soul.

To be a "Living soul" is when a Soul is given a body to "live" with.

I don't believe "The Bible" is complete in terms of all Inspired writings, or is completely inspired, like some who blindly follow manmade traditions.

 

[Benoni]

Do you ever read my post???

 

[Benoni]

1 Corinthians 15: the last Adam was made a quickening spirit

 

[Benoni]

Did you read post 83?

 

[Shermana]

Matthew 23:46

New International Version
Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."

 

[InChrist]

I don’t think Jesus was a religious reformer. The Bible actually says that Jesus Christ was/is the Savior. He came to save sinful people, which according to the scriptures includes everyone.

For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Luke 9:51

Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.” John 4:42

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 1 John 4:14

To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. Jude 1:25

And His saving power does indeed transform a person’s life:

Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17

 

[Benoni]

Matthew 23:46

New International Version
Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."

Did you read post 83? in context. just because He had a soul does not mean He is a soul. He was made a quicken spirit.

 

[Shermana]

Did you read post 83? in context. just because He had a soul does not mean He is a soul. He was made a quicken spirit.

What do you think it means to have a soul? Is a soul like an organ you are born with that dies with you? No, to be a "living soul" means that you ARE that "living soul". Given flesh. What else do you think it means to "Be a living soul" if a "Soul" is something you "have"?

And see my post on the other thread.

Young's Literal translates it as:

Young's Literal Translation
so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit,

It says he was FOR a life-giving Spirit.

The concept is perhaps that Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him.

 

[Windwalker]

The reason you say the same of me is because you have absolutely not a single clue what you're talking about. Not one iota.

Yes, its obvious from my detailed explanations in everything I post that I don't have a single clue. Is this the best you can offer, just meaningless blather like this, and that other post where you were ranting and raging out of control with all-caps shouting and insults? Sounds to me whatever your religion is doing for you is out of whack some. Certainly you have a lot of hostility when challenged in your ideas.

Yeah you can't answer.

I can answer just fine. You can't hear the answer. I asked you to ponder the question yourself in the hopes that by actually thinking, some truth might open to you.

Here's your own question again for you to try to figure out the answer to yourself, as it's the only way you might learn something since you can't listen: "You're right in the sense that he was trying to get them to obey the Spirit, but you have some convoluted idea that the Spirit of the Law can exist without the Letter. How does that even work?"

No, YOU don't know what a Reactionary is. You think it only pertains to American conservative politics.

A reactionary is related to politics. Look it up yourself. Here's how.

1. Open Google
2. Type in Reactionary Definition
3. Click on related links and read the results

You'll be amazed at how easy it to do this before stating this in a post a making yourself look foolish.

It means the intent.

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. How do you understand the intent?

 

[Shermana]

Yes, its obvious from my detailed explanations in everything I post that I don't have a single clue.

The first thing you are right about so far!

Is this the best you can offer, just meaningless blather like this, and that other post where you were ranting and raging out of control with all-caps shouting and insults?

I think I used all caps for one word, "WRONG!!!" Maybe a few others. Anyways, I'm just responding as it's fit for your own meaningless blather. You never address anything I say, or the verses I quote, and if you do touch on them, you read into something that completely betrays historical context and what all scholars pretty much agree on the matter, that Jesus was in fact sticking to a pro-Law concept.

Sounds to me whatever your religion is doing for you is out of whack some. Certainly you have a lot of hostility when challenged in your ideas.

So did Jesus. And Paul. And John.

However I'm usually not so hostile when dealing with people who don't dig into their rabbit hole and actually are willing to debate, and don't think that they have been given Divine revelation which entrenches their views.

I can answer just fine. You can't hear the answer. I asked you to ponder the question yourself in the hopes that by actually thinking, some truth might open to you.

Oh I hear the answer just fine, that's the thing. I've pondered the issues for about 10 years now. You said you pondered it for 30, and it appears your answer has been to think you've become an enlightened Soul who can see past all the pesky Historical context because of some Divine revelation/illumination you've been bestowed.

Here's your own question again for you to try to figure out the answer to yourself, as it's the only way you might learn something since you can't listen: "You're right in the sense that he was trying to get them to obey the Spirit, but you have some convoluted idea that the Spirit of the Law can exist without the Letter. How does that even work?"

The answer is simple, it doesn't work. You can't have the Spirit without the Letter. It's like saying "You don't have to follow the Speed Limit as long as you don't hit anyone".

A reactionary is related to politics. Look it up yourself. Here's how.

1. Open Google
2. Type in Reactionary Definition
3. Click on related links and read the results

You'll be amazed at how easy it to do this before stating this in a post a making yourself look foolish.

Reactionary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, the one accusing me of being foolish thinks there's only one definition for Reactionary because he googled it and took the first result. It's not as cut and dry as you think. Let me show you how easy it is indeed!


adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

I don't see any "political" definition there. Maybe on others, but not this one.
Why dont' you write to them and tell them to include the word "Political" in it.

Let's use the acclaimed Wiktionary instead:

reactionary - Wiktionary

Adjective[edit]
reactionary (comparative more reactionary, superlative most reactionary)
Opposed to change; urging a return to a previous state.
Very conservative.  [quotations ▼]

Wikipedia has an article on:
Reactionary
reactionary (plural reactionaries)
One who is opposed to change.
One who is very conservative.

Yep, nothing specifically, necessarily Political there. Can apply to ANYONE who wants to return to a previous state. One who is opposed to "Change". Like the changes that Jesus accused the Pharisees of making with their "manmade traditions".

The definitions saying its strictly referring to political conditions are WRONG!!!!

So once again, to emphasize in all caps, you are WRONG!

Think twice and look at more than the first google definition you come across before calling someone foolish.

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. How do you understand the intent?

To discuss the intent of the Law, I'd have to go over each and every commandment, but the idea is to retain spiritual purity.

 

[Windwalker]

I think I used all caps for one word, "WRONG!!!" Maybe a few others. Anyways, I'm just responding as it's fit for your own meaningless blather.

No, you were spewing insults left and right like a teenager who has nothing of an argument to make and feels uncomfortable having the spotlight turned on him. It's called deflection. By attacking me personally you are trying to shift the focus off the actual discussion and away from your inability to discuss rationally.

You forfeited your position in that discuss the second you became a raging child throwing a temper tantrum. That's how it works.

You never address anything I say, or the verses I quote, and if you do touch on them, you read into something that completely betrays historical context and what all scholars pretty much agree on the matter, that Jesus was in fact sticking to a pro-Law concept.

I am addressing everything. But you are trying to avoid the real argument by trying to argue over what this verse means versus that one. The real argument is you cannot see another's point of view. You seem incapable of that. And as such, how can anything I, or anyone else says to you ever penetrate your thinking? It can't. You have and are continuing to demonstrate that.

So did Jesus. And Paul. And John.

Good lord. Really? Jesus threw a temper tantrum and spew sarcasm in lieu of substance? Again, you see Jesus in your own image.

However I'm usually not so hostile when dealing with people who don't dig into their rabbit hole and actually are willing to debate, and don't think that they have been given Divine revelation which entrenches their views.

Correction, you fly off the handle when I'm unwilling to engage in a pointless tit for tat argument quibbling over scripture verses which is utterly futile, as I do not believe it is possible for you to say you are right and another is wrong. You don't know how to handle stepping into another ring that you haven't worked out all your apologetics over. I know what that looks like. I was once like you. I hold the advantage here, and that has nothing to do with me being "Enlightened", which I have never claimed. I have insights you do not. That is all I am saying regarding that, and that is perfectly reasonable to say. I clearly do.

Oh I hear the answer just fine, that's the thing. I've pondered the issues for about 10 years now. You said you pondered it for 30, and it appears your answer has been to think you've become an enlightened Soul who can see past all the pesky Historical context because of some Divine revelation/illumination you've been bestowed.

Has nothing to do with Enlightenment, and I don't believe I am. The "pesky" historical context is easily dealt with by saying that you don't know factually what it was. No one does. You can't. And furthermore, anything you interpret from history is filtered through your frameworks of reality based on your education, culture, personality, cognitive abilities, exposure to other perspectives, and on and on. You cannot bypass these, and therefore cannot say I am "WRONG" at all. At best, you can say how I see things doesn't fit with how you see things. And that is in fact true. Ditto.

The answer is simple, it doesn't work. You can't have the Spirit without the Letter. It's like saying "You don't have to follow the Speed Limit as long as you don't hit anyone".

The Spirit creates the law. If you have the Spirit, then why do you need a law outside yourself?

 

[Benoni]

What do you think it means to have a soul? Is a soul like an organ you are born with that dies with you? No, to be a "living soul" means that you ARE that "living soul". Given flesh. What else do you think it means to "Be a living soul" if a "Soul" is something you "have"?

And see my post on the other thread.

Young's Literal translates it as:



It says he was FOR a life-giving Spirit.

The concept is perhaps that Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him.

Yes we agree he was Jesus is a life-giving Spirit.

I just gave you a discription using scripture (which you did not use) that Jesus is a spirit.

and you ask what is a soul?

No where does it say " Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him" ???

Where you find that in God's Word???

You did not refute a thing I just posted because I based on God's Word not my opinion.

I totally refute what you are trying to spin because it is based on your bias opinion and so scriptural backing . " Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him" ???

No a soul is not an organ. It is something God formed in us so we can fullfill God's purpose and come under the curse of sin and death.

Spiritual being a like Jesus who is now is an always have been a life givien spirit; yes he had a soul in the flesh; but where is that soul now? It was hung on the cross with his body of fllesh because He is now a life given spirit.

Adam too was created in God's image and likeness. And then God later formed Adam from the dust of the earth and he became a living soul. That us a scriptural fact.

No where is it a scriptural fact that Jesus is some kind of soul now that He has been glorified; that was His human condition not His devine condition.

Notice Jesus is a live giving spirit the Adam is only living. Big difference between someone who gives life and something that is just living.

 

[Shermana]

No, you were spewing insults left and right like a teenager who has nothing of an argument to make and feels uncomfortable having the spotlight turned on him. It's called deflection. By attacking me personally you are trying to shift the focus off the actual discussion and away from your inability to discuss rationally.

Your entire reply is nonstop deflection. I did discuss it rationally, I explained with verses that Jesus upheld the Law. What insults did I use exactly? Name them. Show examples.

You forfeited your position in that discuss the second you became a raging child throwing a temper tantrum. That's how it works.

Hogwash, I made my case clear, I simply said you were wrong and that you twisted and ignored vast swaths of verses. You're really desperately looking for an excuse to avoid my actual points.

I am addressing everything. But you are trying to avoid the real argument by trying to argue over what this verse means versus that one. The real argument is you cannot see another's point of view. You seem incapable of that. And as such, how can anything I, or anyone else says to you ever penetrate your thinking? It can't. You have and are continuing to demonstrate that.

You have addressed nothing. I am quite capable of seeing your point of view. And I've shown it's wrong and completely unhistorical. I asked you to show a single scholar that shares your view. You've refused each time.

Good lord. Really? Jesus threw a temper tantrum and spew sarcasm in lieu of substance? Again, you see Jesus in your own image.

Yes, he called them Broods of Vipers who made up their own traditions. Paul allegedly said anyone who spoke contrary to him, let him be damned. You see Jesus in YOUR own image.

Correction, you fly off the handle when I'm unwilling to engage in a pointless tit for tat argument quibbling over scripture verses which is utterly futile, as I do not believe it is possible for you to say you are right and another is wrong. You don't know how to handle stepping into another ring that you haven't worked out all your apologetics over. I know what that looks like. I was once like you. I hold the advantage here, and that has nothing to do with me being "Enlightened", which I have never claimed. I have insights you do not. That is all I am saying regarding that, and that is perfectly reasonable to say. I clearly do.

You are attempting to accuse me of "Flying off the handle" when I've pointed out that each of your replies is basically a deflective attempt to dodge the historical context at stake, to read into the verses something that isn't there or to flat out avoid the verses I bring up, and you basically double down insisting that you have Divine Insight and Revelation as an excuse. You DID claim to have such enlightenment in the other post. Stop lying.

Has nothing to do with Enlightenment, and I don't believe I am. The "pesky" historical context is easily dealt with by saying that you don't know factually what it was. No one does. You can't. And furthermore, anything you interpret from history is filtered through your frameworks of reality based on your education, culture, personality, cognitive abilities, exposure to other perspectives, and on and on. You cannot bypass these, and therefore cannot say I am "WRONG" at all. At best, you can say how I see things doesn't fit with how you see things. And that is in fact true. Ditto.

I DO Know what the historical context was. Jesus was in Israel, and he was teaching what he considered to be the original form of Judaism. That's what the Gospels say. If he rejected literal obedience to the Law, he would have been stoned to death. But that's not what he was executed for.

Again, I ask you to name a SINGLE scholar that agrees with your view. I have entire historical schools of Philosophy that agree with mine.

The Spirit creates the law. If you have the Spirit, then why do you need a law outside yourself?

This is the kind of nonsense blabbering non-answers I'm talking about. The Law of Moses is the one that God created. What do you think it means for the "Spirit to create the Law" in the first place?

 

[Shermana]

Yes we agree he was Jesus is a life-giving Spirit.

I just gave you a discription using scripture (which you did not use) that Jesus is a spirit.

I just gave you a translation that you did not use.

and you ask what is a soul?

Yes I did. Which you really didn't answer.

No where does it say " Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him" ???

What do you think Young's Literal translation means? Why do you think Jesus says God's spirit is with him?

Where you find that in God's Word???

Luke 4:18 for starters.

You did not refute a thing I just posted because I based on God's Word not my opinion.

I surely did. You just refuse to admit it, or even address it.

I totally refute what you are trying to spin because it is based on your bias opinion and so scriptural backing . " Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him" ???

And no, you did NOT refute it. You simply doubled down on it. You are much like Windwalker, you think your interpretation somehow is proven when it's not, you even admitted you were in error, and now you're backtracking.

Luke 4:18 specifically says that Jesus was anointed to have the Spirit of God in him.

And you're absolutely refusing to address Young's Literal Translation, probably for a reason.

No a soul is not an organ. It is something God formed in us so we can fullfill God's purpose and come under the curse of sin and death.

Is that supposed to be a coherent and relevant answer to the issue?

Spiritual being a like Jesus who is now is an always have been a life givien spirit; yes he had a soul in the flesh; but where is that soul now? It was hung on the cross with his body of fllesh because He is now a life given spirit.

Do you not understand that you're not answering the issue whatsoever but you're simply making assertions that don't actually define the essence of what you're talking about?

Adam too was created in God's image and likeness. And then God later formed Adam from the dust of the earth and he became a living soul. That us a scriptural fact.

Yes, the Soul of Adam became living.

When are you going to address what it means for Jesus to say "My Soul", which apparently you had never read before until I showed it to you?

No where is it a scriptural fact that Jesus is some kind of soul now that He has been glorified; that was His human condition not His devine condition.

You somehow think that your explanation of what a soul is, if you can call it an explanation, defines that Jesus was not a soul inhabiting his flesh?

Let me know when you plan on addressing Young's Literal.

Notice Jesus is a live giving spirit the Adam is only living. Big difference between someone who gives life and something that is just living

I don't really see the difference except perhaps in your hogwashy mumbo jumbo explanations that avoid the actual point. Besides, perhaps a Soul HAS a spirit.

Or perhaps it's the Spirit that has a soul.

 

[Benoni]

Quote:
Yes we agree he was Jesus is a life-giving Spirit.

I just gave you a description using scripture (which you did not use) that Jesus is a spirit.
I just gave you a translation that you did not use.
I just told you I agreed with it? How am I not using it if I am agreeing with it???
Quote:
and you ask what is a soul?
Yes I did. Which you really didn't answer.
I did answer a soul is what God formed in Adam from the dust of the earth. Anymore answer then that then I will be using my opinion which is all you have.
Quote:
No where does it say " Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him" ???
What do you think Young's Literal translation means? Why do you think Jesus says God's spirit is with him?
This is all hogwash based on nothing accept what you think; and not on scripture. It never says Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him" Young's Literal translation does not mean this.
Quote:
Where you find that in God's Word???
Luke 4:18 for starters.

King James Version 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,</SPAN>
Really where???

Quote:
You did not refute a thing I just posted because I based on God's Word not my opinion.
I surely did. You just refuse to admit it, or even address it.
Where???
Quote:
I totally refute what you are trying to spin because it is based on your bias opinion and so scriptural backing . " Jesus was made to carry the Spirit with him" ???
And no, you did NOT refute it. You simply doubled down on it. You are much like Windwalker, you think your interpretation somehow is proven when it's not, you even admitted you were in error, and now you're backtracking.

Luke 4:18 specifically says that Jesus was anointed to have the Spirit of God in him.

And you're absolutely refusing to address Young's Literal Translation, probably for a reason.
You are ignoring Gen. 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
As if it has no relevance; this verse tells us how God formed man into a living soul. Nowhere does it say Jesus was formed into a living soul which you claim
Quote:
No a soul is not an organ. It is something God formed in us so we can fullfill God's purpose and come under the curse of sin and death.
Is that supposed to be a coherent and relevant answer to the issue? So God forming man from the dust of the earth is not coherent and relevant???
Quote:
Spiritual being a like Jesus who is now is an always have been a life given spirit; yes he had a soul in the flesh; but where is that soul now? It was hung on the cross with his body of flesh because He is now a life given spirit.
Do you not understand that you're not answering the issue whatsoever but you're simply making assertions that don't actually define the essence of what you're talking about?
Wrong.. You claim Jesus is a soul, you refuse to show where Jesus is a soul because it is not written anywhere in the Bible. It&#8217;s all in your head.
Quote:
Adam too was created in God's image and likeness. And then God later formed Adam from the dust of the earth and he became a living soul. That us a scriptural fact.
Yes, the Soul of Adam became living.

When are you going to address what it means for Jesus to say "My Soul", which apparently you had never read before until I showed it to you?
I did. I told you I was wrong and Jesus had a soul as a man. Hate to tell you this but Jesus is no longer a physical soulish man He died and He has risen.
Quote:
No where is it a scriptural fact that Jesus is some kind of soul now that He has been glorified; that was His human condition not His Devine condition.
You somehow think that your explanation of what a soul is, if you can call it an explanation, defines that Jesus was not a soul inhabiting his flesh?

Let me know when you plan on addressing Young's Literal.
I did address Young's Literal. And I agreed with it.. its not my explanation; it is what the Bible tells us. Do you believe the Bible God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and made him a livinf soul.
Quote:
Notice Jesus is a live giving spirit the Adam is only living. Big difference between someone who gives life and something that is just living
I don't really see the difference except perhaps in your hogwashy mumbo jumbo explanations that avoid the actual point. Besides, perhaps a Soul HAS a spirit.

Or perhaps it's the Spirit that has a soul.

A spirit is not a soul. Notice there is no soul mentioned in there following verses reference to the afterlife.

Ecclesiastes 12: 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.












1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1 Peter 3: 18 for Christ indeed has once suffered for sins, [the] just for [the] unjust, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in flesh, but made alive in [the] Spirit,
19 in which also going he preached to the spirits [which are] in prison,
20 heretofore disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in [the] days of Noah while the ark was preparing, into which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:



It is the spirit that connects us to God not the soul.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so basically you ignore the verses I used and then double down on your erroneous interpretation in complete lieu of what I posted.

Typical.

And no, I don't recall you actually addressing Young's Literal.

If the Spirit is what connects us to God, what is this Soul that survives after death?

 

[Benoni]

Okay, so basically you ignore the verses I used and then double down on your erroneous interpretation in complete lieu of what I posted.

Typical.
And no, I don't recall you actually addressing Young's Literal.
If the Spirit is what connects us to God, what is this Soul that survives after death?

It is the spirit of man that connects us to God; it is the soul not the spirit that needs to be saved.

Now all the animals and beasts of the field are also called “living souls”

God is a spirit true believers worship the Father in spirit and truth (not soulish worship). Deep within every man there is a secret sanctum where dwells the mysterious essence of his being. This inmost reality is that part of a man which separates him from every other living creature and makes him uniquely mankind. This deep hidden power is what it is of itself independent of any other part of the man’s complex nature. The deep-in human entity of which we speak is called in the scriptures the spirit of man. “For what man knoweth the things of man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” (I Cor. 2:11).

Carnal man is earthly, physical and soulish being having a spirit and declares, rather, that he is a spirit having a physical body. That which makes a man a human being is not his body but his spirit, in which the image of God originally lay.

1 Corinthians 2:13-15 (Amp)
14But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.


Most people on earth have forgotten their beginning. But the scripture is clear. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him” (Gen. 1:26; 2:7; 1:28). What God actually did was that He imaged Himself in man. God imaged Himself in man by forming Himself in a man of earth. Thus man was created as a visible expression of the invisible God. Now that hasn’t changed!

What has changed is our perception of ourselves because of the fall. But before we discuss that, let us see just how it was that God imaged Himself in man, and how it is that man is a spiritual being having an earthly experience, instead of a physical being
having a spiritual experience.

Wonderful words were spoken at the very dawn of civilization, recorded in the oldest book of the Bible, which state simply and powerfully the reality of man.

“There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8).

It is something great in man, Elihu conceives, that he is spirit, and, because he is, is capable of being inspired. He is not here speaking of Adam as he was in the primordial glory of Eden, nor yet of regenerated man in this wonderful age of the Holy Spirit; but, speaking thousands of years ago in the present tense, he magnifies man as being able to be inspired, just because he is spirit. And it is God, who likewise is spirit, that inspires him! Can we not see by this that the very being of man has a God-ward or divine side, being related constitutionally to Him. The testimony of scripture is incontrovertible that there is a spirit in man, or what is the same, the fact that we are, as being spirit, permeable and inspirable by the Almighty!

The word “spirit” means literally, breath, and denotes a quality of life because, in the case of the spirit in man, In that long ago beginning God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Now all the animals and beasts of the field are also called “living souls” in the creation story in Genesis.

But there is a difference! Let the fact be imprinted indelibly upon our minds that none of these became a “living soul” by the inbreathing of God! God did not Himself breathe into the nostrils of cattle, lions, elephants, birds, fish, cockroaches, or any other creature. Their “breath of life” is of an inferior quality to that of man. The breath of life of the animal kingdom is merely the oxygen of our lower atmosphere. They are, therefore, a creation of God but are unrelated to God. The breath of life in man, however, originates out of the very spiritessence of God Himself — inbreathed — thus, when a man dies his body returns to the dust from whence it came, but his spirit returns to God who gave it! (Eccl. 12:7).

 

[Mark Paul]

We can't compare the Jesus Christ with Martin Luther King. These are two different people but both have a large space in our heart. For the time being, we only know the Jesus as a son of god and we are all his children.