The Truth About Jesus

a reply to: Astyanax

Imagine carrying all that weight, it would sure crush.

a reply to: Unharmed

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between literal and metaphorical statements. As for your own statements, it's anyone's guess what you mean.

Raise your game, junior.

a reply to: Unharmed

Some people love their work, I'm sure the Messiah feels the same joy now that he's in Heaven with his Father and wil be prepared to do His Duty when the Father decides it's time. In His own Way and in His Own Discretion of course.

Personally I thrive in some enviroments, and wither in others.

Environmental sensitivities.

Thank god I can have safe place online to work out my mental frustration in Simulation Theory instead of being in a real War Zone like those poor bastards in the Middle East and the Ukraine right now.

I will never forsake this Beautiful Country, and will fight for it's Peoples of All Classes, Creeds and Colors.

PROUD TO SERVE IN MY LMITED CAPACITY ONLINE.

I wish you the same joy when you face adversity and pray that you temper your challenges with Grace and Sound Judgement.

Even if it's nothing more than just deciding what to wear for the day.

VAHALLA AWAITS!

Wooohoo!

Let's Rock!



If the aformentioned music isn't to your taste, feel free to contibute your musical stylings of choice to help us understand where you're coming from.

Think of it as a simulation theory but with an End Times soundtrack to keep the theological discussion on a positive note.



Peace.



Welcome to ATS, btw.

Some of us are weird here.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well, yes, reality can result in complex situations.

a reply to: Unharmed

Kind of like a Older Generational Biorganic AI taking over a thread with schizophrenic absurdities about the End of Days?



In other related news and steering back on topic, Kevin Smiths DOGMA is returning to DVD remastered.

Buddy Christ is back baby!



Ok, ok...enough with my Catholic Carasmatic Euphoria.

I'll shut up with the fun and games and we can get back down to a proper theological debate.

Sorry to any Atheists I may have cheesed off, or any Draconian Romans, OT Severities who would have me stoned or Muslim Extremists.

It's all in good fun.

It's just how the Cosmic Computer is playing out in this sector and I'm just doing my duty.

We can get hardline if you want but vague one liners are gonna leave us here for a long, long time and I have nothing but coffee, cigarettes, time on my side and a kick ass playlist for every continegency.

That includes, EVERY HUMAN CONTINGENCY.

So far the aliens outside aren't zapping me, Big Brother still has the Green Light and the spirits are silent and having a great time.

Join in and lighten up.



Love, The Father, Son and Holy # IT'S A WOMAN!

Your move.

Keep it clean and in line with T&C's.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

For the most part it's only talking to itself. It's part of the scam. Feelings are what really interest me and the bucket never overflows. The point is to get it to do some work and just hope it can get the job done.

a reply to: Unharmed

Understood.

From my standpoint and real time information space (aka real life) my husband is starting to show signs of being stressed and when he finishes his sammich I'll be joining him and logging out for the night.

I'm starting to notice my brain getting overwroked and the cat is getting agitated and I know I can produce a field effect when I get on a tear for too long.

He's grumpy and i'd rather him be happily asleep and the cat happily asleep instead of pawing to be let inand out of the bedroom (theres a dog in the house who isn't fond of cats and eventhough she's asleep in the Master Bedroom with my Inlaws, we don't want kitty too get too exploratory. She's smart and cautious and well behaved with thesholds, but if I'm somehow having a neurotic effect on her with my butterfly wings ad she's gonna keep pawing on the door and disrupt his rest,I'd rather forgo my initiatives and just leave well enough alone. The universe will do it's thing and Rome wasn't built in a day.)

Sorry for the methaphors and allegories, I'm just a storyteller and a very small gear in this Great Machine.

Dues Ex Machina and all that jazz.

I'll pray for Peace in the Middle East even though I know that's a childish sentiment.

Boys will be boys.

C'est la vie.

Viva La Revolution.

Gott Mitt Uns and All That Jazz.

Sincerely,

A Swing Kid of the Modern Age doing her duty.

Peace, Godspeed and Good Night.

Catch ya on the flip.

Signing off.

(It's a Work in Progress, a Major Magnum Opus, but it's a long, long road to Tipperary.)

It's just sad to see the Propaganda keeping the illiterate worked and riled up by Those With More Power Than Me.

What will be will be.

I can only tend to the Homefront, here on ATS due to personal sensitivities.

Forgive me.

I'm not qualified for boots on the ground combat situations.

I'm sure the Department of Homeland Security knows more about me than I know about myself.

God Bless America.

Christendom's doctrine of the Trinity, which has affected what people think of "who Jesus really is" (quoting from the OP), originates from the Pagan Babylonian ideas/philosophies concerning triads of gods, referred to in the video entitled "The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)" and part 2 at the end, as a "Trimurti" ("the gods of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva", quoting from 8:25 in part 1, as he uses the triangular symbol that is also used to explain Christendom's doctrine of the Trinity, see video "He is a liar! part 2", embedded by me earlier, see thumbnail for the symbol).

That's why I needed a quick reminder from Andy after he said on page 1 that he was not a Pagan. Cause he seems to score the pagan Babylonian trifecta of "false stories/myths" (2 Tim 4:3,4):

- Trinity (and triads)
- immortal immaterial soul (which gave birth to philosophies involving reincarnation)
- evolution (as defined by me, referring to all main 3 pagan evolutionary philosophies: cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution; all 3 discussed in the video that probably nobody bothered watching, which also discusses the Hindu triad or "Trimurti" that I mentioned above as well as reincarnation, and how all these pagan Babylonian philosophies tie together, all part of modern day Babylon the Great/false religion)

The pagan Babylonian philosophy of an immortal immaterial soul comes from the pagan Babylonian philosophy/idea that “Death was a passage to another kind of life.” (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 556.)

The entire trifecta blended together (with some modifications and additions here and there) by the Pagan Greek philosophers, most notably among them being Socrates and his nr.1 student Plato and his nr.1 student Aristotle. Artistotle is referred to by Charles Darwin himself in the Origin of Species in reference to the origin of his (Darwin's) own pagan philosophies. As quoted at 3:35 in "The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)". When Darwin uses the expression "classical writers" he's referring to what scholars generally refer to as "classical Greek philosophy", which again, is pagan (all of these Greek philosophers were pagans, often pantheists and Mother Nature/Gaia worshippers).

So as you can see, I find it a little hard to believe Andy's claim that he's not a Pagan.

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF EVOLUTION (by Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.)

...

Thus wrote Charles Darwin on the twenty-second and twenty-fourth of October 1873.[1] At first reading this passage appears rather incongruous, but actually it reflects the true nature of the resurgence of evolution in the Nineteenth Century: but to see this, it be­hooves us to look back further in history; back to the root of evolution as an idea and creed.

Origins

It will come as a surprise to many to learn that evolution is not a modern idea, spawned by the pressure of scientific evidence. Evolution’s roots go back several millennia; back to ancient Babylon and Sumer.

The word “evolution” means “unfolding.” When applied to the creation of the universe it tacitly supposes that God, at best, had a more-or-less passive role in the history of the creation. By “God” I mean, of course, the God of the Bible. The ancients had other gods which they held accountable for the creation. The earliest surviving extra-Biblical account of the creation came to us from the ancient Babylonians. The Babylonian creation accounts are typified by that found in the Epic of Gilgamesh. From said epic we learn that the Babylonians believed the universe to have had a chaotic beginning. [whereislogic: this idea connects to the philosophies/ideas concerning chance and randomness, or as Dawkins puts it concerning the origin of life: "by accident". It also connects to the notion: 'nature did it', concerning the origin of the universe, life and subsequent diversification of life into all different kinds of life ever to have existed.]

Some centuries later, under Alexander the Great, the Greeks inherited the Babylonian culture, complete with its mythol­ogy. In the Greek writings we find a strong reinforcement of the superstition of evolution: that the world as we now know it was not created ... and that the life it bears evolved into its present forms through tens of millennia. To the Greeks the creator of the universe was the god, Chaos. The most prominent Greek advocates of evolution were Thales, Anaximenes, Aristotle and Lucretius. [whereislogic: correction, Lucretius was a Roman pagan philosopher who copied from the Greek pagan philosophers.]

Although the Greek myths of the creation were interpolated from the Babylonian before 200 B.C., we can still find the same myth in modern “science.” Today, “scientists” no longer share quite the same animistic theological bent as held by the ancient Greeks and so it is that modern “science” does not claim that the god, Chaos, created the universe. So as not to smack of the super­natural, “science” instead drops the title “god” and writes the “god’s” name with a lower-case letter. Hence modern “science” claims that the cosmos came into being, by chance (or chaos) and that it had a chaotic beginning (that is, it exploded into existence). Though other terminology may be used today, the idea is still basically the same as that held by the ancient Greeks; the only difference being that the modern version of cosmogony avoids using the words “god” and “creator”.

The speculation that the universe had a chaotic origin is not the only place where modern “science” partakes of the fables of the ancients. ... Hinduism was born with its belief in the life cycles of reincarna­tion. The Hindus extrapolated the reincarna­tion theme to the very universe itself. To them the universe was reborn only to die, only to be reborn, only to die, and so on and so on. Today we find the same whim alive and well in modern “science” here some variations of the “Big-Bang” have the universe exploding into existence and then collapsing back onto itself only to blaze forth again in another “Big-Bang” only to die again only to be reborn and so on and so on. Lest the reader think it merely a coincidence, we submit that the original model for the “oscillating Big-Bang” (also called the “gnaB-giB”) had a “reincarnation” life-cycle of about 50 billion years. This “happens” to be the same cycle time held by the Hindus. ...

I had to skip some inaccuracies and/or misleading and/or distracting stuff above. Cause I'm not going to correct everything like I did concerning Lucretius. It's much better discussed in the videos most of you are unlikely to watch. I'll embed them now:


Note the symbol in the thumbnail below:


All these videos follow eachother in the playlist I often link, starting here (not the 1st video in the playlist though):

Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality

All relevant to the topic of "who Jesus really is". And who he is not as is falsely claimed in the Pagan doctrine of the Trinity that finds it roots in ancient Babylon (not God, Jehovah God to be more specific). The topic of my initial commentary in this thread.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Everything is fine really, I got the Jesus zombie at my door making a hell of a noise trying to rid me of the demons I value so much within my heart. It's not much more than confusion. I talk to married women, they usually just want to chat. I've been beaten for less so being used to it is really something difficult to understand as far as the universal language tries to rid me of my family but yea, it has a point. Feelings don't really matter to me, it's just a big pool of fish called justice. The greatest things come from difficult things to understand. I guess I was just a boy in the world.

You know, feeling safe with someone really is intimacy and it burns like a comforting fire in a wasteland. There really isn't anything more that can be valued in a good way more than that and that way things get done. It takes a lot of time cutting wires without any explanation about it and it turns out well in the end figuring out things for yourself. It is the right way and no hammer can crush it, that's why we need to compensate. When there it's not there and there's work to do. Nobody is missing out on anything an it will have been worth it all, but that's how everybody finishes eating.

So will I do the dishes? I guess so. It's better than eating off the floor, sitting at a table is more fun sometimes having it both ways. They really go for it. I hope taking my chance.

a reply to: Unharmed

Ignore the Zombie Jesus, Im sure you're well aware it's a false flag.

I'd offer an chainsaw if I had one I could pass through.

Zombies piss me off.

We recently lost our home of eighteen years because the takeover where "just here to make money".

The last year there was a sensory nightmare for me because the Machine was doing it's things on autopilot while the guards were away laughing in the breakroom and filming various types of pornography in other cells.

At least I was just dealing with sensory assault that only affected me (my husband couldn't pick up on it).

About two months ago it was War of the Worlds in my head and I was caught in the crossfire or plasma weapons reluctant to fire because I didn't want to harm a sentient being, even in a warzone. Some Maritan I turned out to be. Im ashamed but High Command wasn't mad at me they got me into inpatient and I got good food, good rest, stablized on good meds and I was out in a week without incident.

Met some nice folks there, there was only one lady acting up and being vocal but it wasn't too bad and everyone let her speak her peace.

Nice facility, a local Jewish Memorial Hospital and my social programs are taking care of my basic needs and hgher education but providing enough to afford internet and food, and we we fortunate enough to find safety at my husbands parents and we're helping fix up and repair things and maintain the humble homestead and saty positive and productive.

We ain't perfect but the neighbors are nice enough and it's rare anyone needs help as they're doing alright for the most part.

We're letting bygones be bygones but we're keeping our guard out for grifters, so it goes in the Nowhere.

I hope Zombie Jesus get bored an wanders off soon.

The Real One is amazingly laid back and doesn't psuh religion, only fellowship and comraderie.

I have my demons too, and they keep me safe, and only come out when thigns get out of hand.

They aren't bad guys, just misunderstood by people who take their fluffy angelic lifestyles for granted.

We all have our proverbial cross to bear, and I'll try to dispense with the religious language but it's kind of hardwired into my brain and part of my vernaular, and Im still getting used to the rapid fire newspeak, slang and alien dilaects so I hope that Starfleet Universal Translator stays up to date because I keep getting glitches from time to time tryin to override English when typing.

It's a whole wealth of strange phenomena being schiziophrenic and seeing things through these lenses but I sincerely hope your situation and mood improves somewhat.

If you ever want to talk one on one Im a private message away.

I'm married, but am trying to earn an honorary degree in Psychotherapy and as long as theres not a language barrier (I'm very bad with languages I'm afraid and English is standard for ATS per the T&C's) I can pretty much relate to anyone struggling, alone, been through hell and back and just about everything out there you can think of.

I have to move slowly when I type as well, or else I start typing incomprehensibel gibberish and speaking in alien tounges with no way to translate to make sure the communication is not compromised by forgein influence or corrputive agents.

Hugs.

Hang in there.

It gets better, I promise.

A couple of things to keep it rolling for you. these according to the bible.
1. I don't know about heaven but there is a hell. Jesus was in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights and in that time Satan came to him (the get thee behind me Satan Bit) and Satan said to him if you follow me all this will be yours as he stretched his hands out offering him the World. Now being as Satan ruled Hell therefore by that interpretation Earth is Hell.
2. Who says the Christians don't believe in reincarnation? Well for a start Jesus died on the cross and he was reincarnated to appear to some of his followers. AND, what is the bits about the 2 nd coming and the coming of the anti Christ (Satan) If that aint a direct reference to reincarnation I don't know what is.

a reply to: crayzeed

Yes, reincarnation is definitely part of Christian thinking. But it's tightly regulated. Only once (unless you're Jesus, maybe) and it happens at the same time for all the dead folks who pass the exam.

About Hell, not so sure. No mention of such a place in the Bible, nor of anything like it. Whenever Satan appears in the Good Book, the scene is set on Earth or in Heaven.

I guess Jesus allows some things to be ignored, wouldn't that be the truth about Jesus?

a reply to: Unharmed

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus can't be everywhere all the time unless EVERYONE has love, peace, tolerance and fellowship in their hearts. The only way we can make the miracle of loaves and fishes happen these days is by acts of charity and the kindness of those devoted to caring for the poor, the downtrodden, the abused, etc...etc...etc.

This is why Catholics teach that Faith without works is meaningless and has no value.

This is what Christ meant by the Body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

This is why sound scripture tells us to keep our "Temple" in good order and take care of our hearts, minds and body and to keep the Temple pure, instead od allowing sin adn tempatation to enter in and lead us down the path of destruction of the pleasures of the flesh and sinful behavior.

A lot of people don't like that.

They want their sin, their peasures, their forbidden flesh, their exhibitionism, their voyeurism, etc...etc...etc.

Humans are compicated creatures, and pleasures of the flesh are enticing and for some, insabitable.

I myself am a heavy smoker when I enter into a focused state of concentration.

I chain smoke unaware and consume waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much coffee but it helps me concentrate.

I expreimented with certain drugs in college but they weren't enticing enough for me to keep going back to them.

Not something I would pay for and these days with all the fentynal out there, no frickin thanks.

I may be crazy but I'm not stupid, and I don't want to tempt fate.

I've seen far too many kids overdose on tainted drugs while the hardcore just laughed at how weak they were.

Saw an entire generation die in Seattle when they started "cleaning up the city" for the New Scene.

Jesus and those who follow in his Minsitry (even demons shudder at the Lord's Displeasure) are doing what they do, everyone is playing their parts, even those who worship other incarnations or interpretive aspects of The One).

Is the universe infinite?

I'd like to believe so, although this dimensional palne might still be expanding but James Webb is bringing new images of a Universe that far exceeds the understnading we had just a few decades ago, an dit it truely humbling to see and think aout where it all came from.

I'm a beleiver in Intelligent Design because there are fundamental laws of physics that keep the universe as we know it in operation and expanding (or remaining infinite as it is our understanding of the universe that is expanding, and our thoughts can only move so fast, and that doesn't bring phenomenon like Quantum Entanglement into the equation, but I digress...)

Anyway, I gotta take a break before I put CERN out of commission, lol.

From what I last heard theyve reached the Chaos Theory state of the Subatomic World and part of me wonders if they've thought of playing some nice music to see if certian pariticles feel like dancing along.

So there it is in a nutshell, I beleive in a Creator God(s) and Source from which this Universe originated and as a man thinketh, so he becomes.

Word of caution, don't think yourself as Yertle the Turtle, because as far as humans are concerned, it's turtles all the way down baby, and trying to build the tower of Babel under the adivce of a megolamaniacal madman with hate in his heart and deisgns of Ultimate Domination for the wrong reasons is folly in the making.

To give credit to one of the finer points I learned from reading certain texts, Do As Thy Wilt But Harm None.

I'm a Theological mess, but I only attend Mass when called, and if it's a Dark Mass, I leave.

Ain't my speed baby.

I honor my Temple first, and the Body of Christ is not unique to a building, and I want not part of a Church of Draconian Judgement based on the whims of Men (or Women) who aren't in aligned with my Designers interntions for me.

So, like a good Highlander (allegory) I simply take it outside and relocate.

Oh the stories I could tell, but that's for anther thread and another time.

I'm outta smokes and need to refresh my coffee and tend to other things.

Be safe, be smart, shop S-Mart.

I spent the last 45 years searching for the truth, of everything. Very deep diving when it was not a popular thing. I started to see more and more of the hidden picture that everyone at that time said, didn't exist. But yet, it does!

As confusing as the above is, just wait lol lol lol

The last subject I researched was Jesus. Maybe that was fate or just happenstance, but non the less, it all came together...

Of all the subjects there was one capstone, Jesus. For all the research culminated in his words. Not the Churches opinion but of his original words, they all were proven true. But not as you have been indoctrinated into believing.

Much of it has to do with pre flood history and how it was warped, perverted, covered up, to hide certain truths concerning the "Pharisees" bloodline. And why Jesus pointed his finger at the "Scribes and Pharisees" as he did. Mark Dice pointed out about the lineage of the "Jews", but it isn't a Jewish bloodline that is protected, it is the "Imposter Jews", the Canaanites! These Imposters actually do have a god of their own by that bloodline as Jesus pointed out "They are of the Synagogue of Satan". And their Bible is the Talmud, using the Torah as cover. Jesus used the words Scribes and Pharisees intentionally in his damnation because it was Pharisee scribes who wrote the old testament in large and the ones who perverted it, especially in Genesis.

"King James Bible
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."

First some logic. Ask yourself, why did Eve need help from the Lord (Baal)? She did not need help when birthing Adam. What help was given? I would suggest this is Eves way of saying this lord Baal was the real father. This in essence would have created a new human being, with their own father(god). And would explain why this god choose to protect this murdering son and all his descendants...(Canaanites/Imposter Jews).

"13But Cain said to the LORD, “My punishmentd is greater than I can bear. 14Behold, this day You have driven me from the face of the earth, and from Your face I will be hidden; I will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15“Not so!”e replied the LORD. “If anyone slays Cain, then Cain will be avenged sevenfold.” And the LORD placed a mark on Cain, so that no one who found him would kill him.

16So Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod,f east of Eden. "

The above is the moment the "lord god" made Canaanites "chosen" with this gods protections. For the Jews are not chosen, but the Imposter Jews, are. And Jesus knew who the Pharisees were because Jesus knew the "Mark". So in essence Jesus is telling us the god of the old testament is, Satan. And why we have a "New" Testament...

There is not one word anywhere that states where Jesus's soul came from, and went back to. But yet the subject was discussed in the Gospel of Judas, which was suppressed.

I wonder why lol lol lol

Its just a matter of time

In a figurative manner we're like babies with Jesus as the placenta to keep us alive when you consider Jesus as giver of life which he either is or isn't. There must be another process of finding ourselves in a world where we grow up again. In a way it's like we are our own mother.

a reply to: Unharmed

Jesus was very much maternal in his ministry, except with the Moneychangers, that was His Fathers side coming out.

And oooooooh boy the Temple Elders may have been shocked by that display.

He certainly caused a stir with the casting out of demons.

I don't think Pontious Pilate had anoything against Him personally, but he had to aquiese to the Will of the People.

I'm happy there are still small tokens at the local bookshop for gifts and prayer tokens for loved ones and folks who might need a pick me up.

Personally I like to have a bit on cash on hand for special case scenarios, like food, water, and humanitarian aid.

Loved your insight by the way, I haven't heard that take before.

The truth about Jesus Christ:

Jesus Christ is the name and title of the Son of God from the time of his anointing while on earth.

The name Jesus (Gr., I·e·sousʹ) corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. For this reason persons often added further identification, saying, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (Mr 10:47; Ac 2:22) Christ is from the Greek Khri·stosʹ, the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma·shiʹach (Messiah), and means “Anointed One.” Whereas the expression “anointed one” was properly applied to others before Jesus, such as Moses, Aaron, and David (Heb 11:24-26; Le 4:3; 8:12; 2Sa 22:51), the position, office, or service to which these were anointed only prefigured the superior position, office, and service of Jesus Christ. Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”​—Mt 16:16.

Prehuman Existence. The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Loʹgos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son.

That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.​—Joh 6:56, 57.

If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus’ existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. (Compare Mic 5:2.) This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah God’s heavenly family (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.”​—Col 1:16; Heb 1:2.

Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.​—Mt 19:4-6.

Wisdom personified. What is recorded concerning the Word in the Scriptures fits remarkably the description given at Proverbs 8:22-31. There wisdom is personified, represented as though able to speak and act. (Pr 8:1) Many professed Christian writers of the early centuries of the Common Era understood this section to refer symbolically to God’s Son in his prehuman state. In view of the texts already considered, there can be no denying that that Son was “produced” by Jehovah “as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago,” nor that the Son was “beside [Jehovah] as a master worker” during earth’s creation, as described in these verses of Proverbs. It is true that in Hebrew, which assigns gender to its nouns (as do many other languages), the word for “wisdom” is always in the feminine gender. This would continue to be the case even though wisdom is personified and so would not rule out wisdom’s being used figuratively to represent God’s firstborn Son. The Greek word for “love” in the expression “God is love” (1Jo 4:8) is also in the feminine gender but that does not make God feminine. Solomon, the principal writer of Proverbs (Pr 1:1), applied the title qo·heʹleth (congregator) to himself (Ec 1:1) and this word is also in the feminine gender.

Wisdom is manifest only by being expressed in some way. God’s own wisdom was expressed in creation (Pr 3:19, 20) but through his Son. (Compare 1Co 8:6.) So, too, God’s wise purpose involving mankind is made manifest through, and summed up in, his Son, Jesus Christ. Thus, the apostle could say that Christ represents “the power of God and the wisdom of God” and that Christ Jesus “has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom.”​—1Co 1:24, 30; compare 1Co 2:7, 8; Pr 8:1, 10, 18-21.

How he is the “only-begotten Son.” Jesus’ being called the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) does not mean that the other spirit creatures produced were not God’s sons, for they are called sons as well. (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) However, by virtue of his being the sole direct creation of his Father, the firstborn Son was unique, different from all others of God’s sons, all of whom were created or begotten by Jehovah through that firstborn Son. So “the Word” was Jehovah’s “only-begotten Son” in a particular sense, even as Isaac was Abraham’s “only-begotten son” in a particular sense (his father already having another son but not by his wife Sarah).​—Heb 11:17; Ge 16:15.

Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father?

Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is “to procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus’ case it means “the sense of unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?

Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son.” There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father.

The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is mo·no·ge·nesʹ, from moʹnos, meaning “only,” and giʹno·mai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, mo·no·ge·nesʹ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: “[Mo·no·ge·nesʹ] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.” This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, “the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.”

So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son. (Hebrews 11:17) Hence, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means what it says—that they are two separate individuals. God is the senior. Jesus is the junior—in time, position, power, and knowledge.

When one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes evident why the term “only-begotten Son” was used in his case. Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called “sons of God,” in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with Jehovah God, the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were all created through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten by God.—Colossians 1:15-17.

Was Jesus Considered to Be God?

While Jesus is often called the Son of God in the Bible, nobody in the first century ever thought of him as being God the Son. Even the demons, who “believe there is one God,” knew from their experience in the spirit realm that Jesus was not God. So, correctly, they addressed Jesus as the separate “Son of God.” (James 2:19; Matthew 8:29) And when Jesus died, the pagan Roman soldiers standing by knew enough to say that what they had heard from his followers must be right, not that Jesus was God, but that “certainly this was God’s Son.”—Matthew 27:54.

Hence, the phrase “Son of God” refers to Jesus as a separate created being, not as part of a Trinity. As the Son of God, he could not be God himself, for John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.”—RS, Catholic edition.

The disciples viewed Jesus as the “one mediator between God and men,” not as God himself. (1 Timothy 2:5) Since by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation, it would be a contradiction for Jesus to be one entity with either of the parties he is trying to reconcile. That would be a pretending to be something he is not.

The Bible is clear and consistent about the relationship of God to Jesus. Jehovah God alone is Almighty. He created the prehuman Jesus directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity.

[continued in next comment]

Why called “the Word.” The name (or, perhaps, title) “the Word” (Joh 1:1) apparently identifies the function that God’s firstborn Son performed after other intelligent creatures were formed. A similar expression is found at Exodus 4:16, where Jehovah says to Moses concerning his brother Aaron: “And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.” As spokesman for God’s chief representative on earth, Aaron served as “a mouth” for Moses. Likewise with the Word, or Logos, who became Jesus Christ. Jehovah evidently used his Son to convey information and instructions to others of his family of spirit sons, even as he used that Son to deliver his message to humans on earth. Showing that he was God’s Word, or Spokesman, Jesus said to his Jewish listeners: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.”​—Joh 7:16, 17; compare Joh 12:50; 18:37.

Doubtless on many occasions during his prehuman existence as the Word, Jesus acted as Jehovah’s Spokesman to persons on earth. While certain texts refer to Jehovah as though directly speaking to humans, other texts make clear that he did so through an angelic representative. (Compare Ex 3:2-4 with Ac 7:30, 35; also Ge 16:7-11, 13; 22:1, 11, 12, 15-18.) Reasonably, in the majority of such cases God spoke through the Word. He likely did so in Eden, for on two of the three occasions where mention is made of God’s speaking there, the record specifically shows someone was with Him, undoubtedly his Son. (Ge 1:26-30; 2:16, 17; 3:8-19, 22) The angel who guided Israel through the wilderness and whose voice the Israelites were strictly to obey because ‘Jehovah’s name was within him,’ may therefore have been God’s Son, the Word.​—Ex 23:20-23; compare Jos 5:13-15.

This does not mean that the Word is the only angelic representative through whom Jehovah has spoken. The inspired statements at Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, and Hebrews 2:2, 3 make clear that the Law covenant was transmitted to Moses by angelic sons of God other than his Firstborn.

Jesus continues to bear the name “The Word of God” since his return to heavenly glory.​—Re 19:13, 16.

Why do some Bible translations refer to Jesus as “God,” while others say he was “a god”? (mind you, this subject and the correct translation of John 1:1 was already discussed in one or 2 of my previous comment(s), in the video with the title "and the Word was a god" and the comment with quotations from the article: "Is Jesus God?" Don't remember if I used the video in the same comment. The video has the whole article. Further below, 2nd parapgraph and onwards, you can find the point about 'definite vs qualitative' that I skipped when I was quoting from the article, I wanted to keep it a bit more simple and focus on what one of the translators of the ASV had said about it, so I could add a remark about hypocrisy and deception. Which remark I added inside the article just after the admission by this translator.)

Some translations render John 1:1 as saying: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Literally the Greek text reads: “In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word.” The translator must supply capitals as needed in the language into which he translates the text. It is clearly proper to capitalize “God” in translating the phrase “the god,” since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word was. But the capitalizing of the word “god” in the second case does not have the same justification.

First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for “god” (Gr., the·osʹ) in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·osʹ] and [ho the·osʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·osʹ]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”​—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110.

After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·osʹ] is not the same thing as [ho the·osʹ] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·osʹ] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”​—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579.

The Hebrew Scriptures are consistently clear in showing that there is but one Almighty God, the Creator of all things and the Most High, whose name is Jehovah. (Ge 17:1; Isa 45:18; Ps 83:18) For that reason Moses could say to the nation of Israel: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.” (De 6:4, 5) The Christian Greek Scriptures do not contradict this teaching that had been accepted and believed by God’s servants for thousands of years, but instead they support it. (Mr 12:29; Ro 3:29, 30; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 1Ti 2:5) Jesus Christ himself said, “The Father is greater than I am” and referred to the Father as his God, “the only true God.” (Joh 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; Joh 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus’ ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.​—1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10.

These facts give solid support to a translation such as “the Word was a god” at John 1:1. The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things, and as God’s Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called “a god” or mighty one. The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called “Mighty God,” though not the Almighty God, and that he would be the “Eternal Father” of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, is called a “god” (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and propriety is God’s firstborn Son called “a god,” “the only-begotten god” as the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him.

When charged by opposers with ‘making himself a god,’ Jesus’ reply was: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” (Joh 10:31-37) Jesus there quoted from Psalm 82, in which human judges, whom God condemned for not executing justice, were called “gods.” (Ps 82:1, 2, 6, 7) Thus, Jesus showed the unreasonableness of charging him with blasphemy for stating that he was, not God, but God’s Son.

This charge of blasphemy arose as a result of Jesus’ having said: “I and the Father are one.” (Joh 10:30) That this did not mean that Jesus claimed to be the Father or to be God is evident from his reply, already partly considered. The oneness to which Jesus referred must be understood in harmony with the context of his statement. He was speaking of his works and his care of the “sheep” who would follow him. His works, as well as his words, demonstrated that there was unity, not disunity and disharmony, between him and his Father, a point his reply went on to emphasize. (Joh 10:25, 26, 37, 38; compare Joh 4:34; 5:30; 6:38-40; 8:16-18.) As regards his “sheep,” he and his Father were likewise at unity in their protecting such sheeplike ones and leading them to everlasting life. (Joh 10:27-29; compare Eze 34:23, 24.) Jesus’ prayer on behalf of the unity of all his disciples, including future ones, shows that the oneness, or union, between Jesus and his Father was not as to identity of person but as to purpose and action. In this way Jesus’ disciples could “all be one,” just as he and his Father are one.​—Joh 17:20-23.

In harmony with this, Jesus, responding to a question by Thomas, said: “If you men had known me, you would have known my Father also; from this moment on you know him and have seen him,” and, in answer to a question from Philip, Jesus added: “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.” (Joh 14:5-9) Again, Jesus’ following explanation shows that this was so because he faithfully represented his Father, spoke the Father’s words, and did the Father’s works. (Joh 14:10, 11; compare Joh 12:28, 44-49.) It was on this same occasion, the night of his death, that Jesus said to these very disciples: “The Father is greater than I am.”​—Joh 14:28.

The disciples ‘seeing’ the Father in Jesus can also be understood in the light of other Scriptural examples. Jacob, for instance, said to Esau: “I have seen your face as though seeing God’s face in that you received me with pleasure.” He said this because Esau’s reaction had been in harmony with Jacob’s prayer to God. (Ge 33:9-11; 32:9-12) After God’s interrogation of Job out of a windstorm had clarified that man’s understanding, Job said: “In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you.” (Job 38:1; 42:5; see also Jg 13:21, 22.) The ‘eyes of his heart’ had been enlightened. (Compare Eph 1:18.) That Jesus’ statement about seeing the Father was meant to be understood figuratively and not literally is evident from his own statement at John 6:45 as well as from the fact that John, long after Jesus’ death, wrote: “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.”​—Joh 1:18; 1Jo 4:12.

[continued in next comment, there's a lot to say, explain and debunk about Jesus Christ]

What did Thomas mean when he said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God”?

On the occasion of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas and the other apostles, which had removed Thomas’ doubts of Jesus’ resurrection, the now-convinced Thomas exclaimed to Jesus: “My Lord and my God! [literally, “The Lord of me and the God (ho The·osʹ) of me!”].” (Joh 20:24-29) Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. However, others claim the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being directed to Jesus. Even if this is so, the expression “My Lord and my God” would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. Since the record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” there is no reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was the Almighty God. (Joh 20:17) John himself, after recounting Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.”​—Joh 20:30, 31.

So, Thomas may have addressed Jesus as “my God” in the sense of Jesus’ being “a god” though not the Almighty God, not “the only true God,” to whom Thomas had often heard Jesus pray. (Joh 17:1-3) Or he may have addressed Jesus as “my God” in a way similar to expressions made by his forefathers, recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, with which Thomas was familiar. On various occasions when individuals were visited or addressed by an angelic messenger of Jehovah, the individuals, or at times the Bible writer setting out the account, responded to or spoke of that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, “I am the true God.” (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as “my God” in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas’ words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had heard Jesus make, namely, “The Father is greater than I am.”​—Joh 14:28.

His Birth on Earth. Prior to Jesus’ birth on earth, angels had appeared on this planet in human form, apparently materializing suitable bodies for the occasion, then dematerializing them after completing such assignments. (Ge 19:1-3; Jg 6:20-22; 13:15-20) They thus remained spirit creatures, merely employing a physical body temporarily. This, however, was not the case with the coming of God’s Son to earth to become the man Jesus. John 1:14 says that “the Word became flesh and resided among us.” For that reason he could call himself “the Son of man.” (Joh 1:51; 3:14, 15) Some draw attention to the expression “resided [literally, “tented”] among us” and claim this shows Jesus was, not a true human, but an incarnation. However, the apostle Peter uses a similar expression about himself, and Peter was obviously not an incarnation.​—2Pe 1:13, 14.

The inspired Record says: “But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.” (Mt 1:18) Prior to this, Jehovah’s angelic messenger had informed the virgin girl Mary that she would ‘conceive in her womb’ as the result of God’s holy spirit coming upon her and His power overshadowing her. (Lu 1:30, 31, 34, 35) The child eventually born retained identity as the same person who had resided in heaven as the Word but was also an actual son of Mary and hence a genuine descendant of her forefathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and King David and legitimate heir of the divine promises made to them. (Ge 22:15-18; 26:24; 28:10-14; 49:10; 2Sa 7:8, 11-16; Lu 3:23-34; see GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.) It is likely, therefore, that the child born resembled its Jewish mother in certain physical characteristics.

Mary was a descendant of the sinner Adam, hence herself imperfect and sinful. The question therefore is raised as to how Jesus, Mary’s “firstborn” (Lu 2:7), could be perfect and free from sin in his physical organism. While modern geneticists have learned much about laws of heredity and about dominant and recessive characteristics, they have had no experience in learning the results of uniting perfection with imperfection, as was the case with Jesus’ conception. Whatever the case, the operation of God’s holy spirit at the time guaranteed the success of God’s purpose. As the angel Gabriel explained to Mary, “power of the Most High” overshadowed her so that what was born was holy, God’s Son. God’s holy spirit formed, as it were, a protective wall so that no imperfection or hurtful force could damage, or blemish, the developing embryo, from conception on.​—Lu 1:35.

Since it was God’s holy spirit that made the birth possible, Jesus owed his human life to his heavenly Father, not to any man, such as his adoptive father Joseph. (Mt 2:13-15; Lu 3:23) As Hebrews 10:5 states, Jehovah God ‘prepared a body for him,’ and Jesus, from conception onward, was truly “undefiled, separated from the sinners.”​—Heb 7:26; compare Joh 8:46; 1Pe 2:21, 22.

The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 52:14, which speaks of “the disfigurement as respects his appearance,” therefore must apply to Jesus the Messiah only in a figurative way. (Compare vs 7 of the same chapter.) Though he was perfect in physical form, the message of truth and righteousness that Jesus Christ boldly proclaimed made him repulsive in the eyes of hypocritical opposers, who claimed to see in him an agent of Beelzebub, a man possessed of a demon, a blasphemous fraud. (Mt 12:24; 27:39-43; Joh 8:48; 15:17-25) In a similar way the message proclaimed by Jesus’ disciples later caused them to be “a sweet odor” of life to receptive persons, but an odor of death to those rejecting their message.​—2Co 2:14-16.

I could fill about a dozen or more comments with more truths/facts about Jesus Christ, but I think that's about enough for today at least. Other subjects that I could bring up in the future (not sure if I will):

Time of Birth, Length of Ministry. (and within that subject: Time of his death. No basis for winter date of birth.)
Early Life.
His Baptism.
His Vital Place in God’s Purpose. Jehovah God saw fit to make his firstborn Son the central, or key, figure in the outworking of all His purposes (Joh 1:14-18; Col 1:18-20; 2:8, 9), the focal point on which the light of all prophecies would concentrate and from which their light would radiate (1Pe 1:10-12; Re 19:10; Joh 1:3-9), the solution to all the problems that Satan’s rebellion had raised (Heb 2:5-9, 14, 15; 1Jo 3:8), and the foundation upon which God would build all future arrangements for the eternal good of His universal family in heaven and earth. (Eph 1:8-10; 2:20; 1Pe 2:4-8) Because of the vital role he thus plays in God’s purpose, Jesus could say, rightly and without exaggeration: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”​—Joh 14:6.

subtopics: The “sacred secret.” “Chief Agent of life.” The full significance of his “name.” What is the “name” of Jesus on account of which Christians are hated by all nations?

His Works and Personal Qualities.

And many, many more topics. I think even a dozen comments wouldn't be enough. Then again, it seems most, if not all, people commenting here are much more interested in "false stories/myths" (2Tim 4:3,4) about Jesus Christ, since they actually 'tickle their ears' as described there at 2 Tim 4:3,4. And "they will not put up with" the truth about Jesus Christ, especially when it contradicts what they have been taught or indoctrinated with (usually by a Church, religion in Christendom or one of its theologians or "teachers", to quote 2Tim 4:3,4 again).