%%
Actually, I am not Jesus Christ/king of Kings
But we know from the Bible, Lord Jesus Christ+ king David/king Solomon all those love Zion.
As far as a new world order[nwo];
Jesus Christ is against an evil empire like russia or goofy global gov control freaks[nwo] that the Lord has has not set up.
The Lord also controls the weather- climate. Good question.
When low info persons talk about Jesus Christ, they are generally saying that Jesus was the fulfilment of a Jewish liturgical tradition regarding a Messiah. But he wasn't. Even a popular book which seems to promote that idea has him asserting, "My kingdom is not of this world". So that rules out Jesus Messiah because the Messiah's domain is indeed of this world, centered in Jerusalem.
The rest of these comments assume, therefore, that the as-yet-to-be seated (in Jerusalem) Messiah/(Christ), is, with whatever other Lord's rule over this earth, are ruling in minutia so detailed as to include even the weather. If the weather, then certainly every single ruler, president, or king of every nation. If so, then it doesn't make much sense that the "Lord" is either approving or disapproving of these particular thousands of rulers down through the ages, since really, only the Messiah is an approved ruler over the earth.
For this reason, i rarely use the two words together, Jesus Christ, but i do appropriate (without the Jewish culture built up around it) the misappropriated Greek term Christ, and do acknowledge Jesus as the prime personality which trailblazed the concept further than it had gone theretofore, and popularized the concept amongst Jews and their then lords, the Romans. The concept itself had reached high water marks in the so-called "east", wherever Buddhism and Hinduism were popular, but was more specifically a less popular offshoot of Hinduism called Non-Dualism, or Advaita Vedanta, popularized by the late Adi Shankara.
Non-dualism basically means no-world-where-there-seems-to-exist-polar-opposites-of-more-than-one-thing. It maintains a strict distinction between "Brahman" and the "play" of Brahman, which is a psychological venture into to unreal, non-existence space of fantasy and imagination. The non-dualist does not accept the "play" as anything more than a complex dream, to be discounted and dismissed upon awakening. As to awakening, there is only one Being to which one may wake up AS: Brahman, or, what i call Christ.
Jesus took this concept and trailblazed it further, adding experience, and indeed knowledge, to inform him, his mind, that it was actually true. So for him, it was more than just faith, it was something he knew as a fact, knowing himself to be the one Brahman, or, what i call Christ.
It should not matter the name of that Being, it only being One, or of one type. Names are foreign in a world where there is not more than one thing/being. In such a world, there is no distinction between one being or another which would merit a different name, as though it was in any way different from the WHOLE. Only in an UN-whole (unholy) world would a name have any significance. I use these names for educational purposes only. It's important to distinguish, for example, the concepts that Jesus championed, compared to all the other concepts that others have championed. Only Jesus' problem analysis and recommended remedies will help any other fractured member of the one mind to move the needle toward reunification (re-whole-ification) healing.
Anybody who does accurately represent Jesus' brand of knowledge (beyond the gnosticism theretofore known) could call themselves Jesus, in recognition of the basic oneness of our mind's origin, and the end goal of the message upon that same one mind. But in respect for Jesus' work, it is probably best policy that people build upon that work using their own chosen name, since everybody's presentation will be slightly different.
This is due to the fractured nature of a dualistic world. You know you are experiencing a dualistic world if it includes, within it, the possibility for both "good and evil", as well the dualistic nature of everything else within it. A tree, for example, can be both good and evil, depending on how it is used or experienced. A tree can be weaponized to cause pain and death, but can also be used to make life saving shelter. A world where there exists two such possibilities for the same thing, is officially dualistic. If you think about it, everything in such a world can be weaponized, having a dual purpose, and often is. [Arguably the terms Jesus and Christ have been weaponized too.]
Non dualism says no such world actually exists, and so, can be dismissed as not much more than a dream, to be long forgotten upon awakening. Evidence that this was Jesus basic message is an obscure reference to "scripture", which says, "Awake, Oh ye who sleep in Christ". But it's not in any Jewish scripture. Most likely this is a reference to those same scriptures that Adi Shankara was interpreting, whose message Jesus carried yet a few more miles down the road of Universal Salvation, which is the collection of all the fragmented pieces of the playing Brahman, back to the real, awakened, only-existing Braham.
For this reason too, probably, the Buddha is best known for asserting that he was "awake", not to be confused with earthly politicos who claim to be "woke". As a rule of thumb, anyone engaged in politics is still asleep. Being awake, you would not give any attention at all to a world that is wrongly trying to solve all it's problems through politics. So it is defamation to insinuate that Jesus is tuned into Fox and CNN as much as the rest of us.
