Again, who told you that? Scripture? Well, you can write anything you want. I don't deny that Jesus was a historical figure. But who he really was, we don't know and will never know. And the idea of a "son of God" is not new; it was simply defined "locally," meaning that there is only ONE son of God, and all the others are slaves. They simply took a pagan idea and reworked it in their own way. Frankly, I don't want to get into a debate about this; it would take up too much space.
We were simply "cut off" from the original source on purpose, and they present their own interpretation, which is essentially paganism, because almost everything, except for the story of the creation of the world, is taken from paganism (worship, attributes, priesthood, holidays, etc.), only instead of gods, there are prophets, saints, the Virgin Mary, the son of God, etc. All of this exists and has existed in paganism for centuries, only it is called something else, or even the same thing (the Virgin Mary). That's all. Jewish leaders, starting with Moses, decided to oppose paganism with their own religion, which they created, but which has not survived to this day, as it was lost during the Babylonian captivity. Therefore, the creator of the surviving version, and even that is doubtful, is Ezra, not even Moses. And even then, the Jews themselves kept the Talmud (a refined version of the Old Testament), while the current Bible is already a "refined" book by Christian ideologists, which constantly mentions the Messiah, who must save people, and that he is the son of God, and even God himself. By the way, there is not a word about the Trinity in the dogmatic sense in the Bible. This was invented no earlier than the fourth century by the Church Fathers, followers of Plato. Even in the New Testament, you will not find any mention of the Trinity, let alone the Virgin Mary and saints in their current understanding. All these teachings are the result of philosophical speculation, which essentially has no confirmation even in the scripture that you like to refer to.
I apologize for the off-topic.
Warrior and Sylv: I'm not saying that I approve of this. Quite the opposite. I simply quoted in general terms what a vengeful person feels. He is not selfish, but he doesn't understand what you are saying, and he doesn't need to. His mother was killed, so this person is a murderer, therefore he will kill again, therefore he is not worthy of life, and since the court acquitted him, I will have to finish what he started.
If all people understood that revenge breeds even worse revenge, there would be no avengers as such. I think we wouldn't even know the word, but that's how it has historically turned out. That's how evil is committed, which a person may consider good.