But we are not left in this matter to depend on conjectural inferences. The words put into the mouth of Jesus are plain. Whenever occasion arose, _he asserted his inferiority to the Father_, though, as no one had then dreamt of his equality, it is natural that the occasions should not have been frequent. He made himself _inferior in knowledge_ when he said that of the day and hour of the day of judgment no one knew, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; no one except the Father.[132:1] He made himself _inferior in power_ when he said that seats on his right hand and on his left in the kingdom of heaven were not his to give.[132:2] He made himself _inferior in virtue_ when he desired a certain man not to address him as "Good Master," for there was none good but God.[132:3] The words of his prayer at Gethsemane, "all things are possible unto _thee_," imply that all things were _not_ possible to _him_, while its conclusion "not what _I will_, but what _thou wilt_," indicates submission to a superior, not the mere execution of a purpose of his own.[132:4] Indeed, the whole prayer would have been a mockery, useless for any purpose but the deception of his disciples, if he had himself been identical with the Being to whom he prayed, and had merely been giving effect by his death to their common counsels. While the cry of agony from the cross, "_My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?_"[132:5] would have been quite unmeaning if _the person forsaken_, and _the person forsaking_, had been _one and the same_. _Either, then, we must assume that the language of Jesus has been misreported, or we must admit that he never for a moment pretended to be co-equal, co-eternal or consubstantial with God._ It also follows of necessity from _both the genealogies_,[133:1] that their compilers entertained no doubt that _Joseph_ was the father of Jesus. Otherwise the descent of Joseph would not have been in the least to the point. All attempts to reconcile this inconsistency with the doctrine of the Angel-Messiah has been without avail, although the most learned Christian divines, for many generations past, have endeavored to do so. So, too, of the stories of the Presentation in the Temple,[133:2] and of the child Jesus at Jerusalem,[133:3] _Joseph is called his father_. Jesus is repeatedly described as _the son of the carpenter_,[133:4] or the _son of Joseph_, without the least indication that the expression is not strictly in accordance with the fact.[133:5]