the Lord Jesus ..is fully God fully man ,...but a question

[Alithis]

Speaking of what is possible for God to do is a different matter than asking why certain things were said and what it meant. If Mary is nothing but a surrogate, then basically any woman would do. However the Bible clearly depicts not only that Mary is chosen but also that there is some thing very special about Her BEFORE any "conception". Note that She is greatly favored by God and is already "Full of Grace" before She said "yes" to Jesus. In an understanding that says Mary was merely a vessel, of which any woman would do (have actually heard such a sermon say that) then all those things indicating something special about Her become frivolous fluff. As the Word we have was preciously recorded. I would think such thoughts about what is important and what is not are dangerous at best.

The idea that God really became one of us and that He is really a living human man is on firmer ground with an understanding that maintains that Man was actually conceived in Mary's Womb rather than God putting a complete human embryo there. After all, except for the missing male's contribution to that miraculous act, that is the way we are all created and we say He became one of us - rather than just "appearing" to have become one of us.

yup .am hearing you .

oh just on the side topic of mary being chosen .. my wife (being raised catholic ,not western ,so more extreme ie-mary worship and the works -in her case she makes no denial that's what they did, they were taught to worship and pray to Mary directly and told not to read the bible as only a priest can understand ..)
she later abandoned such practices and was baptized in the Holy Ghost (with tongues etc )
one time she asked the lord "why Mary in particular ? and he showed her its so simple .. She was betrothed to Joesph. and both were of the correct lineage .there is simply 9 no other reason . no attribute making her special above any any manner at all .. whoever was betrothed to Joseph , and was of the correct lineage would have been chosen ,whether they be mary , jane sue , gertrude or ruth (bit difficult for a maiden from the tribe of Judah to be named Getrude though haha )

 

[Alithis]

Why do you feel there is the necessity for Mary's egg to have been fertilized? God has always been self fulfilling so that no one can ever hold any claim to his works. God is the Word, the Son, and the Father. He is described as all encompassing. Why couldn't God simply placed himself in the womb of Mary? The simple act of being borne and birthed by Mary makes Jesus "of the seed of David"; because a women from the linage or seed of David birthed him.

This all goes back to the Word of God being God, and being manifest in the flesh, for me. The Word of God was present at creation, and nothing in creation was made without it; so why would God, the creator, need Mary's egg to form himself in her womb?

well yes . that's the point im kind of making also .
however im NOT saying he didn't , only asking.. if that's the stance the Nicene creed takes .. upon what do they base it ..?
or is it really just a maybe he did -maybe he didn't situation and neither can say for sure ?

though as some one else mentioned .. it would worry those who desire to elevate Mary into more then she actually was.
one stance i shall never change is the point that she was born sinless .-she was not in so much as she was born of flesh ,of adam.because she is of the blood line of Adam as we all are . all except Christ .. making HIM ALONE the Unique only begotten son of God

 

[Alithis]

As I understand it, the phrase "Full of Grace" comes from older (mis)translations of that specific verse.



It's far from obvious to me that that's the case. I read Luke 1:28 as saying that Mary is "highly favored" and "blessed" by being chosen to be the mother of Jesus.

"highly favored" and "blessed"- yes .... But after the fact of being chosen .. so that gracious favor and blessing would have come upon whoever was of the correct lineage and also betrothed to Joseph

 

[mmksparbud]

Why do you feel there is the necessity for Mary's egg to have been fertilized? God has always been self fulfilling so that no one can ever hold any claim to his works. God is the Word, the Son, and the Father. He is described as all encompassing. Why couldn't God simply placed himself in the womb of Mary? The simple act of being borne and birthed by Mary makes Jesus "of the seed of David"; because a women from the linage or seed of David birthed him.

This all goes back to the Word of God being God, and being manifest in the flesh, for me. The Word of God was present at creation, and nothing in creation was made without it; so why would God, the creator, need Mary's egg to form himself in her womb?

Not fertilized in the traditional way of egg and sperm, more like mixed--her egg and Crist Himself--not a part of Him, His very essence intertwined with her egg to create--fully human and fully divine. Placing Himself in her alone would not then give Him the fully human part. He most certainly could have done it without her egg, --but the purpose was for Him to be fully human and be tempted as we are, without that one human part of Him, He would remain only divine--not morphed--as it were. For He still retains His humanity. That was the whole sacrifice He made for us. That is why He had to send the Holy Spirit, as He could no longer be what He had been--everywhere at the same time. He is still fully human, fully divine.

How about that?---just about sounds like I know what I'm talking about, huh?

 

[Alithis]

Not fertilized in the traditional way of egg and sperm, more like mixed--her egg and Crist Himself--not a part of Him, His very essence intertwined with her egg to create--fully human and fully divine. Placing Himself in her alone would not then give Him the fully human part. He most certainly could have done it without her egg, --but the purpose was for Him to be fully human and be tempted as we are, without that one human part of Him, He would remain only divine--not morphed--as it were. For He still retains His humanity. That was the whole sacrifice He made for us. That is why He had to send the Holy Spirit, as He could no longer be what He had been--everywhere at the same time. He is still fully human, fully divine.

How about that?---just about sounds like I know what I'm talking about, huh?

totally get what your saying ..however does that mean Adam was not fully human .. ? i mean , based on that concept .because there was no egg ? (oops haha ,we just got into a chicken & egg syndrome )
in simplicity the wrd says . became flesh .. it appears there are no other beings in creation which are flesh (as the flesh of men) so once he became flesh he became flesh .. one of us .he did not need mary's egg .
but again.. im NOT saying that is so or not so.
but if it is so that he used her egg .. upon what scripture is that built ?

oh that's not a question at you its just an open question to all

 

[Messy]

Irrelevant to the OP, since sperm contains no blood.



Blood type. That's determined by DNA. DNA and blood are not the same thing.

Ah, now I see what you mean. So it doesn't matter if the egg was used or not since there was no blood in it.

http://www.jewishrootsofchristianity.org/jtm/pdfs/121002-w04-jtm.pdf:
The female egg has no blood; the male sperm has no blood. Blood is formed when there is conception. Think of it this way – have you ever gotten an egg w/ a pinch of blood in the yolk? That proves conception happened. The egg had been fertilized. Without male fertilization – no blood. And, it’s been medically determined that after fertilization/conception – the placenta protects the fetus from any flow of the mother’s blood into the fetus. If Mary’s blood had flowed into Jesus – He would have been tainted with original sin.  The blood is formed in the embryo itself.  From the time of conception to the time of birth, not one single drop of blood ever passes from the mother to the child.

 

[Alithis]

Ah, now I see what you mean. So it doesn't matter if the egg was used or not since there was no blood in it.

http://www.jewishrootsofchristianity.org/jtm/pdfs/121002-w04-jtm.pdf:
The female egg has no blood; the male sperm has no blood. Blood is formed when there is conception. Think of it this way – have you ever gotten an egg w/ a pinch of blood in the yolk? That proves conception happened. The egg had been fertilized. Without male fertilization – no blood. And, it’s been medically determined that after fertilization/conception – the placenta protects the fetus from any flow of the mother’s blood into the fetus. If Mary’s blood had flowed into Jesus – He would have been tainted with original sin.  The blood is formed in the embryo itself.  From the time of conception to the time of birth, not one single drop of blood ever passes from the mother to the child.

hey thanks for that post messy ..the female egg has no blood, -interesting -
(mind you Judaism doesn't believe in original sin im told ..,not sure . but if so it would make info presented have possible bias )
but still that makes a lot of sense .
and fits in with what the lord showed me in regard to the blood .the reference to blood is generalized but blood/ life the life is i the blood .. the life had to be poured out of the sinless to atone for the sinful -such mercy has been shown us ,none can compare to his worthiness of all our praise and gratitude .

All of the cells in a person’s body come from the cell that was formed when their mother’s egg cell joined with their father’s sperm cell. After that, the cells keep dividing.
so it really doesn't change the former points made . that a part of sinful Adam co-joined with a part of eve (the two became one ) and then that sinful part multiplied to form the next living man/woman .. thus in us all (including Mary ) that same process has been repeated down through the ages ..until that is .., Christ, Jesus Our lord and only Savior .. the one without sin ..the perfect Lamb of God . ouh how wonderful he truly IS

 

[he-man]

hi messy Christ also had the ability to do wrong if he so chose but he chose obedience .But the word of God makes it clear that that which was formed in the womb of Mary was "of the Holy Ghost " not of flesh and blood but he "became flesh".

Lu 1:26 And in the sixth month, the messenger Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, with the name Nazareth,
27 To a virgin being espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, from the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.
28 And entering into her, he said, 'Be joyful, o beautiful one, the Lord is with you.1
29 And when she saw him, she was deranged2 at his word, and speculated3 in contempt what this kiss was to be
30 And the messenger said to her, 'Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor from God.'
31 and lo, you shall conceive in the belly, and shalt bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus;
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord, the God, shall give him the throne of his father David:
38 And Mary said, 'Lo, the handmaid of the Lord; Let it happen to me according to your word.' And the messenger departed from her.
1 MSS Omit: Blessed art thou among women
2 * Greek 1298 διεραταχθην deranged
3 * Greek 1260 διαλοηζεσθε διαλογίζομαι speculation

From Pagan mythology Christianity had unconsciously taken over many a wonderful story and had incorporated it into the life of Jesus: from Mithraism the tale of the birth in the cave and the adoration of the shepherds; from Adonis-worship the tale of the Star in the East; The figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary, while the Madonna-lilies are none other than the ancient sacred lotus-flowers of Isis and Astarte. Page 226 CHRISTIANITY AS STATE RELIGION

Even from his mother’s womb (eti ek koilias mētros autou). A manifest Hebraism [RWP]

 

[mmksparbud]

totally get what your saying ..however does that mean Adam was not fully human .. ? i mean , based on that concept .because there was no egg ? (oops haha ,we just got into a chicken & egg syndrome )
in simplicity the wrd says . became flesh .. it appears there are no other beings in creation which are flesh (as the flesh of men) so once he became flesh he became flesh .. one of us .he did not need mary's egg .
but again.. im NOT saying that is so or not so.
but if it is so that he used her egg .. upon what scripture is that built ?

oh that's not a question at you its just an open question to all

Why would Adam be anything else??--He was the first human, made from dirt--nothing can change that. He was not born, but created, no egg needed. He was fully human, the very definition of human. Christ was fully divine. The humanity of Christ came from Adam through the generations to Mary, she was carrying the genetic code that Adam passed down to all of us.---the purpose was not to show the power of God-- for that Mary would not have been needed at all--Christ could have just been transformed without any woman at all---the purpose was to BECOME fully human, and unless His very essence was changed, He would have remained fully divine, without humanity. What scripture is that based upon?---none whatsoever!! God did not include the detailed blueprints for Christ's humanity in the bible! We can only try to figure it out with our feeble human brains, which is not possible--nor do we need to. Knowing the details does not save us--believing in the end result, does.

 

[Messy]

From Pagan mythology Christianity had unconsciously taken over many a wonderful story and had incorporated it into the life of Jesus: from Mithraism the tale of the birth in the cave and the adoration of the shepherds; from Adonis-worship the tale of the Star in the East; The figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary

Well it was in the O.T. first, so the devil could read what would happen.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child & will give birth to a son, and will call Him Emmanuel.

Micah 5:2—Micah prophesies that Jesus will be born in Bethlehem.

A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel” (Num. 24:17cd)

Worshipped by Shepherds: Psalm 72:9
Worshipped and Presented gifts by Kings: Psalm 72:10

 

[mmksparbud]

Lu 1:26 And in the sixth month, the messenger Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, with the name Nazareth,
27 To a virgin being espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, from the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.
28 And entering into her, he said, 'Be joyful, o beautiful one, the Lord is with you.1
29 And when she saw him, she was deranged2 at his word, and speculated3 in contempt what this kiss was to be
30 And the messenger said to her, 'Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor from God.'
31 and lo, you shall conceive in the belly, and shalt bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus;
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord, the God, shall give him the throne of his father David:
38 And Mary said, 'Lo, the handmaid of the Lord; Let it happen to me according to your word.' And the messenger departed from her.
1 MSS Omit: Blessed art thou among women
2 * Greek 1298 διεραταχθην deranged
3 * Greek 1260 διαλοηζεσθε διαλογίζομαι speculation

From Pagan mythology Christianity had unconsciously taken over many a wonderful story and had incorporated it into the life of Jesus: from Mithraism the tale of the birth in the cave and the adoration of the shepherds; from Adonis-worship the tale of the Star in the East; The figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary, while the Madonna-lilies are none other than the ancient sacred lotus-flowers of Isis and Astarte. Page 226 CHRISTIANITY AS STATE RELIGION

Even from his mother’s womb (eti ek koilias mētros autou). A manifest Hebraism [RWP]

It was from ancient history passed on from Adam to his descendants, then from the decedents of Noah from which the pagans developed their own myths.

 

[Alithis]

Why would Adam be anything else??--He was the first human, made from dirt--nothing can change that. He was not born, but created, no egg needed. He was fully human, the very definition of human. Christ was fully divine. The humanity of Christ came from Adam through the generations to Mary, she was carrying the genetic code that Adam passed down to all of us.---the purpose was not to show the power of God-- for that Mary would not have been needed at all--Christ could have just been transformed without any woman at all---the purpose was to BECOME fully human, and unless His very essence was changed, He would have remained fully divine, without humanity. What scripture is that based upon?---none whatsoever!! God did not include the detailed blueprints for Christ's humanity in the bible! We can only try to figure it out with our feeble human brains, which is not possible--nor do we need to. Knowing the details does not save us--believing in the end result, does.

well yeah .. thats my point .. why would the lord Jesus be anything else either .he became flesh he need not do so via marys egg .he is the creators speaking .. " and the word became flesh "
-again.. im not saying either way ..just clarifying .
but the purpose of marys womb was also that the one promised had to "come forth" from the line of David .. so he need to come forth from the line of David to fulfill the promise . thus came forth from her womb .. but that stil does not necessarily mean it was of her egg ..
but the term "conceived certainly implies it was so . of course that still does not make Mary special in any attribute over others (as she was not)

 

[Alithis]

Lu 1:26 And in the sixth month, the messenger Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, with the name Nazareth,
27 To a virgin being espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, from the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.
28 And entering into her, he said, 'Be joyful, o beautiful one, the Lord is with you.1
29 And when she saw him, she was deranged2 at his word, and speculated3 in contempt what this kiss was to be
30 And the messenger said to her, 'Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor from God.'
31 and lo, you shall conceive in the belly, and shalt bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus;
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord, the God, shall give him the throne of his father David:
38 And Mary said, 'Lo, the handmaid of the Lord; Let it happen to me according to your word.' And the messenger departed from her.
1 MSS Omit: Blessed art thou among women
2 * Greek 1298 διεραταχθην deranged
3 * Greek 1260 διαλοηζεσθε διαλογίζομαι speculation

From Pagan mythology Christianity had unconsciously taken over many a wonderful story and had incorporated it into the life of Jesus: from Mithraism the tale of the birth in the cave and the adoration of the shepherds; from Adonis-worship the tale of the Star in the East; The figures of Isis were turned into those of the Virgin Mary, while the Madonna-lilies are none other than the ancient sacred lotus-flowers of Isis and Astarte. Page 226 CHRISTIANITY AS STATE RELIGION

Even from his mother’s womb (eti ek koilias mētros autou). A manifest Hebraism [RWP]

why are you quoting this with such a possible perverted implication .. ? if that is what your doing with the Highlighted text? it says he was sent to her -the text implies nothing except she was inside her house .

 

[mmksparbud]

well yeah .. thats my point .. why would the lord Jesus be anything else either .he became flesh he need not do so via marys egg .he is the creators speaking .. " and the word became flesh "
-again.. im not saying either way ..just clarifying .
but the purpose of marys womb was also that the one promised had to "come forth" from the line of David .. so he need to come forth from the line of David to fulfill the promise . thus came forth from her womb .. but that stil does not necessarily mean it was of her egg ..
but the term "conceived certainly implies it was so . of course that still does not make Mary special in any attribute over others (as she was not)

Like I said, the only need for Mary's egg was the need for Christ to become fully human--to be one of us. Joining in our humanity was the only way-- so without the intermingling of the 2 natures, it would leave Christ fully divine--not one of us even if in the womb. There had to be a merging of our "substances" for Him to be both. Without us in Him, He would not be our brother--He has our DNA in Him now and is forever our relation, not like God who has no part of us in Him, we have His breath in us. Christ became one of us by that intermingling, not by speaking Himself into a replica of us, but one of us. And so can truly say, He was tempted in all points as we are. He didn't have to do it, He could have remained strictly divine and made Himself into a baby, but that was not what THEY chose to do--He came to be fully human--from the inside out. He became truly flesh, not just photo copy of us. It is all the more remarkable, miraculous, and loving--and His sacrifice that much more of a sacrifice, for it was a permanent change. Not the suffering of some years--the change was forever to remain one of us.. Would you be willing to have your very DNA transformed and joined together with that of your dog so you could truly be one of them?? Not just to temporarily look like one, but be one?? That much love, I ain't got!!

 

[Alithis]

Like I said, the only need for Mary's egg was the need for Christ to become fully human--to be one of us. Joining in our humanity was the only way-- so without the intermingling of the 2 natures, it would leave Christ fully divine--not one of us even if in the womb. There had to be a merging of our "substances" for Him to be both. Without us in Him, He would not be our brother--He has our DNA in Him now and is forever our relation, not like God who has no part of us in Him, we have His breath in us. Christ became one of us by that intermingling, not by speaking Himself into a replica of us, but one of us. And so can truly say, He was tempted in all points as we are. He didn't have to do it, He could have remained strictly divine and made Himself into a baby, but that was not what THEY chose to do--He came to be fully human--from the inside out. He became truly flesh, not just photo copy of us. It is all the more remarkable, miraculous, and loving--and His sacrifice that much more of a sacrifice, for it was a permanent change. Not the suffering of some years--the change was forever to remain one of us.. Would you be willing to have your very DNA transformed and joined together with that of your dog so you could truly be one of them?? Not just to temporarily look like one, but be one?? That much love, I ain't got!!

again ,i see the point don't worry about that .im not trying to disprove it or anything
but still ..it says in the word he "became flesh" ,mankind is flesh .. .how did he need the egg to do so? he didn't . but still it appears to be how he did it . though we do not know as far as any direct scripture goes
but that he was "born of woman " is noted ."But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons"

remember its not my intent to "argue either point" .. only glean more knowledge about it .
which i have certainly done a little .

 

[bottledwater]

after a recent misunderstanding i decided it would be interesting to look further into the question.
But as the question risks challenging (sort of) the Nicene creed, though its not my intent to , I decided to ask it here .(hope its the right place )
please note-I repeat - I in no way intend to disagree with the Nicene creed .that is Not my goal at all.

my question is .. -As the lord Jesus was born of the Spirit and not of the flesh .and formed in the womb of a virgin.so excluding the blood of Adam from playing any part in that process .
did the lord God miraculously fertilize an egg of mary's ? or did the lord God fully become flesh in her womb -independent of any human input ( as he had no need of such )
this is an honest question im not hereto argue it one way or the other but i will push back at answers to test them ..
- im just like that -it does not mean im unwilling to accept the answers ,only that i will push the wall ,to see if it is stable so to speak .

He was Conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary. That is pretty much straightforward. There really aren't anymore details than that.

Maybe just read this, as it is a commentary:
The Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of Life", is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

Hope that helped you. God Bless you

 

[Alithis]

He was Conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary. That is pretty much straightforward. There really aren't anymore details than that.

Maybe just read this, as it is a commentary:
The Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of Life", is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

Hope that helped you. God Bless you

the part in blue is then assumption , for as you say there are not really any more details given .


don't worry im not saying its an incorrect assumption. how would I know

 

[bottledwater]

the part in blue is then assumption , for as you say there are not really any more details given .


don't worry im not saying its an incorrect assumption. how would I know

No, I don't know, as I just copy/pasted it so that I could give them something to get a better understanding. I personally don't see any need for a commentary, as it is clear to me that the Holy Spirit Is God, and can certainly cause a virgin to conceive a child.
Thanks for pointing that out, and I am going to get the part in blue out of there. God Bless you

So I went to delete the blue and realized that it is correct. Jesus is of a humanity of her own. He is a Jew, and so is she.
How is that an assumption?
Just asking, not looking for a debate or anything.. Thanks

 

[bottledwater]

No, I don't know, as I just copy/pasted it so that I could give them something to get a better understanding. I personally don't see any need for a commentary, as it is clear to me that the Holy Spirit Is God, and can certainly cause a virgin to conceive a child.
Thanks for pointing that out, and I am going to get the part in blue out of there. God Bless you

So I went to delete the blue and realized that it is correct. he is a humanity drawn from her own. This just means that Jesus came from the woman Mary, and no other human contributor.
How is that an assumption?
Just asking, not looking for a debate or anything.. Thanks

 

[truth76]

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, Gods 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) Since actual conception took place, it appears that God caused an ovum, or egg cell, in Mary’s womb to become fertile, accomplishing this by the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth. (Ga 4:4) Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the same person who had resided in heaven as the Word, and only in this way could he have been 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


Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?

Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)
Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)

Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)

John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”