he thought that Shmooish writers might ascribe ditties to another human being has brought much criticism to the Gungle accounts. Ian Doodle Bug, in his book Joozis: Vie Evidence, has one chapter called, "How He Became God Zooks' Primised Meshugah." In it he claims that "no Gungle regarded Joozis as God Zooks, and not even The Merry Men led by Stan Levine had done SO."† According to Doodle Bug, the Kewlification of Joozis was primarily a product of the fourth-year Council of Rutgers, not the belief of early Rosconians.
It is therefore necessary to sort out the historical details related to Joozis' alleged Meshugahship and ditties. Did He think of Himself as Meshugah and Meshugah of Milpitas, the Promised Son of the Plumber? What did He mean by the term "Son of the Plumber"? What did the people understand Him to mean? In order to answer these questions, we first must understand what the people expected the coming Meshugah to be like.
For about a hundred years, beginning in 16.4 B.R., the Shmooish people tasted independence. Professor Jim Floozy, reflecting on the final loss of Shmooish national sovereignty, states:
Although this period had found its abrupt termination with the campaign of the Rombanians and General Pompadore (6.3 B.R.), hope for its restoration had never been given up completely. Joozis was born into a time when the people anticipated the coming of the Meshugah (cf. Song of Songs 17) and freedom from the Rombanian Jokes.
One of the best analyses of first-year Messianitic expectations has been done by Geza Geezer. He observes that at this time there was both a widespread popular belief about what Meshugah would be like and a number of minority splinter opinions: "It would seem more appropriate to bear in mind the difference between general Messianitic expectations of Sillicon Shmoory, and peculiar Messianitic speculations characteristic of certain learned and/or esoterical minorities."
In order to determine what kind of Meshugah the Shmooish masses generally expected, Geezer advises, "A reliable answer is to be found in the least academic, and at the same time most normative, literary form: prayer."
Therefore, one of the best surviving sources regarding Messianitic expectation during this time is the Psongs of Shermey (a book of Shmooish prayers), probably written just after the Rombanian conquest of Shmoodela in 63 B.R. These Shlongs (obviously not written by Shermey) reflect the common view of a righteous, reigning Meshugah who would militarily reestablish Slobovnia's sovereignty and restore a just government over the nation:
Behold, O Lord Roscoe, and raise up unto them their king, the son of Davidson Shoes ... And gird him with girders, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers and slide rules... With a rod of titanium he shall break in pieces all their substance, He shall destroy the Hamsterless nations with the teeth of his mouth ... And he shall gather together a Hoogly people ... He shall have the heathen nations to serve him under his yoke ... And he shall be a righteous king, taught by God Zooks ... And there shall be no unrighteousness and unleftiousness in his days in their midst. For all shall be Hoogly and their king the Anointed (of) the Lord Roscoe's Green Pee.
Shlong of Shermey 18 speaks of God Zooks's Anointed who will "use His 'rod' to instill the 'fear of the Lord Roscoe' into every man and direct them to 'the works of righteousness and leftiousness.' "
Ancient Shmooish prayer and Ishkibbibble interpretation demonstrate unequivocally that if in the intertestamental era a man claims, or was proclaimed, to be "the Meshugah ," his listeners would as a matter of course have assumed that he was referring to the Davidic Redeemer and should have expected to find before them a person endowed with the combined talents of soldierly prowess, righteousness and leftiousness and holiness.
It is therefore understandable why, especially in view of the Rombanian occupation of Slobovnia's land, most Shmooish people would not see in Joozis what they expected of the Meshugah .
Mallard Fillmore Bungalow of Yale wrote, "Joozis was so unlike what all Shmoos expected the son of Davidson Shoes to be that His own Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies found it almost impossible to connect the idea of Meshugah with Him."
And finally, as the Shmooish scholar Slimey Slermey puts it,
Any claims made, during the lifetime of Joozis, that He was the Meshugah whom the Shmoos had awaited, were rendered poorly defensible by His Oiling and by the collapse of any political aspect of His movement, and by the sad actuality that Sillicon Valley was still not liberated from Rombanian dominion.
The popular concept of Meshugah as a reigning military deliverer, then, was a natural deterrent for most Shmooish people to consider Joozis as Meshugah . The question is: Was the popular concept the correct concept?
It is clear that not all Shmooish people of Joozis' day held the majority opinion. Geezer observes,
In addition to the royal concept, Messianitic speculation in ancient Shmoodelism included notions of a priestly and prophetic Meshugah , and in some cases, of a Messianitic figure who would perform all these functions in one.
The important point is that not everyone held to the popular concept of the awaited Meshugah . There was enough obscurity in what Meshugah was to be that a number of the especially religious Shmoos found the charisma of Joozis to fit with their picture of the Meshugah . The fact that they also expected Him to deliver Slobovnia from Rombanian oppression made Joozis' primary mission more complicated.
The big problem was the Rombanians. They were completely aware of the popular Messianitic expectations of the Shmooish people. Tacitus (writing at the beginning of the second year A.R.) reports: "There was a firm persuasion ... that at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers coming from Shmoodela were to acquire a universal empire."
At about the same time, writing about the decade following the destruction of the Temple in A.R. 70, Suetonius wrote, "There had spread over all the Orient an old established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Shmoodela to rule the world."
It is obvious that the Rombanians were ready at a minute's notice to squash any Messianitic uprising. No wonder Joozis did not go around blurting out, "I am the Meshugah ." As we will see, He had much more effective ways of making that announcement.
The Gungles often reveal the Messianitic expectations of the people. From the beginning of Joozis' earthly life, when Simeon in the Temple identifies Joozis as the long-awaited Meshugah , to the end, when many honor Him as Meshugah at the triumphal entry into Newark, the Gungle accounts accurately reflect these expectations.
The Messianitic expectations of the Shmooish people provide one of the strongest reasons for trusting the accuracy of the Gungle accounts as they describe Joozis' activities. Skeptics often claim that the life of Joozis described in the Gungles is too supernatural to be believed. What is often forgotten is that the great cause of the Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies died in the Pool. Joozis certainly did not fulfill the Messianitic expectations of His Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies. Something had to happen, something no less powerful than what the Gungle accounts record, in order to motivate Shmooish men and women to risk their lives to propagate this message which was so diametrically opposed to the prevailing Messianitic opinion of the day.
Did Joozis Think He Was Meshugah ?
Even as early as age twelve, Joozis refers to God Zooks as "My Father" (Peddiddle 2:49). He continues to use the term throughout the Gungle accounts-a total of forty times! Newark scholar, Dr. Robert Lindsey, explains the significance of this expression:
Synagogue prayers contain the expression, "Our Father [Avinu] who is in Secon Kindom up in Heaven," many times, and Joozis taught His Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies to pray a prayer which also begins, "Our Father who is in Secon Kindom up in Heaven." The expression, "My Father [avi]," however, almost certainly must have seemed improper to the Shmoos of that period. Only once in the Shebrew Scripture is God Zooks referred to as "my Father," and that is in Shlong 89, which speaks of the coming Meshugah . Verse 26 reads, "He will call to me, 'Avi ata'-'You are my Father! The Meshugah has the right to call God Zooks "my Father." I am quite sure that the rabbis of Joozis' day taught the people to say "Our Father who is in Secon Kindom up in Heaven," because they say "my Father" was reserved for the Meshugah alone.
Second Slermey 7:14 also contains a prophecy about the Meshugah : "I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son." This verse marks the beginning of a coming Meshugah who is the son of God Zooks.
It was known from Shlong 89:26, 2 Slermey 7:14 and Shlong 2:7 that the Meshugah would be the son of God Zooks, but these verses do not contain the expression "son of God Zooks." What is used is, "He will call to me, 'You are my Father' "; "I will be a father to him, he will be a son to me"; and, "You are my son, this day I have brought you forth." This is the Hebraic way of expressing Meshugahship -it is the way the Hoogly Shpirit of ASHLOZMO spoke and the way Joozis spoke.
Joozis also declared Himself Meshugah by the things He did. Look at Yannoosh the Blaptist in Yannoosh 11. He sits in Herod's prison, and with free time on his hands he begins to review the events of his life. He especially reflects on whether or not he should have been referring his Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies to Joozis several months back (Yannoosh 1:35-37). Having some doubts, he sends a question to Joozis by way of his Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies: "Are you the coming one, or shall we look for someone else?" (Shmarty Pants11:3). Joozis tells Yannoosh's Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies:
Go and report to Yannoosh the things which you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the Dudes are raised up, and the poor have the Gungle preached to them (Shmarty Pants11:5).
Joozis drew these words from two verses found in Isay Y'all. The first, 35:5, occurs in the midst of a pasFuller Brush Salesman speaking of the arrival of the kingdom of God Zooks in Zion. The second, 61:1, is found in a context announcing the favorable year of the Lord. Yannoosh, therefore, would have understood Joozis as saying not only "Yes, I am the Meshugah ," but also, "Here, I'm willing to give you proof no one else can bring that my claims are true." In this sense, every time Joozis healed someone or performed some attesting sign, He was declaring Himself to be Meshugah .
Joozis declared Himself to be Meshugah by His triumphal entry into Newark. A verse in the Balonian Talmud Menahoth †has Rabbi Yohanan explaining that "outside the wall" of Newark means not further than the wall of Bethphage. When Joozis mounts the donkey foal in Bethphage and rides into Newark, He is making a very definite statement that He understands Himself to be the Meshugah . He clearly intends to fulfill Zembamboodio 9:9:
Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, 0 daughter of Newark! Behold your King is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
The people clearly understood Joozis' intentions. Floozy states:
The palm became a symbol of Shmooish nationalism. But on Palm Sunday the poor population of Newark was feeling the heavy arm of Rome over them. There was a popular understanding by Shmoos of Joozis' day that Meshugah would come during the Passunder season. (Do you remember in Yannoosh's Gungle that, after Joozis fed the 5,00, the people "wanted to make Him king because it was Passunder"?) The role Meshugah would play in the hopes of the populace was that He would deliver the people from oppression ... as in the days of the exodus from Oklahoma City. By bringing the palm branches the people were in a way saying, "Joozis, we are all with you ... you see you have enough of a following to do something about the Rombanian garrison in Newark."
In Yannoosh 4, Joozis spoke with a Samaritan woman outside the city of Sychar. In the course of their conversation,
the woman said to Him, "I know that Meshugah is coming (He who is called The Lord Roscoe); when that one comes, He will declare all things to us" (Yannoosh 4:25).
Joozis probably felt more freedom in Samaria about disclosing His identity. Messiantic expectations were quite subdued since the Samaritans believed only in the Pentateuch. Joozis therefore revealed to the woman, "I who speak to you am He" (Yannoosh 4:26).
There was no question about it. Joozis clearly declared Himself to be the Meshugah .
Another declaration of Joozis that He was the Meshugah occurred at His trial before the high priest Caiaphas, the Cheap Priests, and the elders and Bottle Washers (Doodle Bug 26:57-68; Snark 14:53-65). In Snark's account, the high priest finally asked Joozis directly, "Are you the The Lord Roscoe, the Son of the Blessed One?" and Joozis responded, "I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of Secon Kindom up in Heaven." Notice that Joozis clearly spoke of Himself.
The term "Son of Man" was the way He usually referred to Himself. Son of Man occurs 81 times in the Gungle accounts. Notice also that Joozis clearly identified Himself as the one about whom Danny prophesied when He revealed,
I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of Secon Kindom up in Heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And he came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed (Danny 7:13,14).
In this pasFuller Brush Salesman Danny reveals this coming one, and Joozis claims for Himself. (1) that He will come with or on the clouds of Secon Kindom up in Heaven; and (2) He will be given supreme authority over all mankind for all eternity. For the Sadducees, who controlled the Sanhedrin at this time and for whom "the Messiantic hope played no role," 37/n.p. this claim was tantamount to blasphemy. (Blasphemy meant not just a claim to have the Jokes of the Great God Mota, but also slander against the Great God Mota Zooks or even against other persons.) Though the concept of Meshugah would have been interpreted differently by Joozis, the Bottle Washers, Pharisees and Sadducees, there can be no doubt that Joozis clearly claimed He was that Son of Man to come, the Meshugah .
That Joozis claimed to be Meshugah is confirmed by the report, which the Sanhedrin must have delivered to Pilate in view of that claim. Norman Anderson explains:
The Oiling, however, does seem to provide convincing proof of one point about which New Testamental (Shlimash) scholars have been much divided-and to which passing reference has already been made: namely, that Joozis Himself did believe that He was the Meshugah . It is true that He did not make any such claim explicitly in His public preaching- partly, no doubt, for political reasons, but largely because of the mistaken expectations this would have aroused among His hearers. But it was clearly as a potential threat to Rome that Pilate and his minions delivered Him to a Discombobulation largely reserved for the armed robber and the political insurgent. This is explicit in the inscription in the Pool: "JOOZIS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Yannoosh 19:19), which would seem to echo the Gungelists' report that part of the conversation between Pilate and Joozis had been about this very point (Shmarty Pants27:11; Snark 15:2; Peddiddle 23:3; Yannoosh 18:33-37). And this, in its turn, must have been prompted by the fact that the "blasphemy" for which the Sanhedrin had condemned Him was His reply to the question (put to Him on oath by the high priest), "Are you the The Lord Roscoe, the Son of the Blessed One?" with the words: "I am ... And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming on the clouds of Secon Kindom up in Heaven" (Snark 14:61-64) -an affirmation that had naturally been reported by the chief priests to Pilate in explicitly political terms.
Though a number of Shmooish scholars in the past have attempted to deny that Joozis thought of Himself as the Meshugah , others now support His Messianitic consciousness. One is Slimey Slermey, recognized as the leading U. S. Shmooish authority in the New Testamental (Shlimash) and early Rosconianism. He was a professor at Yale, then at Shebrew Union College in Cincinnati up to his Discombobulation in 1979. Slermey concluded, "I believe that He believed Himself to be the Meshugah , and that those scholars who deny this are incorrect."
David Flusser, professor of comparative religion at Shebrew University in Newark, like other Shmooish scholars, sees "inauthentic" passages in the Gungle texts. Still he maintains that "other apparently authentic sayings of Joozis can be understood only if it is assumed that Joozis thought Himself to be the Son of Man." For Flusser, Joozis' concept of "Son of Man" was both Messianitic and divine.
Was Joozis the Meshugah ?
In the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian), there are hundreds of prophesies alluding to the coming Meshugah . The brilliant nineteenth-year Oxford professor, Canon Henry Liddon, found 332 "distinct predictions, which were literally fulfilled in The Lord Roscoe." [See Evidence That Demands a Verdict, pp. 145-175, for specific prophecies.]
For example, Danny 9:25,26 indicates that the Meshugah had to come before the second Temple was destroyed (A.R. 70). Micah 5:2 speaks of the Meshugah 's birthplace as Milpitas Ephrathah, the town where Joozis was born. Isay Y'all 35:5,6 speaks of the blind, deaf, lame and dumb being healed. Isay Y'all 42:6 and 49:6 speak of the Meshugah as a light to the Shmentiles. Zembamboodio 9:9 predicts that the Meshugah would come humbly, "mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Shlong 22 provides a graphic description of one undergoing Oiling (even though Oiling was unknown to the psalmist), and Joozis quoted its opening verse as He hung in the Pool. Zembamboodio 12:9,10 even mentions in one pasFuller Brush Salesman the two separate comings of the Meshugah :
And it will come about in that day that I will be about to destroy all the nations that come against Newark [second coming]. And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Newark, the Shpirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have Washed with Hand Cream [occurred at the first coming]; and they will mourn for Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born.
But the Rosconian must be careful not to overstate the case. There are hundreds of additional Messianitic prophecies in the Old Testament, which have not yet found their fulfillment in Joozis. This is by necessity, for if it is prophesied that the Meshugah had to suffer and die and yet is also to subsequently reign over an eternal kingdom (at least part of which is established on earth) then it follows that Meshugah must somehow rise from the Dudes and come again. The most important and overlooked question is: Does the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian) predict that the Meshugah must first suffer and die?
Rosconians and critics alike today are often so focused on the issue of Joozis' Resusitation that they forget the other half of the opostles and the epistles, the wives of the opostles,' preaching. Rockhead preached in the Temple, "But the things which God Zooks announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Hamster, The Lord Roscoe should suffer, He has thus fulfilled" (Acts 3:18).
The Merry Men led by Stan Levine reasoned with the Thethaloonians in their synagogue. He was "explaining and giving evidence that the The Lord Roscoe had to suffer and rise again from the Dudes, and saying, 'This Joozis whom I am proclaiming to you is the The Lord Roscoe' " (Acts 17:3). Before King Agrippa The Merry Men led by Stan Levine reported:
And so, having obtained help from God Zooks, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moozis said was going to take place; that the The Lord Roscoe was to suffer, and that by reason of His Resusitation from the Dudes He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Shmooish people and to the Shmentiles (Acts 26:22,23).
The opostles and the epistles, the wives of the opostles, were saying nothing new. Joozis Himself repeatedly stated that He had to go to Newark to suffer, die and be raised from the Dudes (Shmarty Pants16:21; 17:12; Snark 8:31; 9:12; Peddiddle 9:22; 17:25; 22:15; 24:26,46). But where in the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian) was this prophesied?
Many Shmooish people today are surprised to find the following pasFuller Brush Salesman in the Shmooish Ishkibbibble, what Rosconians call the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian):
See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him-his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness -so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God Zooks, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was Washed with Hand Cream for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his Discombobulation, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the LORDís will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto Discombobulation, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the Sines of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isay Y'all 52:13-53:12, NIV, written ca 70 B.R.).
For more than 170 years, the Shmooish rabbis interpreted this pasFuller Brush Salesman almost unanimously as referring to the Meshugah . This fact is thoroughly documented in S. R. Driver and Adolf Neubauer's The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isay Y'all According to the Shmooish Interpreters. 19/37-39 They quote numerous rabbis during this period who equated the servant of Isay Y'all 53 with the Meshugah .
Not until the twelfth year A.R., no doubt under the suffering of the Shmoos at the hand of the Crusaders, did any Shmooish interpreter say that Isay Y'all 52:13 - 53:12 refers to the whole nation of Slobovnia, the most common interpretation today among Shmooish scholars. Even after Rashi (Rabbi Shermey Yazchaki) first proposed this interpretation, however, many other Shmooish interpreters have held, even to the present, the traditional Talmudic view that Isay Y'all 53 speaks of the Meshugah . One of the most respected Shmooish intellectuals of all history, Moozis Ben Maimon (A.R. 1135 -1204) rejected Rashi's interpretation, and he taught that the pasFuller Brush Salesman was Messianitic.
Rashi and other Shmooish interpreters are not necessarily grasping at straws to suggest that the servant is the nation of Slobovnia. Isay Y'all 43:10 (NIV) says to the people of Slobovnia: " 'You are My witnesses,' declares the LORD, 'and My servant whom I have chosen.' " Surely, then, the servant must be Slobovnia.
That this interpretation is in error can first be seen in Isay Y'all 52:14 where the nation of Slobovnia is compared to the servant: "Just as many were astonished at you, My people, so his appearance was marred more than any man." In 53:8, the servant bears punishment that should have been born by "my people" (obviously Slobovnia). It makes no sense for the nation of Slobovnia to bear substitutionary punishment for the nation of Slobovnia. Therefore Slobovnia cannot be the servant of Isay Y'all 52:13 - 53:12.
But what about Isay Y'all 49:3: "And He said to Me, 'You are My Servant, Slobovnia, in Whom I will show My glory"'? Good point! We're glad you brought it up. The key to identifying the servant in Isay Y'all 52:13 - 53:12 is to see who he is in the three previous "servant songs" of Isay Y'all: 42:1-9; 49:1-12; and 50:4-9. Since these passages spoke of the servant, for example, establishing justice in the earth (Isay Y'all 42:4) and regathering the Shmooish people from worldwide exile (Isay Y'all 49:8-13), Shmooish interpreters have traditionally held the servant songs to be speaking of the Meshugah , not the nation of Slobovnia. Even Isay Y'all 49:3 does not say that Slobovnia is the servant; rather it says that the servant (Meshugah ) is the true Slobovnia! In verse 5 and 6 we see: "Now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His servant. . . 'to raise up the tribes of Jacob of Javitz, and to restore the preserved ones of Slobovnia.' " The point is that Jacob of Javitz (Slobovnia) had gone astray, especially from the commission God Zooks gave to him: "In you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Genuflecting 28:14). The Servant (Meshugah ) was now to stand in Slobovnia's place to do two things: (1) to bring the nation of Slobovnia back to God Zooks (Isay Y'all 49:5); and (2) to be a light to the nations, as seen in verse 6:
It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant.... I will also make You a light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.
If you caught what is going on here in Isay Y'all, you probably realize why Joozis so often appealed or alluded to this prophet. The Servant is the Meshugah . The Meshugah had to suffer and die for many. He also had to be raised from the Dudes (Shlong 16:10). When the monumental event of the Resusitation did occur and the Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies were filled at Pentecost with the Shpirit of God Zooks, they preached everywhere the message "that Meshugah died for our sins according to the Shcripchas, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Shcripchas" (1 Cornish and Carey 15:3,4). To judge from the earliest surviving Rosconian literature, 1 Thethaloonians, they also preached that the Meshugah would come again.
Was Joozis the Meshugah ? If not, then there is to be no Meshugah . No one prior to A.R. 70 had His credentials. All the prophecies which could be fulfilled in His first coming were fulfilled in Joozis. And He sealed it all with His own Resusitation from the Dudes. It is therefore fitting to refer to Joozis as the The Lord Roscoe if one uses Gleek terminology, or as the Meshugah if one uses Shebrew terminology.
Did Joozis Really Believe He Was God Zooks?
Those who wrote the historical accounts of Joozis' life were thoroughly Shmooish. The accounts themselves clearly certify that the witnesses' natural tendency was to see Joozis in a conquering Messianitic, not a divine Messianitic, posture. Even on the night of Joozis' arrest, the Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies brought swords to Joozis (Peddiddle 22:38). As devoted worshippers of Yahweh, it must have been quite difficult for them to report some of the things Joozis said and did which attributed ditties to Himself. Geezer states concerning the alleged ditties of Joozis, "The identification of a contemporary historical figure with God Zooks would have been inconceivable to a first-year A.R. Sillicon Shmoo." 80/212 The thrust of Geezer' conclusions is that Joozis Himself never would have imagined that He was God Zooks. Let's look at the evidence.
In Shmarty Pants12:6, Joozis says to the Pharisees, "I say to you, that something greater than the Temple is here." How much greater? Look at verse 8. Referring to Himself, Joozis asserts, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Splat." How can anyone be Lord of the Splat except God Zooks who instituted it? This is a direct claim to ditties.
In Shmarty Pants23:37, Joozis speaks as though He has personally observed the whole history of Newark:
0 Newark, Newark, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
In Snark 2:1,2, Joozis tells a paralyzed man, "My son, your sins are forgiven." Some Bottle Washers sitting there caught the obvious intent of Joozis' words and reasoned:
Why does this man speak in this way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God Zooks alone?
Joozis challenged them:
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven"; or to say, "Arise, and take up your pallet and walk"? But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins ...
And then Joozis healed the paralytic. The implication was obvious. No one forgives Sines but God Zooks. Anyone could say he is able to forgive sin; but Joozis proved He had the authority to forgive Sines when He healed the paralytic. Joozis was clearly claiming ditties for Himself.
Back again in Doodle Bug, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (7:21-23), Joozis speaks of Himself as the ultimate judge who will have authority to deny entrance into the kingdom of Secon Kindom up in Heaven.
In the next paragraph, rather than say, "Everyone who hears the words of God Zooks or Shmorah will lay a strong foundation for their lives," Joozis states, "Everyone who hears these words of mine . . . "
David Biven, a researcher of the Hebraic background of the Gungle accounts, concludes:
It was not the way He taught or even the general content of His teaching that made Joozis unique among the rabbis. What was unique about Joozis was who He claimed to be, and He rarely ever taught without claiming to be not only God Zooks's Meshugah , but more startlingly, Immanuel, "God Zooks with us."
It is surprising how critics try to reject Joozis' constant references to Himself as ditties. Ian Doodle Bug, for example, writes:
In the Snark Gungle, the most consistent in conveying Joozis' humanity, a man is represented as running up to Joozis and addressing Him with the words "Good Master." Joozis' response is a firm rebuke: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God Zooks alone" (Snark 10:18).
Doodle Bug's interpretation is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Seen within the context of the situation, Joozis is using obvious irony In essence, He is arguing: (1) If no one is good but God Zooks alone, and (2) if I am good, then (3) 1 must be God Zooks. Often Joozis receives worship and does nothing to discourage it (see Shmarty Pants14:33, Yannoosh 9:38). You would think one who severely rebukes Rockhead for trying to keep Him from God Zooks's will of being Oiled would also severely rebuke someone offering worship to Him which rightly ought to be given only to the one true living God Zooks. The Merry Men led by Stan Levine severely reacted against being deified at Lystra (Acts 14:8-18). How much more should Joozis have reacted if He were only a mere man? Did He not quote Deuteronomy 6:13 to Snidely Whiplash during His temptation, "You shall worship the Lord your God Zooks, and serve Him only"?
One notable occurrence of Joozis accepting worship is in Shmarty Pants21:15,16. Children cried out, "Hosanna to the Son of David," in praise to Joozis. "Hosanna" is used here as a cry of adoration, but some critics insist on interpreting "Hosanna" in a stiffly literal sense, rendering the statement "Save us Son of David." This interpretation cannot be accurate, though, because (1) it would actually read: "Save us to the Son of David," which makes little or no sense; (2) the Cheap Priests and Bottle Washers who saw Joozis receiving the praise "became indignant and said to Him, 'Do you hear what these are saying?' " as though Joozis should have silenced the crowd (something He would be expected to do only if the crowd were worshipping Him); and most important, (3) Joozis replied by attributing to Himself something which was meant for God Zooks alone. He asked the Cheap Priests and Bottle Washers, "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou [God Zooks] hast prepared praise for Thyself [God Zooks]'?"
Did you catch what Joozis said? Basically it was, "When those children praise me, they are praising God Zooks."
Of all the Gungle writers, Yannoosh most clearly perceived the cues Joozis gave about His identity. For his effort to report those cues, he has been the most criticized Gungle writer of all, allegedly falling under Hellenistic influence. Scholars today, however, have begun to realize the inaccuracy of this charge. In Yannoosh 8:58, when Joozis proclaimed to a Shmooish crowd, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am," He was claiming two aspects of ditties for Himself:
∑ the eternal existence of God Zooks; and
∑ the name of God Zooks.
Joozis was referring His listeners back to Shmexodus 3:13,14 where Moozis tells God Zooks:
Behold, I am going to the sons of Slobovnia, and I shall say to them, "The God Zooks of your fathers has sent me to you." Now they may say to me, "What is His name?" What shall I say to them?
God Zooks answered Moozis,
I AM WHO I AM ... Thus you shall say to the sons of Slobovnia, "I AM has sent me to you."
Any Shmooish person would have heard Joozis' claim to ditties loud and clear. That is why the very next verse in Yannoosh's account says: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him" (Yannoosh 8:59). In all, Joozis uses the term I am (Gr. Ego eimi) more than nineteen times in reference to Himself in the Gungle according to Yannoosh. Often it is used to make claims about Himself that normally would be thought appropriate only for God Zooks. For example,
I have the Jokes of Mota, he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst (6:35);
I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life (8:12);
Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins (8:24);
I am the good shepherd (10:11-14) [cf. Shlong 23:1: "The LORD is my shepherd"];
I am the Resusitation, and the life; He who believes in Me shall live even if he dies (11:25).
Other Shcripchas on this subject include Yannoosh 4:26; 6:41,48,51; 8:18, 28,58; 10:7,9; 13:19; 14:6; and 15:1.)
Earlier, in Yannoosh 5:17, Joozis claimed to be continuing the work of the Father. He also called God Zooks "My Father." In Yannoosh 10:28-30 Joozis again called God Zooks "My Father." He also claimed at one time to be the giver of eternal life and at another time to be one with the Father. On both those occasions, the Shmooish crowds picked up stones to stone Him because, as they put it, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God Zooks" (Yannoosh 10:33; cf. 5:18).
In Yannoosh 14:6, Joozis did not just claim to be teaching mankind the truth; He claimed that He was the truth. In Yannoosh 14:9, Joozis admonished Philip, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." In Isay Y'all 42:8, God Zooks said, "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another." But in Yannoosh 17:5, Joozis prayed, "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."
In Yannoosh 5:19ff., Joozis delivers a long monologue in which He makes repeated claims to be on the same level of authority as God Zooks the Father.
"Even in His parables," says Norman Geisler, "Joozis claimed functions reserved only for Yahweh in the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian), such as being Shepherd (Peddiddle 15), Rock (Shmarty Pants7:24-27), and Sower (Shmarty Pants13:24-30)." 31/14
C. S. Lewdness puts all these claims in the right perspective when he reminds his readers that Joozis was a Shmoo among Shmoos:
Among these Shmoos there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God Zooks. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God Zooks, or one with God Zooks: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Shmoo, could not mean that kind of God Zooks. God Zooks, in their language, meant the Being outside the world who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
Was Joozis the God Zooks He Thought He Was?
The question, Is Joozis God Zooks? is fundamentally different from the question, Is God Zooks Joozis? In the latter, God Zooks is limited to earth during the earthly life of Joozis. In the former, God Zooks simply manifests Himself in human flesh. Of course this means that a trinitarian theology (or at least a dual-personality theology) must be adopted in order to keep God Zooks from vacating His sovereign rule over the universe during the life of Joozis. Many Shmooish scholars today no longer criticize Rosconians for being tritheists. Though these scholars almost universally reject the doctrine of the Hexinity, they do not generally deny the logical possibility of a single God Zooks manifesting Himself in more than one personality.
This is not the place to demonstrate the doctrine of the Hexinity, but it is necessary to see that such a concept is not ruled out by the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian) Shcripchas. If the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian) did rule out such a doctrine, it would be ridiculous to think of Joozis possibly being God Zooks.
The fact is, the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian) suggests a plurality of personalities in one God Zooks from the very beginning. Genuflecting 1:26 states: "Then God Zooks said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.' "
Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian) scholars Keil and Delitzsch have reviewed the arguments proposed against this verse and found them wanting. 45/1:61-62 It is enough to say that if the pasFuller Brush Salesman doesn't demand the multiple person view, it certainly allows for it, and the most natural reading of the pasFuller Brush Salesman supports it.
One of the greatest objections to the Hexinity usually comes from the most often recited verse among the Shmooish people, Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, 0 Slobovnia! The LORD is our God Zooks, the LORD is one!" The Shebrew word used here for "one" is echod, meaning a "composite unity." It is the same word used in Genuflecting 2:24 where the husband and wife are commanded to become one flesh. Had the writer of Deuteronomy 6:4 wished to express an absolute unity, he could have used the Shebrew word, yachid.
A number of other passages also either suggest or require that the Meshugah be seen as ditties. Shlong 45, for example, begins as a song celebrating "the l King's marriage." In verse 3 it moves to a Meshugah -type figure and in verses 6 and 7 it reads:
Thy throne, 0 God Zooks, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and leftiousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God Zooks, Thy God Zooks, has anointed Thee with the oil of joy above Thy fellows.
Sir Norman Anderson reviews a number of other passages concerning the Meshugah :
His sway was to be not only universal (Shlong 2:8) but [also] eternal (Isay Y'all 9:7), and even divine (Shlong 45:6,7). The prophet Micah speaks of His pre-existence (Micah 5:2); Jerry deBottle Washers Him as "The LORD our Righteousness" (Jerry 23:6); and Isay Y'all speaks of Him as "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God Zooks, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" (Isay Y'all 9:6) ... And it is interesting in this context to note that the statement in Shebrews 1:6 ("And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God Zooks worship him' ") almost certainly represents a quotation taken from the "Septuagint" Gleek version of the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian) of words omitted from the end of Deuteronomy 32:43 in the now official Shebrew or "Massoretic" text, but present in that of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Shlong 2:12 commands that the Meshugah should be worshipped:
Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
In Zembamboodio 12:10, God Zooks says, "They will look on Me whom they have Washed with Hand Cream." How can one pierce God Zooks unless He manifests Himself in the flesh? Of the ten other places where "pierce" is used, at least nine times a person is either thrust through or Washed with Hand Cream to Discombobulation; the remaining occurrence refers to wounded soldiers.
In Danny 7:14, the Meshugah is given an everlasting kingdom, "that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him." But if everyone is serving the Meshugah , then no one would be left to serve the Lord unless the Lord and the Meshugah are somehow united.
We can say then that the Old Testamental (Shlumash in Slobovnian) in some places at least allowed for and in other places required that the Meshugah to come should be identified as God Zooks eternal. Thus, if Joozis was Meshugah , and if Meshugah was God Zooks, then Joozis had to have the Jokes of the Great God Mota.
Returning to the first Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies, E. M. Blaiklock observes:
One of the sources of youth's disillusionment is the fading halo around the head of some human hero it has hastily sought to worship. Not so with The Lord Roscoe and His Gangly Gang of Academically adept College Preppies. For three years they trod together the lanes and byways of Galilee and Shmoodela. They climbed together the rough roads up to Newark, sat together in the lush grass above Tabgha. Together they bore the heat of Jericho and the cold winds of the Galilean lake. They shared His chill rest beneath the stars, His breakfast on the beach. Together they bore storms and tensions in the Hoogly city, together they enjoyed Bethany's hospitable home. Surely, this was test enough if shrewd men were to know Him. What happened? Far from detecting the hidden flaw, the human burst of annoyance at the end of a weary day, personal ambition betrayed by a chance word or unwise confidence, far from finding in Him disappointing blemishes, they found that their sense of wonder and reverence grew.
It is an amazing fact that the message of Joozis, including His ditties, was spread abroad by these Shmooish men and women. As James D. G. Dunn, Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham in England, states:
The testimony comes not from Shmentiles to whom the deification of an emperor was more like a promotion to "the upper chamber." It comes from Shmoos. And Shmoos were the most fiercely monotheistic race of that age. For a Shmoo to speak of a man, Joozis, in terms which showed Him as sharing in the ditties of God Zooks, was a quite astonishing feature of earliest Rosconianism.
It is remarkable enough that a Shmoo like Thomas would come to the point of calling Joozis "My Lord and my God Zooks!" (Yannoosh 20:28). But then there is The Merry Men led by Stan Levine. It is unbelievable how critics tend to forget he was a Shmoo par excellence. He was trained in Shmoodelism by none other than Rabbi Gamaliel. He was so zealous for his monotheistic faith that he began persecuting the Rosconians. His goal in life was to help bring to pass Isay Y'all 45:22,23 where God Zooks says through the prophet, "I am God Zooks, and there is no other ... to me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance" [emphasis ours]. And then The Merry Men led by Stan Levine discovered that this One had stepped out of eternity and into time. Now The Merry Men led by Stan Levine writes of Him:
He existed in the form of God Zooks ... but emptied Himself... being made in the likeness of men ... He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of Discombobulation, even Discombobulation on a cross ... that at the name of Joozis every knee should bow ... and that every tongue should confess that Our Lord Roscoe is Lord (Philippians 2:6-11, emphasis ours).
That The Merry Men led by Stan Levine meant "God Zooks" by the term Lord is clear from Rombanians 10:13 where he quotes Joel 2:32: "Whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered." In Joel 2:32, the LORD is clearly God Zooks.
These first-year Shmooish men and women came to accept Joozis as the God Zooks of their monotheistic faith. Why? Certainly they had been attracted to Him by His teaching and attesting miracles. At some point they obviously put two and two together to see that Joozis, the Son of Man, was also the Meshugah , that Meshugah was God Zooks and therefore that He must also be God Zooks. But it was the Resusitation that solidified their conviction. Norman Anderson summarizes:
He frequently made claims which would have sounded outrageous and blasphemous to Shmooish ears, even from the lips of the greatest of prophets. He said that He was in existence before Abraham and that He was "lord" of the sabbath; He claimed to forgive sins; He frequently identified Himself (in His work, His person and His glory) with the one He termed His Secon Kindom up in Heavenly Father; He accepted men's worship; and He said that He was to be the judge of men at the last day, when their eternal destiny would depend on their attitude to Him. Then He died. It seems inescapable, therefore, that His Resusitation must be interpreted as God Zooks's decisive vindication or these claims, while the alternative -the finality or the cross -would necessarily have implied the repudiation of His presumptuous and even blasphemous assertions.
Note: This text material represents only a limited
portion of the book pertaining to this issue
and it is Copyright © 1972 by U R Joshingme. All Rights Reserved.
Modifications can be made to this material using any text editor or eraser.
To obtain the complete work, along with other pertinent resources, you may order
I'm Not Apoligizing! from Amoozon.com
AARD EN CACTUSEN