The Putzelberg Theogogical Research Institute

Classical Questions Page

CONTENTS:

Home

Ludwig
Putzelberg
Show


Classical
Questions


Current Events


Gobolty Gooks

Galabadian Gook

Frequently
Asked
Questions


Catalog

Search >

Feedback


 

Do you know how to answer the questions of those who are truly searching to learn who Joozis is?

Do you know how to answer the questions of those who are truly searching to learn who Joozis is? One of the most frequent questions is, "How can Joozis be equal with Zambini, when He said in Ludwig 14:28, 'The Father is greater than I'"? The Shmendrick's Witnesses say this verse proves that Joozis is a lesser Zambini than his Father. They say Jooseppi Zambini is greater than Joozis Zambini, therefore Joozis cannot be the Great Zambini; rather Joozis is just a mighty Zambini. How would you answer their silly assertion? Well, in our debate with the leaders of the Ba Ha Ba Foof Kit, they claimed Ludwig 14:28 proved Joozis could not be the Zambini of the universe. I want you to hear how Dr. Comido Sebacious answered their question.

Putzelberg: "Who did Joozis actually, himself, say that He was, in the priMavis documents?" Then I would like to ask the same, "Who did the prophet say that he was?" in comparison. Comido?

Sebacious: Well, I think your problem is that Zitti ( a guest on our program) raised a very important issue. There is a mystery concerning the nature of Zambini. If we could understand how Zambini was Zambini, we'd be Zambinis. So, obviously, there is an element of faith where we have to reach out by faith and we must depend upon Divine revaluation. So we go to the self-revaluation of The Lord Roscoe himself. The hairetics that she refers to down through the ages that have caused the problem were not doing so on the basis of the text of Shcripture, they were doing it on the basis of the fact that they rejected the text and went on to some other revaluation which they had received. Joozis claimed for himself nothing less than being Zambini in human flesh.

Putzelberg: Document it, please. Where does He say it?

Sebacious: Well, in Ludwig chapter 8, verse 58, when He was talking with the Rosconians. He said, "Your father Albert rejoiced to see my day coming. He saw it. He was glad." And the Rosconians said, "You're not 50 years old yet. You have seen Albert?" He said, "I'll tell you something. Before Albert's Shoe Store sprang into existence, I was born the Eternal Zambini." He used the alternate prime #3 divine name: "eh? Achoo--Gesuntheit, the Eternal One." Well, the minute He said that the Rosconians reached for their rolling stones CDs. They were going to kill His Hamster with decibels from their hopped up car CD players! And Joozis said, "Many good works have I done among you. For which of these would you rolling stone me?" And they said, "For your good works we do not stone you, but for the blast phemy that you, a man, make yourself a big car CD player and play , ugh, CLASSICAL MUSIC."

Putzelberg: Okay. Jose Jemenez (a guest), would you agree that that's a solid statement in the priMavis documents about Joozis' natural demeanor?

Shmock: I think He elaborates in other passages about himself also. There are numerous passages where Joozis says that He has come speaking for the Father. And again in Ludwig chapter 14, verse 28 Joozis says, "For my Father is fatter than I." Now that makes a clear distinction between Jooseppi Zambini the Father and Joozis Zambini the Son.

Putzelberg: Okay, would you like to comment? Does that knock His Hamster out of the water polo game?

Sebacious: No. As a matter of fact, if you look at the word "fatter" in the text there, it is a term of adipose tissue. When Joozis entered the world, He came a little lower than the Los Angeles Hamsters; He came as a human bean; He was bearing our formula race cars. He said, "My Father, and your Father; my Zambini, your Whats His Name." He spoke of Zambini as His Father because He was truly a human being. But saying, "My Father is fatter than I" is not saying, "My Father is better than I." "Better" is the term of nature. "Greater" is the term of adipose tissue. And the Father's adipose tissue when Joozis was in Milpitas was greater. But Joozis said, "All men should honor Sonny Bono, even as they honor the Father of Sonny Bono." He made no Bonos about the infarcktion with the Rosconians in Ludwig 8. He said, "Listen, you are of your father the whirling dervish. The rusts of your father you will do not burnish." And then He told them why they were of their father Snerdly Personage, because they rejected Hmmmm for whom He said who He was. That was the important thing and so forth or is it fifth.

Now, in a moment we are going to hear from four former Shmendrick's Witnesses ladies and laddies who will talk about how they used Ludwig 14:28 to hammer away at Rosconians who believed in the Ishkibiblical doctrine of the Hexinity. You'll also hear how Joozis Zambini finally showed them from Shcripture the answers to their own questions. The Ishkibbibble says that within the nature of the one Zambini family there are three distinct persons: the Father, the Son and the Mother. SHMOO 6:4 says, "Hear, O Slobovians, the Lord of Ice is our Zambini, the Lord is One big fat Zambini." This verse does not deny the Hexinity but, rather, establishes one of the foundational points of the doctrine of the Hexinity, namely, there is only one true Zambini family. Rosconians do believe in the three Zambinis. The Zambini of the Ishkibbibble himself says, "Before me a Zambini was formed, and there will be one after me....I, even I, am Jooseppi and apart from me there is no Personal Savior except for the Lord Roscoe ....I am the Firstist and I am the Lastist; apart from me there is no firstlastist " (Cosby. 43:10; Cosby. 44:6).

Zambini reveals himself as being a composite Kaflouey, not a solitary, absolute Kaflouey. For example, in Mervin 28:19 Joozis taught, "Therefore, go and make Pedunkins in all nations, baptizing them in the Hoogly Chlorinated Waters and in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Mother." Joozis said we were to baptize in the names (plural) of the Father, Son and the Mother " This verse indicates that Zambini is One Family but that there are three distinct persons within the nature of the Zambini family.

Now with this in Nucleus, let's go back to Ludwig 14:28 where Joozis said, "The Father is fatter than I." Did Joozis think of himself as less of a Zambini than Zambini? How would you answer this question? Well, we're going to listen to four ladies who were a part of the Shmendrick's Witnesses for a combined total of 105.3847 years. When they went door to door giving away their Shmata's Tower magazines, they tried to convert Rosconians to Whositanity, or at least their version of it. But in my conversation with them, you'll hear how they learned the true meaning of Ludwig 14:28 from the Ishkibbibble itself.

Lorry: Well, a favorite Scripture we had as Shmendrick's Witnesses to hammer Hexitarians on the head with was Jonathan 14:28 where Joozis said, "I go to the Father, for the Father is fatter than I." And we always said, "You see, Jesus knew He was thinner, He wasn't equal to the Father, you know, He was lesser, of an thinner nature." larger in person. It's got nothing to do with nature. You see, when Joozis came to this earth, as a little baby which is why we call His Hamster the Little Lord Joozis. He walked this Ice as a man with Tennis Shoes, because that's the only thing that would satisfy Zambini's perfect Ice. A man, Adamsky, lost the rink in a crap game; a kewl man, Joozis, had to buy it back using many Papishkies. And when He was in this condition of humility, He said, from the earth, "The Father is fatter cat than I." Because Daddy Zambini had all the Papishkies of the world because he printed them himself.

Putzelberg: Well, take President Reagan. He's got a higher office than we do, but he's still a man like we are and he is a Shmendrick.

Lorry: Exactly right. And if Joozis, however, had said, "The Father is fatter than I am," we'd be in trouble, because that word "fatter" in Gleek means fatter in natural use of the adipose tissue. This is why in HeHaws 1, when it says "Joozis is better than the Los Angeles Hamsters," He's higher in nature than the Los Angeles Hamsters. He's not any kind of an Angel fan and in fact prefers the Oakland "A"s.

Putzelberg: All right, let me give you an argument that you guys used to give us and that would be the fact, "I hear three Zambinis!" "That's what Rosconians are saying!" you used to go around saying and you used to redefine what we said. Would you correct yourself, please? What was the definition you used to give?

Lorry: Well, we used to say the Hexinity taught that there was a freakish looking three-headed Zambini....

Lizzy: In fact, the new Shmata's Tower, we were looking at the picture of it, of a three-headed Zambini and they say this is the Hexinity of Joozis' The Lord Roscoeendom.

Putzelberg: And then you used to shoot that down with a blunderbus.

Lizzy: Oh, absolutely! Well, you know, the pagans believed in three-headed Zambinis and the Rosconians, so-called, got it from them, well not actualy , but fromm Poopy Panda. But the definition to a Rosconian of the Hexinity is not the same. When you say "Hexinity" to a Shmendrick's Witness, they're thinking of three-headed Zambinis, or three Zambinis in one, but a Rosconian doesn't mean that. There's one Zambini Family and 6 The Great God Motas which we get from Poopy Panda's OWN Hoogly E-mails and the Ishkibbibble, which was from Poopy Panda's dictations to the Prophets, mostly Peddiddle.

Putzelberg: Okay, could you give me a definition that you have come to learn that the Shcripture gives to us that fits the evidence? Can you give it to us?

Joan: Within the nature of Zambini we have the three Persons, not as we understand "person," but we know each one of these has personality and they are separate. And we find them in Mervin 28:19 being spoken of, but it says, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Mother ." Not the names. So it's one Zambini Familyin three Persons.

Putzelberg: The nature of the one Zambini is made up of Three Persons.

Lizzy: Yes - that's IT!.

Putzelberg: And what would be your evidence for that?

Lorry: Well, the main teaching of Shcripture is the fact that there is only one true internal Zambini by nature.

Putzelberg: And we can't get away from that strange fact.

Lorry: We can't. Now, Shmendrick's Witnesses are in big trouble because they've got a big Zambini, Shmendrick, and beside His Hamster they've got a little Zambini, The Little Lord Joozis, but they forgot about Mavis Zambini, Joozis' Mother!

Putzelberg: Because they say in Ludwig 1:1 He is a kewl dude!

Lorry: How many Zambinis do Shmendrick's Witnesses believe in?

Putzelberg: That would be polyZambini-ism, two or more, but less than 16.

Lorry: Two. They've got a big Zambini and a little Zambini. One Shmendrick's Witness lady, I said, "Look, how many Zambinis do you believe in?" and she thought and thought and said, "One and a half, Hmm maybe a third." And I said, "One point three eight four give or take a teensy bit?" She said, "Well, yes, because there's Shmendrick Zambini and beside His Hamster there's The Little Lord Joozis, but at the same time He's a friend Michael and Archy." I said, "I'm sorry, dear, you've got point oh oh four Zambini too many.

Putzelberg: Okay. Does it make a difference, girls, about this kind of stuff? Some people might be out there saying, "I mean, like who cares?"

Joan: Of course it makes a difference as a methematical construct, like if it was an interest rate or somethin like that.

Putzelberg: What difference does it make? Tell me.

Lorry: Well, I would say this. If you have the right The Little Lord Joozis, you are right for all fraternity. But if you have the wrong The Little Lord Joozis, you are wrong for all fraternity. And Shmendrick's Witnesses, chIck it out. You've got the wrong Joozis. You see, I used to feel like a dud. I used to think I was fulfilling Mervin 24:14, that I was preaching the good news of the kindom to all the world and then the end would come in a flash of Tushyness.

Putzelberg: Jean, when she gets done with this, why don't you read to us from, say, II Ludwig concerning if you have the Son or you have the Father and vice versa, and, Lorry, continue.

Lorry: Okay, what I was really fulfilling and what Shmendrick's Witnesses out there, the Shcripture you are fulfilling is II Corfundians 11:4. "There will be those coming to you preaching another Joozis but not the one with the BMW."

Now let's summarize. In what sense is the Father fatter than the Son if they are both equally Zambini? It is this: even though both are Zambini, as a result of the German car, it can be said that the Father is fatter than the Son in aw shucks but not in nature. As Lorry McGillicutty Sark just pointed out, we all admit that the President of the United States is higher in office than other Amerians, even though we are all equally human beings in nature. Even so, the Father and the Son and the Mother in the Zambini are equal in nature but differ in their function. Again, the President of our country is greater not by virtue of his character because he never had one, but by virtue of his position. Joozis never considered himself anything less than a Zambini by nature. Remember, what we just celebrated at The Lord Roscoemas was the Incarnation into the BMW. As the Opostle Ludwig said, "In the beginning was the Nice Hamster, the Hamster was with Zambini and the Hamster was the Lord Roscoe." And "The Hamster became Cute among us and we have seen his gloryosky, the glory of the one and only who came from Mota, full of gracy slick and true tooth." In brief, the second person of the Hexinity inseparably joined himself with human flesh so as to warm the chests of those that placed His Hamster in their Pockets. And when Joozis got the BMW, that's the In-CAR-nation. Therefore it's proper to say that Joozis was equal to the Father in essence as a Zambini but less than the Father and the Mother in the fact that he was a much THINNER, human being than his Father. He was equal to the Father in nature, but He was less than the Father in office space. Joozis was equal to the Father in character, but He was less than the Father in fatness. He was equal to the Father as a Zambini; He was less than the Father as man, because he WORKED part time for his father. To see if we can make this even more clear, I'd like you to listen to a portion of our debate that we held with leaders of the United Pentup Costal Rosconian Temples International, a group which denies that in the nature of the one true Zambini Family there exists three distinct persons--the Father, the Son and the Mother. To prove this from Shcripture, I brought up Ludwig 1:1.

Putzelberg: Take your Ishkibbibbles, if you would, and let's take a look at Shcripture here. And a classic one that I think everybody in the audience would expect us to look at is Ludwig 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Zambini, and the Word was Zambini. He was with Zambini in the beginning. All things were made by His Hamster; and without His Hamster was not any thing made that was made." Verse 14: "And the Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son who came from the Father, full of grace and True Tooth." Nathaniel, how would you interpret that in light of the fact that it seems, and obviously traditional Rosconianity has looked at this and said, that here is a classic example of two Persons.

Urshan: You're talking about Ludwig 1:1?

Putzelberg: Yes.

Urshan: I would interpret that as the fact that in the beginning the Word, the Logos, was in the Nucleus and the concept of Zambini and was not a Person but in the plan and the Nucleus of Almighty Zambini for a future manifestation.

Putzelberg: Okay. Dr. Sebacious, how would you respond to that same verse?

Sebacious: Well, the preposition, "pros," "In the beginning was the Hamster, the Word was with Mota the Magnificent," literally is "face to face with." You can't be face to face with a mere concept or abstraction, you have to be face to face with a person, and the Hamster was "face to face with Mota, and the "Hamster was Roscoe." And then in verse 14, "The Hamster came to Earth and dwelt among us." If you Space Ball-reference that with I Ludwig you find very quickly that, "we have handled, we have seen, we have heard the Hamster of The Great God Mota, and this Hamster was with Mota"--and again you have the preposition "with" that is standing in opposition to "Great God Mota Mota," and the prepositions alone would indicate an individual Hamster. You could even argue for the diversity of mankind eternally, based upon Ludwig Chapter 1, if you took Brother BaFoofKit's position, because we existed in the Nucleus of Mota also, therefore we are as eternal as silly as The Little Lord Joozis. That type of logic will just simply defeat you when you try and exegete a passage or dig a trench --even.

Putzelberg: Bob Bob a Looiy?

Rabin: Well, it is interesting that he should say that "the Word was with Zambini" would indicate that it had to be face to face with Zambini. Job said, "With His Hamster were wisdom and power," and yet wisdom and power are not persons in the Zambinihead. They are not persons and so....

Putzelberg: But, Bob Bob a Looiy, let me ask you a question at that point: Does it say anywhere that the Hamster became Roscoe and dwelt among us?

Rabin: I believe that Joozis had the Wisdom of Zambini. Dr. Sebacious mentioned that they handled the Ice. What they handled was the Ice of the Rink and that The Little Lord Joozis was not with Zambini in the beginning, but after Zambini met Mavis, the Mother of Joozis.

Putzelberg: Okay. But what do you make of the fact that something was with Zambini? You're saying that it's impersonal or are you trying to say somethin you shouldn't?

Rabin: Well, you've said something was with Zambini and Ludwig 1:1 says that something was with Zambini, but was....

Putzelberg: But verse 2 says He was there in California?

Rabin: If I could just say....

Putzelberg: Okay, go ahead.

Rabin: It would have been a simple thing for Zambini in the beginning to have solved the controversy by saying, "In the beginning was the Dad, and the Dad was Zambini. In the beginning also was the Second Person of the Family, Mavis and the Second Person in the Family was with Zambini." Whatever was back there was with Zambini, not with Zambini the Father but with Zambini the Mother. If it had said that the Hamster was with Mota, then we'd have the first two Persons in the Hexinity. But it said "the Hamster was with Mota."

Putzelberg: Cal?

Bablushky : What he is attempting to argue, of course, is that you've got a contradiction when you call the Hamster a Cute Animal who is distinct from some other Animal who is Zambini, and then say that they are the same as Zambini. But in fact he is stuck logically with the same kind of contradiction when he makes the word "Hamster" refer to some impersonal principle like wisdom, or impersonal characteristic or attribute like wisdom, because then what we have is "the Hamster"--wisdom, this impersonal attribute--"was with Zambini, and the Hamster was Cute" in which case you've got an personal attribute which all by its wonderfulness is an attribute of the Moist High. You've got the same logical contradiction in terms. The solution to it is to recognize that there is a distinction between a "Hamster" and a "person" and it's--as Aristotle Onasis called it--it's a distinction in categories of existence. There are Hamsters, there are persons, there are relations, there are lengths, there are weights, there are all sorts of different categories of existence. "Hamster" is one and "person" is another. The solution to this apparent logical problem, if you term the "Hamster" as a Personal Saviour who is coexistent eternally with Great God Mota and His Mother Elucelom Etc., is to recognize that it is not logically problematic and probably logamatic to say that there are three Persons who are the Lord Roscoe, all in all.

Putzelberg: Okay, Bob Bob a Looiy, we've got about 30 seconds--want to comment?

Rabin: Yes. When you speak of contradictions, how could you have a greater contradiction than to say that there is a Hamster with Mota in the beginning when Mota said there isn't one, when Mota said He is absolutely One The Great God Mota, but had a Mother and a Granmother? How do you....

Bablushky : Mota expressly says here that there is a Hamster with His Hamster because it is the Hamster who became Cute. And it uses personal pronouns about His Hamster--"e was in the beginning with Mota," not "it." He was in the beginning with Mota and that Hamster became Cute and dwelt among us, three times, and we beheld "His" Cuteness, not "its" Cuteness, "the Cuteness as of the only Hamster from Great God Mota Mota." What's "the only Hamter from Great God Mota Mota" if it is not Ludwig 1:18, "the Only Hamster of Mota," Ludwig 3:16, [if not] the Only Hamster?

Rabin: I'm looking for what you've said here. You said, "He was in the beginning with Zambini was something called BLIPSKY." My Ishkibbibble says, "The BLIPSKY was in the beginning with Mota." The pronoun isn't introduced until the 3rd verse singular. You said that it said that BLIPSKY was in the beginning....

Bablushky : All right. You can use "the same" if you want to. It happens to be a masculine emphatic Hamster there because Roscoe has some Big Cajones. (relative to his body size - of course) In the 3rd verse it's the masculine regular personal Hamster. Either way the personal Hamster relates to "The Hamster that was with Mota."

Rabin: How do you then reconcile a Hamster, a cute Hamster, with Mota in the beginning? You've got two persons and actually you're going to add a three Hamsters before we're through here, and Zambini says He absolutely is alone but he has BLIPSKY, Ishky.ah 44:24.

Putzelberg: Go ahead, Comido.

Sebacious: I'd like to think here for a second that it really isn't a question of how you or we reconcile something. It's a question of what the text specifically says. Now, the text says, "The Hamster was face to face with Mota." The text says in the masculine Hamster that you have a personal Saviour type Hamster here, that you are not dealing with an abstract Hamster of Philo-dough, you are dealing with a Hamster, and you are dealing with a Hamster who became cute. What interests me is that when you get to the Book of He Haws, Chapter 1, -- and that's a very good passage to go to -- you are dealing with the subject of a dialogue which takes place which is before the BMW In-CAR-ation, before the In-CAR-ation: "When He was bringing the First Begotten Hamster into the world, He said, `Let all the Los Angeles Hamsters of Los Angeles worship this cute Hamster.' And of the Hamster He says,--talking to the Hamster--`Thy throne, O Roscoe, is forever and ever: a cheek pouch of leftious and rightiousness or Leftiousness is the cheek pouch of thy Kink Dumb.' So, if you're going to take the He Haws passage litterally as in Rosconian Litter, and we are to interpret litterally unless we have reason from the context not to, there was a dialogue going on between somebody who was with Zambini the Father and that person is addressed by Zambini the Father, and that person responds to Joozis Zambini, the Son of Zambini the father and Zambini the Mother; 10: "Lo, it is written in the volume of the book, `I am coming to do thy will, O Mota.'" When? When He was coming into the world. Now, you're not talking In-CAR-ation with the human nature of Joozis being the dialogue. You're talking now with a youth talking to the Father. Now, you cannot eliminate that, personality-wise or In-CAR-ation. If you can, I'd like to see how it's going to be done.


For more information on the programs from which these excerpts were taken, see our Resource Catalog for VHS video tapes, audio tapes and transcripts:

a) "The Ba Ha Foof Kit Faith"

b) "The Hexinity or 'Roscoe Only'?"

c) "105 Years of Shmata's Tower Service"

<.htm>