found this on another site, loved it.
One day Egyptian A met Egyptian B.
Egyptian A: Hey, did you hear that Pharaoh made Joseph the Lord of all Egypt?
Egyptian B: Ya don't say?
Egyptian A: Yup. Lord of the whole estate.
Egyptian B: Isn't that something?
Egyptian A: Yep, One Pharaoh of Egypt and One Lord of Egypt.
Egyptian B: So Joseph is Pharaoh of Egypt?
Egyptian A: Wha? No, we have one Lord and one Pharaoh. Joseph is Lord of Egypt not the Pharaoh. What are you talking about?
Egyptian B: Is Pharaoh not the Lord of Egypt?
Egyptian A: Of course. But he handed this authority over to Joseph.
Egyptian B: Well if Pharaoh is Lord and Joseph is Lord, how can you then say that Joseph is not Pharaoh?
Egyptian A: Because Joseph cannot make Pharaoh Lord. Only Pharaoh can give Joseph his Lordship authority. It's pretty elementary don't you think? Is it not plain what I mean when I say Pharaoh has made Joseph the Lord of all Egypt and so now we have one Pharaoh and one Lord? How can you then presume one must conclude that Joseph is Pharaoh.
Egyptian B: Well you said we have one Lord of all Egypt. Is there one Lord or two?
Egyptian A: One Lord, One Pharoah.
Egyptian B: Who is the one Lord?
Egyptian A: Joseph.
Egyptian B: Is Pharaoh not Lord too?
Egyptian A: Not for us. He is Lord to Joseph. For us the one Lord of Egypt is Joseph because Pharaoh gave him that authority. He is the one to whom we submit while Joseph submits to Pharaoh.
Egyptian B: Do you not see that if you say there is one Pharaoh and one Lord that you exclude Pharaoh from also being Lord?
Egyptian A: No, I don't see. So then are you suggesting that it is absolutely incorrect for me to say that for us "there is one Pharaoh and one Lord" unless I also insist that Joseph is also Pharaoh?
---------------------
How does Egyptian B reply to his question? Yes? Or No?
No
:cloud9: One Spirit, but different diversities, thereof. :laughing7: