White Jesus

Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes
Long as I have my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
I could go a hundred miles an hour
Long as I got the almighty power
Glued up there with my pair of fuzzy dice

{Refrain - repeat between verses}
Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Through all trials and tribulations
We will travel every nation
With my plastic Jesus I'll go far

I don't care if it rains or snowses
Long as I got my plastic Moses
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Through all trials and tribulations
We will travel every nation
Me and plastic Moses will go far

I don't care if it rains or freezes
As long as I've got my plastic Jesus
Glued to the dashboard of my car
You can buy Him phosphorescent
Glows in the dark, He's pink and pleasant
Take Him with you when you're travelling far

I don't care if it's dark or scary
Long as I have magnetic Mary
Ridin' on the dashboard of my car
I feel I'm protected amply
I've got the whole damn holy family
Riding on the dashboard of my car

You can buy a sweet Madonna
Dressed in rhinestones sitting on a
Pedestal of abalone shell
Goin' ninety, I'm not wary
'Cause I've got my virgin Mary
Guaranteeing I won't go to Hell

I don't care what they say, I'm gonna
Keep on prayin' to that pink Madonna
Melted to the dashboard of my car
Goin' ninety, I'm not wary
'Cause I've got my Virgin Mary
Guaranteeing I won't go to Hell

I don't care if it bumps or jostles
Long as I got the twelve apostles
Bolted to the dashboard of my car
Don't I have a pious mess
Such a crowd of holiness
Strung across the dashboard of my car

When pedestrians try to cross
I let them know who's boss
I never blow my horn or give them warning
I ride all over town
Trying to run them down
And it's seldom that they live to see the morning

{As refrain}
Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
His halo fits just right
And I use it as a sight
And they'll scatter or they'll splatter near and far

God made Christ a holy Jew
God made Him a Christian too
Paradoxes populate my car
Joseph beams with a feigned elan
From the shaggy dash of my furlined van
Famous cuckold in the master plan

Naughty Mary, smug and smiling
Jesus dainty and beguiling
Knee-deep in the piling of my van
His message clear by night or day
My phosphorescent plastic gay
Simpering from the dashboard of my van

{As refrain}
Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Once his robe was snowy white
Now it isn't quite so bright
Stained by the smoke of my cigar

When I'm goin' fornicatin'
I got my ceramic Satan
Sinnin' on the dashboard of my Winnebago motor home
The women know I'm on the level
Thanks to the wild-eyed stoneware devil
Ridin' on the dashboard of my Winnebago motor home
Sneerin' from the dashboard of my Winnebago motor home
Leering from the dashboard of my van

I don't care if I'm broke or starvin'
As long as I've got a fish named Darwin
Glued to the trunk lid of my car
God, I'm feeling so evolved
Drivin' with my problems solved
Proclaiming what I think of what we are

Riding home one foggy night
With my honey cuddled tight
I missed a curve and off the road we veered
My windshield got smashed-up good
And my darling graced the hood
Plastic Jesus, He had disappeared

{As Refrain}
Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus,
No longer chides me with His holy grin
Doctors in the X-ray room
Found Him in my darling's womb
Someday, He'll be born again!

I don't care if it rains or freezes
Long as I got my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
He's the dude with the rusty nails
Walks on water, don't need no sails
Riding on the dashboard of me car

I don't care if the night is scary
As long as I got the virgin Mary
Sittin' on the dashboard of my car
She don't slip and she don't slide
'Cause her ass is magnetized
Sittin' on the dashboard of my car

Well . . . there you have it . . . proof positive.

For Homer, there is no more evidence of his existence than there is for the putative Jesus. However, for Tiberius Caesar, there are also coins and monumental inscriptions--but most crucially, there are contemporary records. There are no contemporary records for your boy Jesus. You are absolutely wrong about the manuscripts used to compile the so-called new testament. There are no manuscripts which date from earlier than the early fourth century, three hundred years after your boy was alleged to have died.

I accept the works of Homer as genuine, without worrying whether or not a Homer ever existed--because one is trying to tell me he was god, nor attempting to tell me or anyone else how we should live because of allegations they make about Homer. As for Tiberius, you're playing fast and loose with the truth.

There is a monumental inscription near Ankara, the capital of modern Turkey, which is called the Res Gestae Divi Augusti. It lists the deeds (gestae) of Caesar Augustus. The eighth paragraph mentions Tiberius, whom Augustus refers to as his son. That is not unusual, because Romans routinely adopted boys and men as their heirs, and in Roman law and custom, they were thereafter considered the sons of the man adopting them. Octavian himself, who became Caesar Augustus, was adopted in that manner by Iulius Caesar. The reference to Tiberius is in the eighth pararaph, which also happens to be the part of the inscription which shows the census story in the new testament to be bullshit. Augustus writes (by proxy, of course, no one would assume he carved the inscription himself):

And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague . . .

For most of history in the last two thousand years, serious scholars doubted whether or not Pontius Pilate actually existed, and some scholars went so far as to declare he did not, because of the lack of records. However, in 1961, and Israeli archaeological team, excavating the site of Caesarea Maratima, the capital of the prefecture of Iudaeae (Judea), found this inscription:



The text exhibited here is:

TIBERIUM,,
(PON)TIUS
(PRAEF)ECTUS IUDA(EAE)

Not only does it provide historical evidence in an incontrovertible context that Pontius Pilate existed, it also provides two other crucial pieces of evidence. One is that Tiberius actually was the emperor, because it is the dedicatory inscription of a coliseum, dedicated to Tiberius. It also shows that, once again, the new testament is full of ****. Pilate was a Prefect (praefectus), not a proconsul, as the new testament claims. In fact, the office of proconsul did not even exist at that time--the first proconsul in Iudaeae was not appointed until 44 CE.

So, you're really full of it when you claim that the new testament is "more accurate." In fact, you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Does it now? I apologize to all who are not interested in this particular argument in advance.

Firstly, I'm not 'making **** up as I go along.' Quite frankly you should not assume that simply because you have never heard it. In fact, I already told you my sources! Check them yourself if you don't believe me!

I have read ALL of the New Testament, and your assertion is quite frankly absurd that Paul or someone after him wrote everything!

We have abundant accurate copies of the original New Testament documents - many more than that for the ten best pieces of ancient literature COMBINED!

Historical research has shown that a myth about an event cannot take hold until the original eyewitnesses are dead and gone. Don't believe me? There're people now saying the holocaust never happened. Most of the eyewitnesses of the holocaust are at this point dead.

Before I continue, I have another point to make.
Hypothetically, let's say a sailor who served on the USS Arizona wrote a book chronicling its voyages. It ends with the ship still sailing and serving. Would you tell me this book is written before or after Pearl Harbor? When the USS Arizona, along with the 1177 or so sailors on board sank?
The point is that if you're writing about a place and said place gets destroyed before you finish writing, it is logical to assume that you will put that in if you are trying to record the history of that place, right?

The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70A.D.

There is NO mention of the temple being destroyed in the NT, except in a prophetic sense(Jesus himself predicted it). Now, not only did none of the writers of the NT - Jewish, all of them, except possibly Luke - mention the war the Jews waged against Rome or the subsequent destruction of the temple, but they referred to the temple in their various books and it was still functioning as it always had.
It is therefore most logical to assume that the NT was written prior to 70 A.D.

Now, it is also logical to say that many of them were written prior to 62 A.D.

Luke wrote Acts. There are 82 historically verified details(details like the depth of the water roughly 1/4 mile off Malta before their ship ran aground) in Acts. It is plain to see Luke had a thing for facts and details. He was a doctor after all.
Acts chronicles the early church, much of it is centered around Paul. We know that Paul was executed under the reign of Nero, whose reign ended in 68 A.D.
If you are recording the acts of a man(a modern parallel may be JFK or MLK Jr.) and that man is killed before you finish writing your book about him, and you have an affinity for fact and detail, you would put that in there!
Since Paul's death is not mentioned(nor is James's death in 62A.D., that is James the brother of Jesus) it is logical to assume this was written before it happened.
Before you try to assail my logic, this is precisely the logic used by the experts in these fields to determine when something was written.
That puts these documents CONCLUSIVELY(at least if you accept archaeological evidence and deductive reasoning as valid) at 62 or before. That's a mere ~30 years after Jesus's death. Which means that the facts still overpowered the myth(nobody in the 60's or 70's would have questioned the holocaust).

And no worries about the numerical issue, I already addressed that and it's tangential anyway... though I suppose so is this entire post I'm putting up now.

Apparently, you are unable to distinguish between what people claim, and what people can factually demonstrate. There is no copy of what is called the new testament which is any older than the early 4th century. People claim the texts are older than that, but they have no physical evidence to that effect. Have you ever heard of Origen? (I doubt if you have, but if you have, i'd have to consider you a shameless deceiver.)

contemporary records are exactly what I just told you there are... there were 10 NON-CHRISTIANS who wrote about Jesus, only 9 who wrote about Tiberius.

Your argument about the manuscripts is false. That is simply that.

"I accept the works of Homer as genuine, without worrying whether or not a Homer ever existed--because one is trying to tell me he was god, nor attempting to tell me or anyone else how we should live because of allegations they make about Homer. As for Tiberius, you're playing fast and loose with the truth."

So you admit that you are letting your motivations obscure your accepting of Jesus because - unlike Homer- it has implications in your life.

And as far as calling me names... Is that at all necessary? Does it help your arguments to show that you have an emotional attachment to them by being so hostile?

I don't quite know how to put this so you'll understand, but...

he's still being very nice...

Whom, the word you wanted was whom. Please be so kind as to list these ten alleged authors, and be prepared to be called a liar. I have made no such admission--your reading comprehension is at fault. I'm saying whether or not Homer actually existed is not important, but that the bullshit stories about your boy Jesus matter because of the millions of clowns in this world who attempt to use those stories to control or manipulate the lives of others.

It is not calling you names to say that if you know who Origen was, but persist in your claims about the "gospels," that you are a willful deceiver. By the way, you never answered that question.

No, there is indisputable(atleast all the people who professionally study the field seem to agree on that) evidence that the NT was written before 70A.D.
Heck, Paul had to write all his letters before he died, didn't he?
But I guess that your argument is that the only surviving manuscripts we have are after 300 A.D.
I'm quoting Fredric Kenyon - an authority on the study of ancient manuscripts
"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the NT, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."

Now to the bible scholar William Lillie, in reference to 1 Corinthians 15, which gives evidence of many eyewitnesses to Jesus(more than 500 altogether).

"What gives a special authority to the list as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect: "if you don not believe me, you can ask them." Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago."

And over to the once-liberal archaeologist William F Albright
"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about A.D. 80."

In fact, nearly all scholars believe that 1 Cor. 15 can be traced back to between 1 1/2 years to 8 years after Christ!

Even atheist John A T Robinson, who had a role in launching the "Death of God" movement admits in his book Redating the New Testament that most NT books, including all 4 gospels, were written between 40 and 65.

I am no authority on these topics, but they are.

They are Josephus, Tacitus(the Roman historian), Pliny the Younger(a Roman politician), Phlegon(a freed slave who wrote histories), Thallus(a 1st century historian), Seutonius(a Roman historian), Lucian(Greek satirist), Celsus(Roman philosopher), Mara Bar-Serapion(private citizen writing to his son), and the Talmud.

And I'm assuming you mean about Origen.
Yes I know a bit about him. Please enlighten me about why he is particularly special.

Oh, and as for the manuscript dates. There are complete NT book manuscripts dated to 200A.D. Not the full NT, I misinterpreted it when I read it at first. But full NT books as early as 200 AD.
The earliest completely undisputed manuscript is a section of John 18, called the John Rylands fragment. It is dated between AD 117 and 138.

Mr. Kenyon, director of the British Museum in the early 20th century made a claim, he did not provide evidence. It now also seems apparent that you know nothing about historiography. Kenyon was a devoted and devout christian. Therefore, he had a stake in claiming that what he believed is true. Therefore, he is a suspect witness. Had he said "we have copies of these documents which date from the first century," and had been able to back up the claim, he'd be worth taking seriously. When, however, he makes claims and simply asserts that they are true, while leaning on his educational credentials, he is perpetrating the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, which is basically saying "everybody in the know believes this." It's bad logic, and it is historiographically suspect. He is speaking ex cathedra, and not relying on evidence which anyone else can check.

I don't really care if your boy Jesus did exist. That's not important. It's the bullshit stories which are made up about him which matter. The gospel writers cannot even agree with one another about events. The closest correlations are between the synoptic evangelists--but John is the only evangelist who is alleged to have personally known your boy Jesus, and he is not one of the synoptic evangelists. There are serious problems with texts about which claims are made, but for which the only existant copies are almost three hundred years younger than the text which they are claimed to faithfully represent.

And there's another big problem, and that is that the gospels contradict one another, and are contradicted by history. Augustus, in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti lists all the lustra (what the gospels inaccurately describe as a census) which he conducted in his lifetime. None of them are even close to a reasonable date for the birth of your putative Jesus. This isn't a problem for me, but it is a serious problem for people who claim that scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant. If this scripture is inerrant, explain why the two geneologies given contradict one another. Don't try that one is a geneology of Joseph and the other of Mary dodge, either. That is a claim external to the text as it is written.

You still haven't told me if you know who Origen was.

Wrong.

Yes, Paul wrote his letters before he died. Those that are considered authentic are certainly dated during his lifetime. They, in many cases, are not indisputably accurate --- ESPECIALLY by people who professionally study the field. Those that are attributed to him by a later scribe, and the authentic letters that were modified (accidentally or intentionally) by scribes post-date him, as do the canonical gospels.

Make up your mind, are they "full NT manuscripts" or not? Please tell us where these manuscripts are kept. If your Ryland's fragment is genuine, and the dating is accurate, can you prove that no changes were made in the text in the century between when your boy Jesus is said to have died and when that fragment was written?

Ryland was a cotton mill owner, not a biblical scholar. The papyrus fragment found is not universally dated as you claim. There is a good deal of skepticism among antiquarians about the earliest projected dates. The problem you have is that even if John was only a teen ager when your boy Jesus died, he would have had to have been well over 90, and probably over one hundred years of age to have actually written the fragment himself. Which means there was ample scope for someone to have altered the text in copying it to the fragment, or just to have made mistakes.

One swallow does not a summer make. One fragment does not make the entire text of the so-called new testament accurate.

This is absolute bullshit!

Intro to 1 Corinthians from NRSV "The first letter of Paul to the Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul abut 54 C.E."

Not only do "nearly all scholars" NOT believe that 1 Corinthians can be traced back to between 1.5 and 8 years after Christ, the BIBLE doesn't even make that claim!!!

You still haven't answered the question about Origen. Do you know who Pamphilus and Eusebius were?

Pulling up a chair to watch....

Rockhead, you want some popcorn?

vivesections give me an appy-tight.

nah, it sticks in me teeth.

you got any of that goat yogurt left...?