roger.pearse@googlemail.com wrote:

Why do you lie on something that can be so easily checked Roger the Liar
Pearse?

Let me add that which you snipped. Anyone with half a brain (I sorry but
you do not rise to that level) can see that I provide both the evidence and
the links so the reader can check to see if I got something wrong.

-------Roger's dishonest snip---------------------

So earlychristianwritings.com is an atheist hate-pamphlet?

-----quote from the letter I Clement---------
CHAPTER 25 25:1 Let us consider the wonderful sign that happeneth in the
region of the east, even about Arabia.

25:2 There is a bird which is called the phoenix. This, being the only one
of its kind, liveth for five hundred years. And when the time of its death
draweth near, it maketh for itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh and the
other perfumes, into which, when its time is fulfilled, it entereth, and
then dieth.

25:3 But as its flesh rotteth, a certain worm is produced, which being
nourished by the moisture of the dead animal, putteth forth feathers. Then,
when it hath become strong, it taketh the nest wherein are the bones of its
ancestor, and bearing them, it flieth from the region of Arabia to that of
Egypt, to the city which is called Heliopolis;

25:4 there, in day-time, in the sight of all, it flieth up, and placeth them
upon the altar of the sun, and having done so, returneth back.

25:5 The priests, therefore, look into the registers of the times, and find
that it has come at the completion of the five-hundredth year.

CHAPTER 26

26:1 Shall we then think it great and wonderful, if the Maker of all things
shall make a resurrection of those who, in the confidence of a good faith,
have piously seized him, when even by means of a bird he showeth the
greatness of his promises?

26:2 For he saith in a certain place, And thou shalt raise me up, and I will
give thanks unto thee; and again: I slumbered and slept; I arose up because
thou art with me.

26:3 And again Job saith, Thou shalt raise up this my flesh, which hath
suffered all these things.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
-------------end of quote on Phoenix by I Clement-----------

And this Catholic Encyclopedia site confirms the quote:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
And this:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-03-53.html
And this:
http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/LOSTBOO2.htm
And this:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Indices/churchwriters/apostle/1Clement.html
And this:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0070_clement_first.html

Furthermore I provide links to 7,000 other sites that repeat Chapter 25
produced by various translators and not one of them are atheists' pamphlets
nor atheists' websites.  You are an unabashed LIAR Roger Pearse and you
know that you are lying.

----------end of Roger's dishonest snipping--------
But notice the dishonest trick Roger is using here.  He snips enough so that
the Reader who has not read the post to which he is replying thinks we are
talking about Augustine, when that reference is plainly one to Clement and
his belief in a 500 year old phoenix that turns to ash and is reborn.  

Typical fundie trait.  Roger knows all those dishonest tactics and uses them
without regret.

How stupid can you be Roger.  I plainly listed several very conservative
Christian websites that had the material.  Are you saying that every one of
them are in a conspiracy with Wheless?  There are also at least 7000 more
Christian websites with the same material.  Are we to believe that even
though they do not hold the same doctrines as each other that they decided
just this one time to conspire together and use Wheless?

And to demonstrate Roger's stupidity and propensity to lie, he snips the
fact that the above was about I Clement and not about Augustine.  Wheless
had nothing to do with the topic.

There goes that idiotic smile again.  While not pretend you are normal and
stop broadcasting you need your meds by using smiles when they are not
warranted?

I showed links from conservative Christine websites including that of the
Roman Catholic Church.
Also in:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm
http://tinyurl.com/275ovz

I did not use Wheless.  Unlike you Roger, unless something is so obvious as
to be common knowledge among scholars, I provide evidence of what I write
and for the sake of inclusiveness and completeness, I also provide the
links so the readers can see for themselves what I write is not quote
mined.

And how would an admitted AMATEUR like yourself know what "people who
actually know the works of Augustine" know?  They don't teach this stuff in
kindergarden, the level at which you are comfortable with your research.

Now you also have another problem with your stupid little assertions.  The
Latin manuscripts we have of Augustine's writings.  Did some 16th century
scribes go back and forge the text some three centuries before Wheless was
born, just to join this worldwide conspiracy?  

Here is the Latin text:

Quaeritur etiam, utrum ex filiis Noe uel potius ex illo uno homine, unde
etiam ipsi extiterunt, propagata esse credendum sit quaedam monstrosa
hominum genera, quae gentium narrat historia, sicut perhibentur quidam unum
habere oculum in fronte media, quibusdam plantas uersas esse post crura,
quibusdam utriusque sexus esse naturam et dextram mammam uirilem, sinistram
muliebrem, uicibusque inter se coeundo et gignere et parere; aliis ora non
esse eosque per nares tantummodo halitu uiuere, alios statura esse
cubitales, quos Pygmaeos a cubito Graeci uocant, alibi quinquennes
concipere feminas et octauum uitae annum non excedere. Item ferunt esse
gentem, ubi singula crura in pedibus habent nec poplitem flectunt, et sunt
mirabilis celeritatis; qu os Sciopodas uocant, quod per aestum in terra
iacentes resupini umbra se pedum protegant; quosdam sine ceruice oculos
habentes in umeris, et cetera hominum uel quasi hominum genera, quae in
maritima platea Carthaginis musiuo picta sunt, ex libris deprompta uelut
curiosioris historiae. Quid dicam de Cynocephalis, quorum canina capita
atque ipse latratus magis bestias quam homines confitetur? Sed omnia genera
hominum, quae dicuntur esse, credere non est necesse. Verum quisquis uspiam
nascitur homo, id est animal rationale mortale, quamlibet nostris
inusitatam sensibus gerat corporis formam seu colorem siue motum siue sonum
siue qualibet ui, qualibet parte, qualibet qualitate naturam: ex illo uno
protoplasto originem ducere nullus fidelium dubitauerit. Apparet tamen quid
in pluribus natura obtinuerit et quid sit ipsa raritate mirabile.

Qualis autem ratio redditur de monstrosis apud nos hominum partubus, talis
de monstrosis quibusdam gentibus reddi potest. Deus enim creator est
omnium, qui ubi et quando creari quid oporteat uel oportuerit, ipse nouit,
sciens uniuersitatis pulchritudinem quarum partium uel similitudine uel
diuersitate contexat. Sed qui totum inspicere non potest, tamquam
deformitate partis offenditur, quoniam cui congruat et quo referatur
ignorat. Pluribus quam quinis digitis in manibus et pedibus nasci homines
nouimus; et haec leuior est quam ulla distantia; sed tamen absit, ut quis
ita desipiat, ut existimet in numero humanorum digitorum errasse Creatorem,
quamuis nesciens cur hoc fecerit. Ita etsi maior diuersitas oriatur, scit
ille quid egerit, cuius opera iuste nemo reprehendit. Apud Hipponem Zaritum
est homo quasi lunatas habens plantas et in eis binos tantummodo digitos,
similes et manus. Si aliqua gens talis esset, illi curiosae atque mirabili
adderetur historiae. Num igitur istum propter hoc negabimus ex illo uno,
qui primus creatus est, esse propagatum? Androgyni, quos etiam
Hermaphroditos nuncupant, quamuis ad modum rari sint, difficile est tamen
ut temporibus desint, in quibus sic uterque sexus apparet, ut, ex quo
potius debeant accipere nomen, incertum sit; a meliore tamen, hoc est a
masculino, ut appellarentur, loquendi consuetudo praeualuit. Nam nemo
umquam Androgynaecas aut Hermaphroditas nuncupauit. Ante annos aliquot,
nostra certe memoria, in Oriente duplex homo natus est superioribus
membris, inferioribus simplex. Nam duo erant capita, duo pectora, quattuor
manus, uenter autem unus, et pedes duo, sicut uni homini; et tamdiu uixit,
ut multos ad eum uidendum fama contraheret. Quis autem omnes commemorare
possit humanos fetus longe dissimiles his, ex quibus eos natos esse
certissimum est? Sicut ergo haec ex illo uno negari non possunt originem
ducere, ita quaecumque gentes in diuersitatibus corporum ab usitato naturae
cursu, quem plures et prope omnes tenent, uelut exorbitasse traduntur, si
definitione illa includuntur, ut rationalia animalia sint atque mortalia,
ab eodem ipso uno primo patre omnium stirpem trahere confitendum est, si
tamen uera sunt quae de illarum nationum uarietate et tanta inter se atque
nobiscum diuersitate traduntur. Nam et simias et cercopithecos et sphingas
si nesciremus non homines esse, sed bestias, possent illi historici de sua
curiositate gloriantes uelut gentes aliquas hominum nobis inpunita uanitate
mentiri. Sed si homines sunt, de quibus illa mira conscripta sunt: quid, si
propterea Deus uoluit etiam nonnullas gentes ita creare, ne in his
monstris, quae apud nos oportet ex hominibus nasci, eius sapientiam, qua
naturam fingit humanam, uelut artem cuiuspiam minus perfecti opificis,
putaremus errasse? Non itaque nobis uideri debet absurdum, ut, quem ad
modum in singulis qu ibus que gentibus quaedam monstra sunt hominum, ita in
uniuerso genere humano quaedam monstra sint gentium. Quapropter ut istam
quaestionem pedetemtim cauteque concludam: aut illa, quae talia de
quibusdam gentibus scripta sunt, omnino nulla sunt; aut si sunt, homines
non sunt; aut ex Adam sunt, si homines sunt. [IX] Quod uero et antipodas
esse fabulantur, id est homines a contraria parte terrae, ubi sol oritur,
quando occidit nobis, aduersa pedibus nostris calcare uestigia: nulla
ratione credendum est. Neque hoc ulla historica cognitione didicisse se
adfirmant, sed quasi ratiocinando coniectant, eo quod intra conuexa caeli
terra suspensa sit, eundemque locum mundus habeat et infimum et medium; et
ex hoc opinantur alteram terrae partem, quae infra est, habitatione hominum
care re non posse. Nec adtendunt, etiamsi figura conglobata et rutunda
mundus esse credatur siue aliqua ratione monstretur, non tamen esse
consequens, ut etiam ex illa parte ab aquarum congerie nuda sit terra;
deinde etiamsi nuda sit, neque hoc statim necesse esse, ut homines habeat.
Quoniam nullo modo scriptura ista mentitur, quae narratis praeteritis facit
fidem eo, quod eius praedicta conplentur, nimisque absurdum est, ut dicatur
aliquos homines ex hac in illam partem, Oceani inmensitate traiecta,
nauigare ac peruenire potuisse, ut etiam illic ex uno illo primo homine
genus institueretur humanum. Quapropter inter illos tunc hominum populos,
qui per septuaginta duas gentes et totidem linguas colliguntur fuisse
diuisi, quaeramus, si possumus inuenire, illam in terris peregrinantem
ciuitatem Dei, quae usque ad diluuium arcamque perducta est atque in filiis
Noe per eorum benedictiones perseuerasse monstratur, maxime in maximo, qui
est appellatus Sem, quando quidem Iapheth ita benedictus est, ut in eius,
fratris sui, domibus habitaret.

And we know you never back up what you say.  You like all fundies simply
assert.

Again Roger is lying as none of the sources I provided links for had
anything to do with Wheless.  They were all conservative Christian
websites.  And I used those specific websites for that very reason.  Are we
to believe they all conspired with Wheless?

Notice that Roger doesn't even realize that the material is repeated in
Augustine's "City of God" and has nothing to do with any forged sermons.
Things are true simply because in Roger's fundie mind he wants them to be
true.  Anyone who provides evidence that counters Roger's minority faith,
cannot be a scholar.

In this case however, Roger  cannot even find a poor scholar to back his
assertions.  The best he can do is use Robert Turkel, an Internet kook to
back him up.

Well I posted quite a few times what scholars think of your lack of research
skills.  Accomplished attorneys usually are very good at research by the
way.  And at least he has a degree in something.  Do you?

Isn't this precious.  The AMATEUR Roger the Liar Pearse uses his own website
to prove his point.  Nowhere on that website does he give any evidence to
back up his opinion except to use some quote mining to "prove" his point.
[By the way, idiot, assertion is not proof.]  But are we to accept anything
that Roger the Liar Pearse who admits  NO LESS than three times on his own
website that he is an AMATEUR, says about Wheless who was an accomplished
attorney (while Roger does actually say he graduated with any degree only
attended Merton College) and who studied scripture and the Early Church
Writers for about 15 years, and who knew about 16 languages including those
of scripture, i.e. Hebrew, Greek and Latin (whereas Roger the Liar has
never shown evidence of knowing any of those)?

-------End of Roger the Liar Pearse's dishonest snip-----

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages