PDA

View Full Version : Biblical Pool of Siloam Is Uncovered



Nineveh
August 9th, 2005, 10:52 AM
Biblical Pool of Siloam Is Uncovered in Jerusalem
Tue Aug 09 2005 00:09:33 ET

Workers repairing a sewage pipe in the old city of Jerusalem have discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam, a freshwater reservoir that was a major gathering place for ancient Jews making religious pilgrimages to the city and the reputed site where Jesus cured a man blind from birth, the LOS ANGELES TIMES reports.

The pool was fed by the now famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is ``a much grander affair'' than archeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, which reported the find Monday.

``Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit'' to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ``Now we have found the Pool of Siloam ... exactly where John said it was.''

A gospel that was thought to be ``pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history,'' he said.

The discovery puts a new spotlight on what is called the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, a trip that religious law required ancient Jews to make at least once a year, said archeologist Ronny Reich of the University of Haifa, who excavated the pool.

``Jesus was just another pilgrim coming to Jerusalem,'' he said. ``It would be natural to find him there.''

The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards from another Pool of Siloam, this one a reconstruction built between A.D. 400 and 460 by the empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several Biblical sites.

Developing... cite (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm)

Granite
August 9th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Cool, let's see how it goes!

allsmiles
August 9th, 2005, 10:56 AM
cool stuff, but all it proves is that whoever wrote John was familiar with local surroundings and incorporated them into the story

i luv you nin;)

Free-Agent Smith
August 9th, 2005, 11:01 AM
``Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit'' to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ``Now we have found the Pool of Siloam ... exactly where John said it was.''

A gospel that was thought to be ``pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history,'' he said.

Cool!

Letsargue
August 12th, 2005, 01:31 PM
cool stuff, but all it proves is that whoever wrote John was familiar with local surroundings and incorporated them into the story

i luv you nin;)


---Incredible! --“I don’t believe it, but I know all about it”. – I like that, -- It doesn’t matter if God himself came down and pointed things out, the same people would say NO!!!!
---The stream that fad the real pool of Siloam, Is the stream that ran through the Garden of Eden. --(So the Garden of Eden is where Jerusalem sets). -- And from thence it was parted, and came into four heads, (We now know those as), Matthew, Mark, Luke. John). That is from what we read in Revelation 22: “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, ~~~~ was there the tree of life which bare twelve~:
---The name of that river was the Kidron, at one time.
---Ezekiel 47:7,8,9—7- “Now when I returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other. 8- “These waters issue out toward the east country, and go into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed”. (Christ was baptized there). 9- “And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish”, (Simon Peter’s catch). Notice it says here, “the RIVERS shall come”, that is referring to all four. That one river is the Gospel, and the four heads are the four account of the Gospel, ---- AIN’T GOD SHARP?
*
-----------Paul---
*

allsmiles
August 12th, 2005, 01:36 PM
---Incredible! --“I don’t believe it, but I know all about it”. – I like that, -- It doesn’t matter if God himself came down and pointed things out, the same people would say NO!!!!
---The stream that fad the real pool of Siloam, Is the stream that ran through the Garden of Eden. --(So the Garden of Eden is where Jerusalem sets). -- And from thence it was parted, and came into four heads, (We now know those as), Matthew, Mark, Luke. John). That is from what we read in Revelation 22: “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, ~~~~ was there the tree of life which bare twelve~:
---The name of that river was the Kidron, at one time.
---Ezekiel 47:7,8,9—7- “Now when I returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other. 8- “These waters issue out toward the east country, and go into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed”. (Christ was baptized there). 9- “And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish”, (Simon Peter’s catch). Notice it says here, “the RIVERS shall come”, that is referring to all four. That one river is the Gospel, and the four heads are the four account of the Gospel, ---- AIN’T GOD SHARP?
*
-----------Paul---
*

i've been talking about this in the Noahs Flood on Mars thread for a couple of days now.

historical accuracy in the bible is to be expected.

how does it validate christian theology? how does it prove the existence of jesus? how does it prove the divinity of christ? how does the pool support anything other than the author's local area knowledge?

frankly, i think you're a nut, but that's all right.

according to Iranaeus (if memory serves) the reason there are four gospels is because there are four corners of the earth and four winds. the reason there are four gospels is based in paganism :wazzup:

Letsargue
August 12th, 2005, 01:52 PM
i've been talking about this in the Noahs Flood on Mars thread for a couple of days now.

historical accuracy in the bible is to be expected.

how does it validate christian theology? how does it prove the existence of jesus? how does it prove the divinity of christ? how does the pool support anything other than the author's local area knowledge?

frankly, i think you're a nut, but that's all right.

according to Iranaeus (if memory serves) the reason there are four gospels is because there are four corners of the earth and four winds. the reason there are four gospels is based in paganism :wazzup:

This in not a science class, I can't prove anything, neither CAN YOU.

allsmiles
August 12th, 2005, 01:55 PM
This in not a science class, I can't prove anything, neither CAN YOU.

right on, i agree with you.

even as a skeptic this comes as no surprise to me, of course the bible is going to be historically accurate to an extent, my question is: what's the big deal with the discovery? Jefferson could barely give me an answer on this, it doesn't support the theology, it doesn't support the existence of jesus or his alleged divinity, it doesn't support anything necessary for the validity of your beliefs and it comes as no surprise to skeptics.

what's the big deal? you've won nothing through the discovery.

monochrome
August 12th, 2005, 02:09 PM
right on, i agree with you.

even as a skeptic this comes as no surprise to me, of course the bible is going to be historically accurate to an extent, my question is: what's the big deal with the discovery? Jefferson could barely give me an answer on this, it doesn't support the theology, it doesn't support the existence of jesus or his alleged divinity, it doesn't support anything necessary for the validity of your beliefs and it comes as no surprise to skeptics.

what's the big deal? you've won nothing through the discovery.

I don't think it's so much a smoking gun as it is an interesting find. I would also find it interesting if someone found a door into the sphinx, or the back-up to the library of alexandria. It's be historically nifty s'all.

- m -

allsmiles
August 12th, 2005, 02:16 PM
I don't think it's so much a smoking gun as it is an interesting find. I would also find it interesting if someone found a door into the sphinx, or the back-up to the library of alexandria. It's be historically nifty s'all.

- m -

i can definitely appreciate the historical "niftiness" of the bible.

Letsargue
August 12th, 2005, 03:23 PM
right on, i agree with you.

even as a skeptic this comes as no surprise to me, of course the bible is going to be historically accurate to an extent, my question is: what's the big deal with the discovery? Jefferson could barely give me an answer on this, it doesn't support the theology, it doesn't support the existence of jesus or his alleged divinity, it doesn't support anything necessary for the validity of your beliefs and it comes as no surprise to skeptics.

what's the big deal? you've won nothing through the discovery.


---To the farmer a new calf is the big deal, if your city guy, who cares. Your's is not a real response to the thought at hand, like all the others who can find nothing but FOOLISHNESS in their reply.
*
------------Paul---
*

Aizvarya
August 12th, 2005, 04:19 PM
Your's is not a real response to the thought at hand, like all the others who can find nothing but FOOLISHNESS in their reply.

That seemed overly antagonistic, and also didn't make much sense.

Please phrase your answer in the form of a question.

theo_victis
August 12th, 2005, 04:28 PM
what's the big deal?

Scholars have regularly been critical of John's gospel for "historical" issues and it appears that this was one of them. So its kinda a blow to some skeptics faces. It certainly doesnt prove the validity of the Bible but it does allow for a more literal understanding of the historical places cited within the Gospels, especially those coming from the context of John.

I think its a great find!

Aizvarya
August 12th, 2005, 04:31 PM
I just now noticed that this isn't the same thread as the one in General Theology?

Perhaps we could get a mod to merge the threads, there is good conversation going in each.

Emo
August 12th, 2005, 05:01 PM
To find the Pool of Siloam is a great discovery! It's funny how even biblical scholars discounted the existence of this real place. Maybe all of you skeptics could continue in disbelief, while substantive evidence is turned over right in front of your face. So, what else is John lying about? :)







Romans 8:24-25

For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

Letsargue
August 12th, 2005, 05:37 PM
That seemed overly antagonistic, and also didn't make much sense.

Please phrase your answer in the form of a question.

---Along with the rest of them. tend to your own questions and answers. I try to, but these foolish mouths, just won't stop popping off like they don't have good sense.
*
---------------Paul----
*

fool
August 12th, 2005, 07:24 PM
Scholars have regularly been critical of John's gospel for "historical" issues and it appears that this was one of them.

!
I've seen all sorts of attacks on the hisoricity of the gospels. I've never seen one regarding the location or existence of the pool. The discovery of a public fountain dosen't lend any credibility to events alleged to have happened there.

Letsargue
August 12th, 2005, 07:45 PM
I've seen all sorts of attacks on the hisoricity of the gospels. I've never seen one regarding the location or existence of the pool. The discovery of a public fountain dosen't lend any credibility to events alleged to have happened there.

---WOW!!! what a brilliant deduction, It dosen't show what happened there, Way to go, atheist.

fool
August 12th, 2005, 08:24 PM
---WOW!!! what a brilliant deduction,.
Not really

fool
August 12th, 2005, 08:27 PM
--Way to go, atheist.
I'd appreciate it that if , in the future, you took some care to treat Atheist as a proper noun.

Agape4Robin
August 12th, 2005, 08:32 PM
I've seen all sorts of attacks on the hisoricity of the gospels. I've never seen one regarding the location or existence of the pool. The discovery of a public fountain dosen't lend any credibility to events alleged to have happened there.
:yawn:

fool
August 12th, 2005, 08:36 PM
:yawn:
:wave:

fool
August 12th, 2005, 09:01 PM
Zat all you got Robin?

Letsargue
August 12th, 2005, 09:26 PM
I'd appreciate it that if , in the future, you took some care to treat Atheist as a proper noun.

---atheist, A Noun, No, It's Not A Noun. It's Something Else. Nothing I Think. But A Noun, No, Not atheist. Your Name Even Is Nothing, Fool, Oh Sorry, I Meant fool.
*
------------Paul---
*

fool
August 12th, 2005, 09:28 PM
---atheist, A Noun, No, It's Not A Noun. It's Something Else. Nothing I Think. But A Noun, No, Not atheist. Your Name Even Is Nothing, Fool, Oh Sorry, I Meant fool.
*
------------Paul---
*
You are a punk.

Letsargue
August 12th, 2005, 09:37 PM
You are a punk.

---Yes!! Oh yes, A Christian punk, Sure ain't one of ---THEM---aTHEists.
*
-------------Paul---
*

billwald
August 13th, 2005, 08:01 PM
The existance of the pool doesn't "prove" the miracle any more than the existance of Egypt "proves" that sticks turned into snakes.

Letsargue
August 13th, 2005, 08:44 PM
The existance of the pool doesn't "prove" the miracle any more than the existance of Egypt "proves" that sticks turned into snakes.

---billwald-----I have no intention of proving anything; that is not the nature of Christianity, and the Bible, and God. The whole thing is founded upon faith, faith in what God said, and not what one can dig out of the ground. God talked about the pool, thus I believe, not what you say, or find. The Word is the proof of the faith, that faith is proof that I am.
*
------------Paul-----
*

Nineveh
August 14th, 2005, 06:02 PM
For some, even if a man were raised from the dead, they still would not believe.

Anyway, the Bible is right one more time, nothing new there :)

Letsargue
August 14th, 2005, 06:19 PM
For some, even if a man were raised from the dead, they still would not believe.

Anyway, the Bible is right one more time, nothing new there :)

---Nineveh---- It's always that way, but those guys just don't get it, or they don't WANT to get it. They're still batting zero, and can't see that. God calls it blind in that eye.
*
--------------Paul---
*

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 09:36 AM
For some, even if a man were raised from the dead, they still would not believe.

Anyway, the Bible is right one more time, nothing new there :)

except resurrection of the dead is hypothetical, hence your unavoidable "if". people do not come back from the dead.

and what, exactly, is the bible right about? that a pool existed? right on, i can appreciate that, but like i've said several times, that sort of thing should be expected, from atheists and believers alike. the bible is a historical document, it makes sense that the author would have knowledge of the local area.

i'm curious, how exactly does this benefit your faith?

Letsargue
August 15th, 2005, 11:09 AM
except resurrection of the dead is hypothetical, hence your unavoidable "if". people do not come back from the dead.

and what, exactly, is the bible right about? that a pool existed? right on, i can appreciate that, but like i've said several times, that sort of thing should be expected, from atheists and believers alike. the bible is a historical document, it makes sense that the author would have knowledge of the local area.

i'm curious, how exactly does this benefit your faith?

---God said it, we believed it before it was a thought to the atheists. The atheists can't stand for the Bible to be at least verified to be right. So they sound off at absolutely nothing.
---The christian element, makes the mistake of careing what the atheists think, who cares? Does the light care if it's dark some where, the light knows that, and gives it not a thought. and so it is, we believe in God, and the atheists don't, who cares.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

Nineveh
August 15th, 2005, 11:16 AM
except resurrection of the dead is hypothetical, hence your unavoidable "if". people do not come back from the dead.

Like I said...


and what, exactly, is the bible right about? that a pool existed? right on, i can appreciate that, but like i've said several times, that sort of thing should be expected, from atheists and believers alike. the bible is a historical document, it makes sense that the author would have knowledge of the local area.

Well, if you knew what the Bible was right about, why'd ya ask? :)


i'm curious, how exactly does this benefit your faith?

It has nothing to do with my faith. :)

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 11:19 AM
---God said it, we believed it before it was a thought to the atheists. The atheists can't stand for the Bible to be at least verified to be right. So they sound off at absolutely nothing.

I'm an atheist, albeit I'm new to it, but i can stand it, like i said, to skeptics of my nature this discovery comes as no surprise.


---The christian element, makes the mistake of careing what the atheists think, who cares? Does the light care if it's dark some where, the light knows that, and gives it not a thought. and so it is, we believe in God, and the atheists don't, who cares.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

caring what other people think is oftentimes a sure fire way of self-enlightenment.

listen for a change, you might just learn something.

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 11:20 AM
Like I said...



Well, if you knew what the Bible was right about, why'd ya ask? :)



It has nothing to do with my faith. :)

all i want to know is how this benefits christianity. it's not a surprise to level headed skeptics who listen to people they disagree with, but it adds nothing to your religion.

Nineveh
August 15th, 2005, 11:25 AM
all i want to know is how this benefits christianity. it's not a surprise to level headed skeptics who listen to people they disagree with, but it adds nothing to your religion.

Who is claiming it does but you?

Did you have something to add to this topic?

Clete
August 15th, 2005, 11:28 AM
I've seen all sorts of attacks on the historicity of the gospels. I've never seen one regarding the location or existence of the pool. The discovery of a public fountain doesn’t lend any credibility to events alleged to have happened there.
I forget who it was who suggested to you that you should research the evidence for the resurrection in order to see whether it was true, but if you'll recall, I responded to their suggested by pointing out that it isn't evidence that you need, you have plenty of that at the very tip of your nose.
Do you remember that post? Just in case you don't, I looked it up for you to refresh your memory...


Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.

The "foolish" in your verse is the man who has humbled himself before his Creator God and sought His wisdom. But you are an "atheist fool" - the proud rejecter of the evidence for God that is all around you, slapping you in the face every day. Search out the evidence of the resurrection, and follow Jesus so you can really be wise!
Actually, a lack of evidence is not fool's problem but an over abundance of pride. The atheist doesn't even have the tools needed to evaluate evidence in the first place because without God their thinking is debased. They have no foundation upon which to build even the simplest of rational world views. Logic itself doesn't work without God because unless you begin with God, logic will inevitably end with question begging/circular reasoning which is, of course, irrational.
What fool needs, isn't evidence; there's plenty of that right at the tip of his nose. What he needs is faith.


Heb. 11: 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, [and] the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Your comment that I quoted above is proof that I was right. You wouldn't belief even if Jesus Himself came and smacked you across the head. You're problem is that you don't want to believe and so nothing will convince you, nothing. Not to single you out though. Allsmiles is in the same boat. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the two of you (and others here as well) aren't interested in evidence, you're interested in hating God with every last fiber of your being and are committed to doing just that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 11:32 AM
Your comment that I quoted above is proof that I was right. You wouldn't belief even if Jesus Himself came and smacked you across the head. You're problem is that you don't want to believe and so nothing will convince you, nothing. Not to single you out though. Allsmiles is in the same boat. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the two of you (and others here as well) aren't interested in evidence, you're interested in hating God with every last fiber of your being and are committed to doing just that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I don't hate your god clete, i don't waste energy hating things that don't exist :chuckle:

but seriously folks...

produce jesus and then we'll talk about whether or not i'd believe it if i saw it, and frankly, your sacred writ says that when he allegedly comes back every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, so your hypothetical isn't technically biblical.

i am very interested in evidence, but evidence that supports the existence and divinity of christ, and evidence that supports your theology.

now, if you can produce evidence that supports any of the above assertions, that would be swell :thumb:

Clete
August 15th, 2005, 11:34 AM
all i want to know is how this benefits christianity. it's not a surprise to level headed skeptics who listen to people they disagree with, but it adds nothing to your religion.
At minimum it removes a criticism that they can level at the Christian faith. The skeptic who wants to throw doubt on the teachings of the Bible would naturally gravitate toward the historical claims made by the Bible because they are falsifiable. Which is precisely why unbelievers loved to point out that no such pool ever existed in spite of John's claim to the contrary in his "supposedly inspired Gospel".
This discovery adds just one more piece of verification onto the mountain of evidence that what the Bible teaches is true. No one here is presenting this single piece of evidence as proof but merely as what it is, evidence which, as I pointed out in my previous post, you aren't the slightest bit interested in.

Resting in Him,
Clete

GuySmiley
August 15th, 2005, 11:35 AM
all i want to know is how this benefits christianity. it's not a surprise to level headed skeptics who listen to people they disagree with, but it adds nothing to your religion.
It benefits Christianity because many people doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible. If you don't doubt the historical accuracy then what is your problem? Why are you even responding to this thread other than to say, 'cool, thats what I expected.' But your tangent on how it doesn't prove theology is stupid. No one says it does, so take your strawman and go have a party somewhere.

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 11:46 AM
At minimum it removes a criticism that they can level at the Christian faith. The skeptic who wants to throw doubt on the teachings of the Bible would naturally gravitate toward the historical claims made by the Bible because they are falsifiable. Which is precisely why unbelievers loved to point out that no such pool ever existed in spite of John's claim to the contrary in his "supposedly inspired Gospel".

Okay, I follow you.


This discovery adds just one more piece of verification onto the mountain of evidence that what the Bible teaches is true. No one here is presenting this single piece of evidence as proof but merely as what it is, evidence which, as I pointed out in my previous post, you aren't the slightest bit interested in.

Resting in Him,
Clete

it's not that i'm disinterested in the evidence, Clete, it's that i'm hearing a couple of different things.

thanks anyway, i'll watch from now on.

Clete
August 15th, 2005, 11:57 AM
thanks anyway, i'll watch from now on.
I'm sure you'll watch but the problem is you'll do so with your eyes firmly shut. :nono:

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 12:00 PM
I'm sure you'll watch but the problem is you'll do so with your eyes firmly shut. :nono:

i suppose that in order for any of your arguments to have any weight you would need to presuppose that.

Nineveh
August 15th, 2005, 12:02 PM
it's not that i'm disinterested in the evidence, Clete, it's that i'm hearing a couple of different things.

It boils down to what you want to accept at this point doesn't it?
Do you still hold to the belief 30+ other gods have ever claimed to do as Jesus did? There is absolutely no proof whatsoever for that belief. Here you have physical evidence yet one more place mentioned as historical fact in Scripture has been unearthed. That doesn't shock you, and shouldn't. In a book so accurate about historical things, what else could it be right about?

Where exactly to you suppose Odysseus was when he came across the scylla and charybdis?

We know Jesus knew of the Pool of Siloam. (John 9)

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 12:17 PM
It boils down to what you want to accept at this point doesn't it?
Do you still hold to the belief 30+ other gods have ever claimed to do as Jesus did? There is absolutely no proof whatsoever for that belief.

of course, you cannot prove that fiction actually happened, that's preposterous and I have never claimed that 30+ divinities performed comparable acts to the alleged deeds of christ. i have maintained that it has been argued that 30+ deities have been recorded and they were all purported to have performed miracles. did any of them exist? no, I don't believe they actually existed or performed miracles, and that is the point:)


Here you have physical evidence yet one more place mentioned as historical fact in Scripture has been unearthed. That doesn't shock you, and shouldn't. In a book so accurate about historical things, what else could it be right about?

we don't know because there's no such thing as evidence supporting theology or the divinity of christ.


We know Jesus knew of the Pool of Siloam. (John 9)

No, you know that the author knew of the Pool of Siloam.

Letsargue
August 15th, 2005, 12:25 PM
I don't hate your god clete, i don't waste energy hating things that don't exist :chuckle:

but seriously folks...

produce jesus and then we'll talk about whether or not i'd believe it if i saw it, and frankly, your sacred writ says that when he allegedly comes back every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, so your hypothetical isn't technically biblical.

i am very interested in evidence, but evidence that supports the existence and divinity of christ, and evidence that supports your theology.

now, if you can produce evidence that supports any of the above assertions, that would be swell :thumb:

---There is no proof, It's faithful to say, this or that, if God said it. And as for producing Christ, -- God did that 2,000 years ago, and you guys killed him. So who cares about your flimsy gainsayings.
*
--------------Paul---
*

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 12:29 PM
---There is no proof, It's faithful to say, this or that, if God said it. And as for producing Christ, -- God did that 2,000 years ago, and you guys killed him. So who cares about your flimsy gainsayings.
*
--------------Paul---
*

wait, it's my fault i wasn't alive 2000 years ago? and we killed him?

i thought the jews killed him...

Nineveh
August 15th, 2005, 12:31 PM
of course, you cannot prove that fiction actually happened, that's preposterous and I have never claimed that 30+ divinities performed comparable acts to the alleged deeds of christ. i have maintained that it has been argued that 30+ deities have been recorded and they were all purported to have performed miracles. did any of them exist? no, I don't believe they actually existed or performed miracles, and that is the point:)

Really?


Krishna, Mithra, Prometheus and up to 30 other savior gods did the exact same thing that jesus did. cite (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19598&highlight=allsmiles)

And still not one of those deities is willing to step up to help you out on this. You hold on to that belief with absolutely no evidence to support it.


we don't know because there's no such thing as evidence supporting theology or the divinity of christ.

...even if a man were raised from the dead....


No, you know that the author knew of the Pool of Siloam.

So Jesus really didn't say that to all those winesses?

I would have to say your comment, "it's not that i'm disinterested in the evidence" is a falsehood.

Clete
August 15th, 2005, 12:41 PM
i suppose that in order for any of your arguments to have any weight you would need to presuppose that.
Interesting that you say that. Actually it is the existence of God that must be presupposed before you even can have the ability to rationally evaluate the evidence that you falsely claim interest in.
In other words, you pretend to come from a position that is neutrally skeptical (i.e. faithless) and attempt to evaluate the evidence from that neutral position on the basis of logic and reason. The problem is, there is no such neutral position that is rational. Unless you begin with God (logically presuppose His existence) then you have no ground upon which to establish the varisity of your own reasoning abilities. Any attempt to do so will beg the question and will therefore be irrational.
You cannot prove that God exists by first assuming that He does not and evalutating the evidence because all such evaluation is irrational and therefore self-defeating. If, on the otherhand, God's existence is presupposed, one can verify his existence in an almost countless number of ways. The evidence that He exists is literally everywhere you look, indeed the very fact that you have the ability to look at all is evidence itself. But to begin from the point of view of the skeptic, you poke your own eyes out and make it impossible to see anything.

Resting in Him,
Clete

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Really?

really. it has been argued that 30+ deities performed comparable miracles within the realm of myth. i've never argued that prometheus or mithra were factual, historical figures outside of the realm of myth. i have argued from what i have read that these myths with comparable miracles exist.

i made a mistake in how i presented my case, i understand how sensitive you folks are when it comes to semantics.


And still not one of those deities is willing to step up to help you out on this. You hold on to that belief with absolutely no evidence to support it.

no, they aren't, because they never existed outside of the realm of myth. i only know what i read Nin, and that is what i've read.


...even if a man were raised from the dead....

sorry, but it's a physical impossibility. the only evidence you have for the resurrection of the dead is what is contained in writing, written by someone you don't know, haven't met, can't meet, can't interrogate. all you can do is take their word for it. that's a little thin in comparison to the physical possibility (or lack thereof) of human resurrection from the dead.


So Jesus really didn't say that to all those winesses?

how am i supposed to know? i wasn't there, i wasn't listening, all we can do is read what someone else wrote thousands of years ago, god knows what his alterior motives are. you give them the benefit of the doubt through faith, i take it with a grain of salt because it's a stretch.


I would have to say your comment, "it's not that i'm disinterested in the evidence" is a falsehood.

i couldn't really care less.

i'm interested in evidence, but you have yet to provide evidence for human resurrection from the dead, walking on water, turning water to wine, spontaneous healing of physical ailments such as palsy, hemorraging, blindness, etc. you have yet to provide evidence for the divinity of christ as well. i have no evidence to be interested in.

the pool siloam proves that whoever wrote the gospel according to john knew that the pool existed and incorporated it into the narrative. that's evidence for the validity of the author's knowledge of local geography and landmarks, but beyond that it doesn't support anything, and you folks have admitted that, and i accepted it.

i said i was going to sit back and watch.

Turbo
August 15th, 2005, 12:55 PM
i'm interested in evidence...
:ha: You didn't ask Justin (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=836390&highlight=allsmiles#post836390) for evidence.

GuySmiley
August 15th, 2005, 01:02 PM
:ha: You didn't ask Justin (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=836390&highlight=allsmiles#post836390) for evidence.
But Turbo, allsmiles believes everything he reads, as long as its not in the Bible. See Justin wrote that, so its ok to believe.



no, they aren't, because they never existed outside of the realm of myth. i only know what i read Nin, and that is what i've read.


Quote:
...even if a man were raised from the dead....

sorry, but it's a physical impossibility. the only evidence you have for the resurrection of the dead is what is contained in writing, written by someone you don't know, haven't met, can't meet, can't interrogate. all you can do is take their word for it. that's a little thin in comparison to the physical possibility (or lack thereof) of human resurrection from the dead.

I suppose since we could actually meet Justin, whatever he says must be true.

Clete
August 15th, 2005, 01:04 PM
:ha: You didn't ask Justin (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=836390&highlight=allsmiles#post836390) for evidence.
Brilliant!

This further proves my point. Evidence is not what is being saught but rather justification for unbelief and pride.

allsmiles
August 15th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Interesting that you say that. Actually it is the existence of God that must be presupposed before you even can have the ability to rationally evaluate the evidence that you falsely claim interest in.

so the leap of faith has to be made before you can begin believing it on a rational level?


In other words, you pretend to come from a position that is neutrally skeptical (i.e. faithless) and attempt to evaluate the evidence from that neutral position on the basis of logic and reason.

i love being called a liar by someone who doesn't know anything about me and presupposes that i'm automatically wrong because we disagree. fella, you don't know me, you don't see through my eyes, why dontcha knock it off and treat me like a person?


The problem is, there is no such neutral position that is rational.

no, you're wrong.


Unless you begin with God (logically presuppose His existence) then you have no ground upon which to establish the varisity of your own reasoning abilities. Any attempt to do so will beg the question and will therefore be irrational.

not necessarily. before my little vacation into the lazy realm of atheism i believed in a creator god, just not yours.


You cannot prove that God exists by first assuming that He does not

i understand, but you must understand, an atheist does not seek to prove that god exists, he does not and moves on to support that conclusion. i've never met an atheist who seeks to prove that god exists.


and evalutating the evidence because all such evaluation is irrational and therefore self-defeating. If, on the otherhand, God's existence is presupposed, one can verify his existence in an almost countless number of ways.

this makes sense, if you believe god exists and look for evidence that supports that assertion, you'll find it.


The evidence that He exists is litterally everywhere you look, indeed the very fact that you have the ability to look at all is evidence itself. But to begin from the point of view of the skeptic, you poke your own eyes out and make it impossible to see anything.

Resting in Him,
Clete

fine, i have a one on one with doc whenever the battle royal is over and it's about the nature of god, so i'll go back to being an agnostic just to make my side a little more logical.

i agree, again, that there is a creator god.

what leads you to believe that it is the christian god?

Letsargue
August 15th, 2005, 04:53 PM
so the leap of faith has to be made before you can begin believing it on a rational level?



i love being called a liar by someone who doesn't know anything about me and presupposes that i'm automatically wrong because we disagree. fella, you don't know me, you don't see through my eyes, why dontcha knock it off and treat me like a person?



no, you're wrong.



not necessarily. before my little vacation into the lazy realm of atheism i believed in a creator god, just not yours.



i understand, but you must understand, an atheist does not seek to prove that god exists, he does not and moves on to support that conclusion. i've never met an atheist who seeks to prove that god exists.



this makes sense, if you believe god exists and look for evidence that supports that assertion, you'll find it.



fine, i have a one on one with doc whenever the battle royal is over and it's about the nature of god, so i'll go back to being an agnostic just to make my side a little more logical.

i agree, again, that there is a creator god.

what leads you to believe that it is the christian god?

---WOW---no matter where you look in these threads, you'll find the ramblings of the appearant mindless gibberish. And I don't care if it's spelled right or not, it makes no difference with these astute no minds.
*
--------------Paul---
*

Nineveh
August 15th, 2005, 04:57 PM
allsmiles,
I was going to reply, but then I read GuySmiley's post, and there really isn't much I could add to it.

You will believe what suits you whether there is actual evidence or not.

Letsargue
August 15th, 2005, 05:04 PM
wait, it's my fault i wasn't alive 2000 years ago? and we killed him?

i thought the jews killed him...

---allsmiles--- WWWOOOOOOWWW!!!!!!!!--
*
--- You're worse off than I though. You haven't studied the Book hardly at all. And you pretend to be some kind of wise man in the knowledge of God? Don't even try to make me laugh now. Well!, I can't help it now, you are a laugh......
*
---------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
August 15th, 2005, 05:17 PM
so the leap of faith has to be made before you can begin believing it on a rational level?



i love being called a liar by someone who doesn't know anything about me and presupposes that i'm automatically wrong because we disagree. fella, you don't know me, you don't see through my eyes, why dontcha knock it off and treat me like a person?



no, you're wrong.



not necessarily. before my little vacation into the lazy realm of atheism i believed in a creator god, just not yours.



i understand, but you must understand, an atheist does not seek to prove that god exists, he does not and moves on to support that conclusion. i've never met an atheist who seeks to prove that god exists.



this makes sense, if you believe god exists and look for evidence that supports that assertion, you'll find it.



fine, i have a one on one with doc whenever the battle royal is over and it's about the nature of god, so i'll go back to being an agnostic just to make my side a little more logical.

i agree, again, that there is a creator god.

what leads you to believe that it is the christian god?

---allsmiles----Who cares if you believe anything now or not, you've done showed, your a trouble maker. I don't care if you think flying saucers did it. I, to this day haven't asked you a single question, nor have many other Christians. We spend all our time trying to scoop the steff of the screen.
*
---------------Paul---
*

Clete
August 15th, 2005, 06:44 PM
so the leap of faith has to be made before you can begin believing it on a rational level?
Yes, precisely! Although I know for a fact, based on this post that I am responding to, that you have no idea what that actually means.


i love being called a liar by someone who doesn't know anything about me and presupposes that i'm automatically wrong because we disagree. fella, you don't know me, you don't see through my eyes, why dontcha knock it off and treat me like a person?
What have I said in the portion that you quoted that isn't true? I haven't attacked you or said anything that I don't believe to be completely true. If you would like for me to be needlessly personal and harsh, I can be, but I hardly think it necessary.
I understand that you deny being disinterested in evidence but it has been shown more than once already that this is in fact the case and even if it hadn't been shown, I know that it is true based not only on your responses here on this thread but on responses in other threads as well.
But don't feel badly, it's not like you're alone. The same is true of all atheists, it comes with the territory, although, again, I don't expect you to understand what I mean or how I know that, nor am I willing to explain it to you. You wouldn't believe me if I did, which is precisely the same reason it is a waste of time to present you with any evidence of anything contrary to what you want to believe. You not only don't have the logical tools necessary to rationally evaluate that evidence, you wouldn't do so even if you could (which you can't).


no, you're wrong.
Saying it doesn't make it so. It has been proven that logic does not work unless you presuppose the existence of God and base your logic on that presupposition. ALL OTHER OPTIONS result in what you would call circular reasoning but it actually is more accurately referred to as begging the question. For example if you, as does every atheist, insist that all truth claims be verified through logic and reason only then you can readily see how quickly things break down for you when asked how you verify the truth claim that states that all truth claims must be verified through logic and reason. If you say that this truth claim is not exempt and must itself be verified though logic and reason then you beg the question by assuming the varacity of that which you are attempting to verifiy. If, on the other hand, you exempt that truth claim from logical verification then you violate the truth claim itself. It is a trap you cannot escape unless you presuppose the existence of a God who is both intelligent and logical.


not necessarily. before my little vacation into the lazy realm of atheism i believed in a creator god, just not yours.
Yes necessarily. It is an absolute logical necessity. It is not necessary to be aware of what you are doing or what the consequences are of your beliefs from a philosophical point of view for those philosophical consequences to be real. In other words, you don't have to know that you are being irrational in order to be irrational or vise versa. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make reality go away.


i understand, but you must understand, an atheist does not seek to prove that god exists, he does not and moves on to support that conclusion. i've never met an atheist who seeks to prove that god exists.
I didn't say that you did. I said that you attempt to evaluate evidence from a neutrally skeptical perspective. And that is precisely what you attempt to do whether you think you do or not. Your problem is that no such neutral position rationally exists, thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.


this makes sense, if you believe god exists and look for evidence that supports that assertion, you'll find it.
You do not understand what I am getting at. I am not saying that you assume a conclusion and then go looking for evidence. I am not making the scientific error that many creation scientists are regularly accused of making. I am talking in terms of what is and is not rationally possible, it's not simple wishful thinking and grasping for straws. If you think that, you do not understand my point at all.


fine, i have a one on one with doc whenever the battle royal is over and it's about the nature of god, so i'll go back to being an agnostic just to make my side a little more logical.
Agnosticism doesn't help you because you will still attempt to evaluate the evidence as though you don't need God to account for your own ability to think much less logically evaluate evidence that God exists.
I predict that the doc will lose the debate based on the fact that simply agreeing to have it presents you with tools that you have not established your right to use. Before I agreed to such a debate I would make you first establish for me where logic came from and how you know that it works. How do you know anything for that matter? How do you know for an absolute verifiable fact that you aren't a disembodied brain in a vat sitting on some mad scientist's shelf on a planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse?


i agree, again, that there is a creator god.

what leads you to believe that it is the christian god?
The fact that the contrary is rationally impossible.
If you mean what you've said here and this is a genuine question please listen to the following debate. Perhaps you will begin to understand what it is I'm getting at here.
The Great Debate: Does God Exist - Dr. Greg Bahnsen vs. Dr. Gordon Stein (http://www.straitgate.com/bahnsen)

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I've just discovered that the above link no longer has the audio available for that debate. If you or anyone is interested in hearing it, let me know and I'll see if I can email it to you.

fool
August 15th, 2005, 09:27 PM
I forget who it was who suggested to you that you should research the evidence for the resurrection in order to see whether it was true, but if you'll recall, I responded to their suggested by pointing out that it isn't evidence that you need, you have plenty of that at the very tip of your nose.
Do you remember that post? Just in case you don't, I looked it up for you to refresh your memory...


Your comment that I quoted above is proof that I was right. You wouldn't belief even if Jesus Himself came and smacked you across the head. You're problem is that you don't want to believe and so nothing will convince you, nothing. Not to single you out though. Allsmiles is in the same boat. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the two of you (and others here as well) aren't interested in evidence, you're interested in hating God with every last fiber of your being and are committed to doing just that.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete;
Allsmilies;
Everyone;
I have found Christ!
He's not who you think he is.
It's a long read.
Maybe 20 minutes.
It's the last thing you need to read about Jesus.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0480Barabbas.html
It all makes sense now.

Letsargue
August 16th, 2005, 05:39 AM
Clete;
Allsmilies;
Everyone;
I have found Christ!
He's not who you think he is.
It's a long read.
Maybe 20 minutes.
It's the last thing you need to read about Jesus.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0480Barabbas.html
It all makes sense now.


---fool---That doesn't change a single word in the Bible, one way or the other. It's all the same
*
------------------Paul---
*

allsmiles
August 16th, 2005, 07:45 AM
you all have made a lot of really good points against me.

i give up, or i'm at least not in the mood today.

sorry for being a thorn.

Free-Agent Smith
August 16th, 2005, 10:21 AM
you all have made a lot of really good points against me.

i give up, or i'm at least not in the mood today.

sorry for being a thorn.
I thought you wanted to "watch"?

allsmiles
August 16th, 2005, 10:45 AM
I thought you wanted to "watch"?

i am.