Biblical Pool of Siloam Is Uncovered

[Agape4Robin]

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]

:yawn:

:wave:

 

[fool]

Zat all you got Robin?

 

[Letsargue]

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]

---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]

You are a punk.

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

 

[billwald]

The existance of the pool doesn't "prove" the miracle any more than the existance of Egypt "proves" that sticks turned into snakes.

 

[Letsargue]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

---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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.