Location of pool of Bethesda confirmed.

SteveB

Well-known member

Joh 5:1-16 WEB 1 After these things, there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now in Jerusalem by the sheep gate, there is a pool, which is called in Hebrew, “Bethesda”, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, or paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water; 4 for an angel went down at certain times into the pool and stirred up the water. Whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had. 5 A certain man was there who had been sick for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he had been sick for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to be made well?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I’m coming, another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Arise, take up your mat, and walk.” 9 Immediately, the man was made well, and took up his mat and walked. Now it was the Sabbath on that day. 10 So the Jews said to him who was cured, “It is the Sabbath. It is not lawful for you to carry the mat.” 11 He answered them, “He who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your mat and walk.’” 12 Then they asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your mat and walk’?” 13 But he who was healed didn’t know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a crowd being in the place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “Behold, you are made well. Sin no more, so that nothing worse happens to you.” 15 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16 For this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill him, because he did these things on the Sabbath.
 
Just because a historical site exists doesn't mean that the claimed events actually happened.

For example, the city of Mecca exists, does that mean that the Islamic faith is true?

Or, does the existence of Kings Cross Station in London confirm the stories in the Harry Potter books?
 
Just because a historical site exists doesn't mean that the claimed events actually happened.

For example, the city of Mecca exists, does that mean that the Islamic faith is true?

Or, does the existence of Kings Cross Station in London confirm the stories in the Harry Potter books?
You're more than welcome to prove that.
 
Muchos quieren enseñar que la Biblia es solo un libro de historias, o ficción como Harry Potter, pero cada uno de estos descubrimientos arqueológicos son evidencia de que es confiable tanto histórica como geográficamente.
 
You can take reality and mix it with fiction and make a book, but fiction will continue to be fiction, but on the contrary you cannot take reality and mix it with fiction and reality become fiction, no !!!!! Reality will continue to be reality, the bible is true, the places that it mention are real, the events they relate are real, there were thousands of eyewitnesses who gave testimony of that reality, therefore the evidence shows that the bible is not a fiction, the bible is the truth.
 
Last edited:
Muchos quieren enseñar que la Biblia es solo un libro de historias, o ficción como Harry Potter, pero cada uno de estos descubrimientos arqueológicos son evidencia de que es confiable tanto histórica como geográficamente.
Please translate your posts to English, per CARM forum rules.
  1. English only
    1. This is an English only forum.
      1. Tiny statements in other languages are permitted if “G” rated and translated.
 
Tu puedes tomar la realidad mezclarla con la ficción y hacer un libro, pero la ficción seguirá siendo ficción , pero al contrario no puedes tomar la realidad y mezclarla con la ficción y la realidad convertirse en ficcion, no!!!!! La realidad seguirá siendo realidad, la biblia es verdad, los lugares que ella mencionan son reales, los sucesos que relatan son reales, existieron miles de testigos oculares que dieron testimonio de esa realidad, por lo tanto la evidencia muestra que la biblia no es una ficción, la biblia es la verdad.

You can take reality and mix it with fiction and make a book, but fiction will continue to be fiction, but on the contrary you cannot take reality and mix it with fiction and reality become fiction, no !!!!! Reality will continue to be reality, the bible is true, the places that it mention are real, the events they relate are real, there were thousands of eyewitnesses who gave testimony of that reality, therefore the evidence shows that the bible is not a fiction, the bible is the truth.

Some parts of the Bible are true, or mention things that we know happened. Other parts of the Bible are Jewish legends, which may have a grain of truth to them, but in the long run are no more true that the legends of King Arthur (as an example). And, then there are some bits of the Bible that we know have been added in and aren't true at all.

EDIT: Added in translation.
 
Last edited:
Please translate your posts to English, per CARM forum rules.
  1. English only
    1. This is an English only forum.
      1. Tiny statements in other languages are permitted if “G” rated and translated.
Thanks for the heads up.
I'm working with them to get their posts into English.
 
OK.

So, because Kings Cross exists you must obviously believe that the stories in the Harry Potter books are true?
I'm not the one who is mixing fiction with history to make fiction reality.

And since you have no idea if what you want to be legends are real, throwing stories about British history as a legend into the middle to justify ignoring what you find inconvenient doesn't justify your beliefs.
It just makes you really good at magician's slight of hand.

So, if you're going to continue to use known fiction, and other country's history to justify dismissing the bible, you're not actually in this conversation.
 
I'm not the one who is mixing fiction with history to make fiction reality.

And since you have no idea if what you want to be legends are real, throwing stories about British history as a legend into the middle to justify ignoring what you find inconvenient doesn't justify your beliefs.
It just makes you really good at magician's slight of hand.

So, if you're going to continue to use known fiction, and other country's history to justify dismissing the bible, you're not actually in this conversation.

It's a simple question Steve. It's designed to make the point that just because a place exists doesn't mean that events described in a book actually happened. You need more than just the place - you need evidence that supports the described event too. The more extraordinary the event the more evidence you need.

So, can you answer the question:

So, because Kings Cross exists you must obviously believe that the stories in the Harry Potter books are true?

Or, if you want something else, just because the Mississippi river exists, does that make the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn true?
 
It's a simple question Steve. It's designed to make the point that just because a place exists doesn't mean that events described in a book actually happened. You need more than just the place - you need evidence that supports the described event too. The more extraordinary the event the more evidence you need.

So, can you answer the question:

So, because Kings Cross exists you must obviously believe that the stories in the Harry Potter books are true?

Or, if you want something else, just because the Mississippi river exists, does that make the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn true?
Actually, you dirtied the question by adding fiction, and another country's history into the mix.

Had it been a legitimate question you would have focused on the history of the one country, with the one issue.

But, let's do it your way.

We see that you're a brit, and live in Britain.
Why should your existence be proof that buddha traveled to China, on a flying island?
 
Actually, you dirtied the question by adding fiction, and another country's history into the mix.

Had it been a legitimate question you would have focused on the history of the one country, with the one issue.

The country is irrelevant to the point the question is making. Here:

Does the existence of Nottingham prove the legend of Robin Hood?
Does the existence of Mount Olympus prove the Greek Gods exist?

I can even change the type of media to make the same point...

Does the existence of the Normandy Beaches, and the fact that D-Day happened prove that the events depicted in the Film "Saving Private Ryan" actually happened?

But, let's do it your way.

We see that you're a brit, and live in Britain.
Why should your existence be proof that buddha traveled to China, on a flying island?

No, of course it doesn't.

You really have completely missed the point of these question haven't you. I wonder if you are being deliberately disingenuous because you don't want to admit that just because a site exists it doesn't mean that claimed events at that site actually happened.

Or, if the point is just something beyond your intellectual capacity.
 
The country is irrelevant to the point the question is making. Here:

Does the existence of Nottingham prove the legend of Robin Hood?
Does the existence of Mount Olympus prove the Greek Gods exist?

I can even change the type of media to make the same point...

Does the existence of the Normandy Beaches, and the fact that D-Day happened prove that the events depicted in the Film "Saving Private Ryan" actually happened?



No, of course it doesn't.

You really have completely missed the point of these question haven't you. I wonder if you are being deliberately disingenuous because you don't want to admit that just because a site exists it doesn't mean that claimed events at that site actually happened.

Or, if the point is just something beyond your intellectual capacity.
That would indeed make it easier for you to be viewed as intellectually lacking understanding.
The point was trested exactly as you did.
The existence of the pools themselves just means that the pools exist.
That they were noted to be in existence in history, with a record that predates the exile of the nation in 135CE, by the Roman government to separate them from their lands/homes, and the renaming of the country, which acted to bury the history and remained that way for 1700 to 1800 years, only to be found after the bible's veracity came into question, I'd say that it's actually quite educational and validates the bible as accurately describing a history which Rome sought to bury, with a vengeance because of how troublesome the people of Israel were to Rome.

Remember, the claim regarding the bible is that it was a concoction of the Roman emperor, 200-300 years after the earlier Roman emperor had exiled the people of Israel. 200-300 years is more than enough time to forget.

Furthermore, the Jewish people were scattered throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, and christianity was settling in for the long haul in those countries too.
Identities are easily assimilated, and assimilation buries pasts, and histories of such cultures.

As we're presently observing a strong move to claim that the holocaust was a fabrication and didn't actually happen, 76-83 years ago, it's pretty easy to see how quickly history can be buried when it's inconvenient and troublesome to a collection of beliefs.

So. No. I'm not having any problems with this whatsoever.

Nice try though.
 
It's a simple question Steve. It's designed to make the point that just because a place exists doesn't mean that events described in a book actually happened. You need more than just the place - you need evidence that supports the described event too. The more extraordinary the event the more evidence you need.

So, can you answer the question:

So, because Kings Cross exists you must obviously believe that the stories in the Harry Potter books are true?

Or, if you want something else, just because the Mississippi river exists, does that make the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn true?
Like Siloam, the Pool of Bethesda was buried under the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The fact that John knows of it shows his sources are Semitic which adds credibility. Nobody's talking about something being proven, which in history it rarely is
 
Just because a historical site exists doesn't mean that the claimed events actually happened.

For example, the city of Mecca exists, does that mean that the Islamic faith is true?

Or, does the existence of Kings Cross Station in London confirm the stories in the Harry Potter books?
What you don't understand is the Pool of Bethesda, like the Pool of Siloam, were under the rubble of Jerusalem after 70. The fact that John knows of them means his sources are early and familiar with Palestine's geography (Jerusalem), and thus more likely to be reliable. Mecca still exists. Kings Cross Station, if it had been destroyed and someone somehow knew about it without records, would mean they knew London's geography and would have a better chance of being believed about Harry Potter if he maintained it was true.
 
Just because a historical site exists doesn't mean that the claimed events actually happened.

For example, the city of Mecca exists, does that mean that the Islamic faith is true?

Or, does the existence of Kings Cross Station in London confirm the stories in the Harry Potter books?
Tell you what - I will write down that, at Nelson's Column, a man proved conclusively that Christianity was false.

Thus, when the Christians of CARM in 4000 CE discover that Nelson's Column has been unearthed, they will all abandon their faith.

Yes?
 
Like Siloam, the Pool of Bethesda was buried under the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The fact that John knows of it shows his sources are Semitic which adds credibility. Nobody's talking about something being proven, which in history it rarely is
The Gospel of John is dated to around AD 100. It is likely based on earlier works, whether oral or written, and at least some are likely to be Semitic. So the stories were maybe made up by Jews forty years early....

Given how often the author separates out the Jews en mass, it is very unlikely to have been authored by a Jew, so I doubt the disciple John was the author.
 
The Gospel of John is dated to around AD 100. It is likely based on earlier works, whether oral or written, and at least some are likely to be Semitic. So the stories were maybe made up by Jews forty years early....

Given how often the author separates out the Jews en mass, it is very unlikely to have been authored by a Jew, so I doubt the disciple John was the author.
GoJohn also has Jesus die on Passover versus in the synoptics Jesus dies the next day, after Passover. It is a radical departure for the most important alleged event on the planet and for an alleged Jewish apostle who was allegedly present and would have known the difference. It is obvious the Gospels are mythical stories.
 
Back
Top