Haran

There are a plethora of pools in Jerusalem to be sure, but their are only two pools shown in the many photos on that webpage. The first ones are the Byzantine? Pool of Siloam and the following ones are all images of the newly uncovered Pool of Siloam that appears (from pottery) to date back to the 1st century. The images of the Byzantine? Pool of Siloam in the 1900's are interesting because now the pool is surrounded on all sides by buildings.

Oh yes, it is much more than just a cool place for me to visit. Its location is determined by ancient descriptions and all of the surrounding archaeology and the pottery dates it back to the first century. Although there can always be doubt about these things, this newly discovered pool seems very likely to be the one that Jesus visited.

Heh...I spent quite a while updating, so you must've been posting for a while!

Oh well, it was very interesting visiting the site. I hope you enjoyed the couple of pictures. If there are other topics that come up later for which I have images, I'll upload them to Imageshack as well.

yalla

Actually Haran I'd kinda like to see some more of wherever, why not post some in the Lounge?
I'm not going to buy into the Christian bit but I am still interested and I can appreciate the buzz you would have got.

Haran

I might do that, but it'll have to be later.

Just out of curiousity, what "Christian bit"? About the pool possibly being the actual pool of Siloam? I seriously think it has a good chance of being the actual one. It is much more grandiose than the Byzantine pool (and this, according to texts and whereabouts of other archaeological finds, is the general location where it should be found), which easily lends itself to being of Herodian construction. Anyway, I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by "Christian bit". I think even Jews in Jerusalem would probably say that they believe they've possibly uncovered the actual pool of Siloam....

yalla

This, from gnosis:
"Evidently the author of John's Gopsel, who located Jesus and a miracle there, had some knowledged based on personal experience, or people who did have personal experience of the pool, before its burial resulting from the Temple's destruction in 67AD. It also argues strongly for a historical Jesus, as this author locates a historical Jesus at a specific place, prior to the destruction."

And this, from you:
"Although there can always be doubt about these things, this newly discovered pool seems very likely to be the one that Jesus visited."

But I still like travel photos,our family and friends dread our return from a trip cos they know they have to sit through a slide night soon after, in pre digital camera computer days of course.
cheers
yalla

Haran

Ok. I'm not sure how the discovery of the pool would necessarily be evidence for a historical Jesus. It does, however, reveal a place mentioned in the gospel account.

I thought that was a pretty benign statement, unless one believes Jesus to by mythical. If that is your position, then I understand. If you believe he was historical, then I'm not sure why this is necessarily a "Christian bit". Oh well, doesn't matter too much, just curious. I like to try to understand people's positions best I can.

Yeah, I remember those days. The old super-8 movies still come out now and then. These digital days are much more convenient!

Clivedurdle

Magic, myth and alchemy!

Spoke, spat, mixing earth and water, annointing blind, go, wash in a special holy place.

Result sight!

Sorry clear evidence for the magical mythical alchemic and ritualistic roots of this completely typical religion! It is telling a morality tale, it is an evangelical story!

yalla

This story, and the one in Mark 8.24 [where the ex-blind man sees men walking like trees, which is IMO pinched from Aesclepius' temple and the inscription of Alcetas of Helice], have elements common to magical practices of the time.

gnosis92

obviously the debate over MJ v HJ rests, on part, on the historical reliability of the gospels, and to what extent they can be independently substantiated.

one argument doherty and the MJ folks are found of is the argument of silence, which, given we are dealing with antiquity, where most of the documents have been lost or destroyed, is a little suspect.

in another post i pointed out that ehrman pointed out that matthew's special m and luke's special l are two sources that substantiate a hj independent of mark, Q, and mathew and luke respectively. doherty correctly points out it is theoretically possible matthew's special m and luke's special l could be matthew and luke's concoction. it could be, but it could also be what luke and matthew say - material that is attributed to a HJ because there was one.