I just read a very interesting article. If proved authentic, these lead-leafed books might give us deeper understanding of the early church. I am very interested to continue to follow this story.
4/05/2011 - Just found some more info about this story. BiblicalArcheology.org has several links to other articles with more picture and information. Here is the link. It seems that understandable most experts are extremely skeptical at this point.
I am well aware (as I assume you are as well) that Rob Bell, his new book and this video which previews his book are highly controversial at the moment. I really don't want to get sucked into the debate but I think I am and should. I should preface that I have not read his book yet so I will try be fair in that regard. I have been to Bell's church (Mars Hill) and thought the experience was positive. He is a very charismatic leader and teacher, thus his book (and not to mention his ministry) has the opportunity to impact the church in a big way: to grow or to spread false teaching. I could see Rob's book going either way.
The fact that Rob is asking and spurring the church to think deeply about heaven and hell is great! His video seems to be implying that he has something new to say about the topic. And yes, Bell does imply that he is presenting a new or non-main stream gospel when he says, "... that whatever we've been told or taught - the good news is actually better than we could ever imagine."
I am skeptical whenever someone announces a new idea. Most often the latest and greatest spiritual growth book that everyone is reading in Christian circles, is re-digested literature from past Christian thinkers or church fathers. Many times the latest material (in my opinion) is inferior to the older "classics". Lets approach Rob Bells book with some skepticism in asking ourselves if his views can be represented by past Christian thinkers. I am open to new ideas, but I am not so naive to think that uniquely new concepts happen very often at all; and possibly in Bell's book he identifies where his views fit within historical theology. I would bet that Bell himself is not so naive to claim that his theology is radically new - non-mainstream, yes, but not new.
Do I agree with Rob Bell that the mainstream view of the gospel and theology is flawed and/or unbiblical? --- Yes and no. It depends on what you categorize as mainstream. Is it the majority of academic theologians? The answers you get from a survey from Gallop Poll of people who call themselves Christians? Or is it what you read from popular Christian writers? There are definitely some "mainstream" ideas out there that are very unbiblical and frankly lies.
I'd like to discuss some of the questions that Rob Bell raises. Lets try to pull out the main questions that Bell is asking in this video clip...
"Gandhi's in Hell? He is? Can someone know this for a fact?" --- Can you know for certain that a particular person is in Hell?
"Will only a few select people make it to Heaven?" --- How many people will be saved?
"Will billions and billions of people burn in hell?" --- How many people will go to Hell?
"How do you become one of the few?" --- How is someone saved?
"What is God like? Because millions and millions were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus is that God is going to send you to Hell unless you believe in Jesus. So what gets subtly caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that that you would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted?" --- What is God like?Is he a contradiction?
And how could that ever be good news?" --- How could the prospect of an eternal judgment ever be good news?
A few weeks back my pastor shared an interesting observation during his sermon from the Genesis genealogy of Adam to Noah (Genesis 5:1-32).
"1This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them "Humankind" when they were created.
3 When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years; and he died.
6 When Seth had lived one hundred five years, he became the father of Enosh. 7Seth lived after the birth of Enosh eight hundred seven years, and had other sons and daughters. 8Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred twelve years; and he died.
9 When Enosh had lived ninety years, he became the father of Kenan. 10Enosh lived after the birth of Kenan eight hundred fifteen years, and had other sons and daughters. 11Thus all the days of Enosh were nine hundred five years; and he died.
12 When Kenan had lived seventy years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13Kenan lived after the birth of Mahalalel eight hundred and forty years, and had other sons and daughters. 14Thus all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Jared. 16Mahalalel lived after the birth of Jared eight hundred thirty years, and had other sons and daughters. 17Thus all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety-five years; and he died.
18 When Jared had lived one hundred sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch. 19Jared lived after the birth of Enoch eight hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 20Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty-two years; and he died.
21 When Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 23Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. 24Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.
25 When Methuselah had lived one hundred eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech. 26Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech seven hundred eighty-two years, and had other sons and daughters. 27Thus all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty-nine years; and he died.
28 When Lamech had lived one hundred eighty-two years, he became the father of a son; 29he named him Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands." 30Lamech lived after the birth of Noah five hundred ninety-five years, and had other sons and daughters. 31Thus all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy-seven years; and he died.
32 After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth." (Genesis 5:1-32)
The descendents of Adam are Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Mathuselah, Lamech, and Noah in order of ancestory. Now if you were to translate the meanings of the names from Hebrew you would have the following,
Adam = "man"
Seth = "appointed"
Enosh = "mortal"
Kenan = "sorrow"
Mahalalel = "The Blessed God"
Jared = "shall come down"
Enoch = "teaching"
Mathuselah = "his death shall bring"
Lamech = "the despairing"
Noah = "rest" or "comfort"
Now if you read the names in order then you have: "Man appointed mortal sorrow - The Blessed God shall come down teaching, his death shall bring the despairing rest." This is possibly a very powerful prophecy of the coming salvation through Jesus the Christ.
I would like to check the translations of these names with other sources. So far from Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary the following definitions are given,
Bear in mind that the Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionarywas completed in the late 1800s so these definitions are most positively outdated by current scholarship. Unfortunately this is the best I could find online right now. Anyone have any better sources available online?
As well has anyone seen any other genealogies used in such a way?
This is a short video of Shahbaz Bhatti who had this footage made so that in the even of his own death the public could hear his testimony. The movie was sent to the BBC a few months ago. Sadly, Bhatti was killed by Taliban operatives just this past week. In his testimony he says he knows "the meaning of the cross" therefore he cannot surrender his convictions in the face of death threats. This is a powerful challenge to others that the cross isn't just meant for Jesus Christ, but for every follower of him.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down just a few days ago --- peacefully. In my opinion this event is extremely important in world politics that will have rippling effects for decades to come. These effects are already apparent as Algeria is bracing for protests inspired by the successful movements in Tunisia and Egypt which over threw their respective governments. Other nations such as Yemen, Sudan, Jordan, Iran and Serbia are struggling to deal with movements inspired by Tunisia and now Egypt.
Should Christians involve themselves in these sort of movements?
Great Christian leaders such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind, and the answer seems to be as resounding "Yes of course!"
Martin Luther King Jr.
I agree that the answer seems to be an easy one and simple common sense, but a few things in the Bible make me think we should not answer this question so quickly.
"For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. " 1 Peter 2:13-17
Peter's final command to "Honor the emperor" should haunt us, as we read else where in the book that the church is suffering persecution.
"Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ's sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed." 1 Peter 4:12-13
This persecution is possibly originating from the Imperial government itself, and in the very least the local and imperial authorities are turning a blind eye to the persecution. Yet Peter is calling for the church to honor their government, not protest because injustice and corruption.
Which biblical figures practiced civil disobedience? Where they honored for it? Absolom was killed while hanging from a tree (2 Samuel 18:15). Probably symbolic that he was under God's curse (Deuteronomy 21:23).
What about figures who did not practice civil disobedience in the face of injustice? Take a look at David's example in the midst of the violence and injustice of King Saul.
If Christians are to be involved under what circumstances? And what causes?
Is the organized church necessary in the Christian faith? I think this question hinges on where the authority and inspiration of the church comes from. Was it Jesus' idea or someone else's?
What word(s) would you choose? Love? Grace? Salvation?
J. I. Packer said that if he were to try to use one word to describe the theme and essence of the work as a whole he would use the word: Adoption.
I agree completely with Packer. When I read the bible from beginning to end I saw two main themes of contrast. The first is directly from Packer: Exile vs. Adoption. And the second is Slavery vs. Redemption. These themes are the link between the narratives, law and prophets of the Old Testament and the theology of Jesus, Paul and the apostles in the New Testament.
