God bless you for showing love to people that little left in life.

@Adam999

There are several on these forums that know the struggle all too well.  It is unbearably difficult. 

A ask the Father to be with you.

3 hours ago, Debp said:

Do the rules you have in your life bind you—or bless you?

Do you follow the rules—or follow the Ruler?

Some view the Christian life as one in which we drag a sled loaded with rules, uphill.  But Christ said his burden was easy, his yoke is light.  Take him as Lord, abandon all else, and you will see that his way is the one of blessing.
 

(Words of Christ devotional)

Which rules?

It is interesting that this topic has appeared in concert with several others that explore the same issue.  And serve quite well to illustrate the magnitude of the issue.

18 minutes ago, Coliseum said:

All men, no matter who they are or where, good or bad, simply want to be loved!

Hence the New Commandment for the New Covenant: Love One Another.

A New approach, not a patch on the old garment.

We are each desparate for love.  To be in a community, a family that cherishes us, that respects us when we talk, even when we say stupid things, not because we are right, but because we are loved.  To be in a family that when our behavior goes awry in the heat of the moment, we are not thrown out and destroyed per the letter of the law, but loved as the true Father loves, taking the punishment himself to ensure that the Love relationship can continue.

It is an outrageous model.  It is the only Hope. 

20 minutes ago, Coliseum said:

I can tell you that Richard Wurmbrand was a beyond phenomenal giant of the faith and a man who is my modern hero. I have written to his son, Michael, several times, who lives in Romania and was subject as a boy being left out to die while both his parents were in prison for their love for Jesus. When the husband of a family was imprisoned, no allowance was given to a family by the government to sustain them. Richard was told that his son was dead, and his wife Sabina turned to prostitution---none of it was true. Sabina forgave the man who killed her entire family, and in tears brought him to Christ. I could go on, but just to say that like @Abby-Joy, who shared her heart of the many things in her life that were unimaginably true, so I say absolutely they can be just as she described

Accounts such as the ones you mention here, are the only encouragement I find in these forums.  There are massive wrongs in this world, many, even most, suffer.  Much of it as the result of humans.  The chain of guilt and blame and judgement will never end, except by forgiveness.   Richard Wurmbrand is a glimpse of the city that has foundations.  Abby's act of outrageous forgiveness is a glimpse of the city. 

I had not heard that about Sabina before (or forgot, it has been many, many years since I read the main book).  That is another beautiful glimpse, a verification of the Gospel.

People who are suffering, and have no hope of escaping the suffering, need to see that the Kingdom of God still has a movement.

Like John the Baptist, whom Jesus called the greatest man, when in prison, sending to Jesus to ask, are you really the one?  One finds just enough strength to face the darkness, with a renewed glimpse of the light.

lftc

4 minutes ago, Coliseum said:

There are truths in this world too hard to fathom, and it is why when there come times of persecution, then Christians understand a small impact of the price our beautiful Savior paid for us.

And begin to understand that the Kingdom of God is not like this world.  And then want to be like Jesus.

I ask the Father to bless your day today.

27 minutes ago, Coliseum said:

Very strange to ask if there are lions in my life. If I compare myself to Richard Wurmbrand, who was tortured and suffered unspeakably and yet, when God asked him his name, he shamefully bowed his head and said to the Lord, "Jesus...I have no name. May I take your name"? Then I must confess more so that there are no lions. They devoured Christians, and I must ask in light of the answer Richard gave, how much less of one am I. Yet, only by his immeasurable grace, and for no other reason, He chose me. 

In prison, where many Christians gathered, one in particular---a Priest---never seemed to do anything wrong. The others asked, "If he does not sin, what hope is there for us"? Then, once in a heated argument amongst them, the Priest shouted in anger. They all said, "Oh Jesus. Thank you. Now there is hope for us too." I say, like them, "Thank you Jesus. There is hope for me too, a sinner."

I'm sure this is the first time you found my posts to be strange. (self focused sarcasm)

I thank you for the answer you gave, explaining by way of Wurmbrand that you do struggle with sin.  As we all do.

And I am sorry that I was not clear in the question.  I was thinking about the subject, caring about other people in their suffering, and I wondered if your screen name implied that there was some level of suffering occuring in your life.  As I have been somewhat of a student of early and middle Roman history, the mention of the Coliseum brings a whole spectrum of thoughts in my mind, none of them pleasant, all of them highly educational for this present age.  The Coliseum was the temple for the blood worship of human suffering, allowing self-focused people to indulge in the illicit pleasure of watching hated people suffer then the self-focused people could return home to eat, drink and be merry.  Not that your screen name makes me think that you want those things, but rather, thinking in love, that you viewed yourself as one of the hated objects on which people pour out their judgement.

Did I dig a deeper hole, or does that make it clear that I was asking out of concern for your well being?

18 hours ago, Alive said:

THe NIV is not a strict translation--none are perfect translations because of the different languages involved and the nuances of meaning attached to the multiple possible word matches from the original. The NIV admits to not even making that attempt in many cases.

The NIV is not a 'translation' but rather an 'interpretation'.

This is a significant difference.

Hello Alive,

I think you were referring to the translation approach.  Defining the terms gets important when the conversation gets to the level of differentiating between versions.

NIV is considered a literal translation, just as many others, some of which are mentioned in this thread.

There are (in one method of categorization) at least three approaches in English Bibles:  word-for-word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrase. 

Word-for-word and thought-for-thought are both considered literal translation approaches.

I wrote a longer explanation of the approaches and the difficulties encountered in each.  But then I remembered the nature of these forums and deleted it. 

Before one makes a decision about how to view a particular approach and the resulting version of the Bible, it is wise to understand the approach.

ESV and Holman advertise hybrid approaches.  I think all approaches are hybrids.

Very expressive.

@Bee32 Did you write it?  Well done.

I join you in the cry for the touch of God.

18 hours ago, Coliseum said:

Let us also see Him in our suffering brethren. Unless we consider any suffering as an urgent predicament, we have not even started to fathom what religion is all about, as Jesus so graphically illustrated.

A good reminder of the primary mission with the New Commandment.

Wurmbrand's use of the word religion may be misleading to some in the current western world, where the term is more of a pejorative.  In his context it meant the body of the Christ, the true church, refined by persecution to those that truly know Jesus.  No one just stays a believer because there are some good principles to learn and apply.  Not when you probably will pay for those good principles with torture and death.

Thank you for posting it, Coliseum.

Regarding your screen name:  are there still lions in your life?

King James Version:  If that is what draws you to knowing God, then follow the Spirit and Know Him.

Also, remember english is not the only language.  There are something like 7000 others.

Let me see if I can summarize the overall situation:

• God inspired the 40 authors of the books of the bible to write precisely what he wanted
• some in ancient hebrew without vowels  (significant issue by the way)
• some in a hebrew after the introduction of vowels
• some in aramaic (debated)
• some in koine greek (to differentiate from the later forms of greek)
• Then he handed it off to evil men to maintain

This is a formula for disaster.

Unless the Spirit of God is involved.  Which is quite evidently true.

But why did the Spirit of God allow the bifurcation of texts and translations?

Because the Spirit is not afraid of anything and can talk to each person.

So what happens when there is a doctrine that is dependent on a particular translation's reading of a particular verse?

Once you become aware of the issue, do your homework.  While the internet brings the filth of the world easily to the minds of the world, it also brings great ability to easily research.  You just have to get better at spotting the websites that purport to be authoritatve (all of them) vs. those that actually explore verifiable facts (very few).

For example, you'll find websites making an issue about the certain sets of texts being the "Majority" and others being the "Minority", implying that since "majority" is a better feeling word than "minority" then it is a better set of texts.  But until you understand what those terms mean in this context, including all the history and timing of the application of terms and the church activities at the various times involved in the history, you will be misled.   But if it interests you, it is really a very productive way to spend a year or so of your spare time.   I personally have done quite a bit of reading along these lines, but absolutely do not consider myself an expert. 

But I know enough to understand the overall issues with translations.  And most importantly, I know enough to seek the truth through looking at many english translations, some other translations, and various liguistic helps (lexicons, etc).

I believe the message from God is stated over and over in many different ways in the scriptures.  If one verse was mangled by a scribe or a translator, the overall message is not lost.  Efforts should be made to correct errors, but God is not willing that any should perish, and he certainly would not leave that to ravages of human bungling.

@TraceMalin,

I did not see this thread until today.  Makes me feel foolish for wishing you well when you posted a good-bye post, as I said things that would be nice for someone moving off to a new earthly adventure, but not for someone vacillating between suffering and suicide.

I see you were online yesterday, so I hope that you read this, for whatever it is worth.

Reading your story of your suffering brought a flood of tears to me.  I so wish I could make the suffering stop.  And I relate to the ever present thought of why go on when the future has guaranteed unending pain.  At least "guaranteed" as far as we can determine with human thinking.

You asked a serious, very serious, question.  You asked if suicide is a sin.  I read the article you linked and appreciated that the author covered many of the important related passages directly relating to suicide. 

As you probably know, many modern doctrinal positions are that it is a sin, and they arrive at it by extrapolation.  Simply: Murder is a sin, Murder is killing someone without assignment of guilt by a governing body, suicide is killing someone without assignment of guilt by a governing body, therefore suicide is muder, therefore suicide is sin.  There are exegetical problems with this (such as the governing body etc).

I personally suspect that it is probably a sin in many situations, but based on the New Covenant principle that whatever is not of Faith is sin.  (Faith is defined pretty well in the New Covenant).

However, the overriding principle of the New Covenant is that all sin was paid for at the Cross of the Christ. When one finally decides to quit arguing about sin and define it, it becomes abundantly clear that it is impossible to live life without sin.  People who say it is possible use isogetical tricks to refine the list of sins down to a select few - a hazardous game indeed if salvation depends on the correct answer.  Like your post about observing theological principles from diving lore, not defining sin perfectly is like cave diving without a guide line.  You are going to die. But only if the your sins are not forgiven.  But Jesus paid for all sins for all men (not my words - Paul).

Which means that we probably all die with sin for which we have not repented.   We are saved through faith that Jesus is Supreme in Authority (greek word often translated Lord).  (Allow me interject that I am not aligned with any particular system of theology - that whole debate is meaningless from my perspective)

The discussion of suicide is scary to write to a person daily agonizing in his internal search for a reason to endure more agony.  Except that I live there too.  The Apostle Paul was there too at least for some length of time. 2 Cor 1:8 We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself.

The Gospel is about the removal of sin through the Cross of the Christ so that we can know God.  Really know him, not just know about him.   And so that he can Know us.  "But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3But whoever loves God is known by God. ^a"

Throughout the scriptures there are stories of suffering.  The faith chapter itself has many, but, like you, I feel some of those would be a easy trade.

But I want to know God.  I want to love God.  I do love God, not with the giddy infatuation love of romance stories, but with something closer to the goal, 1 Cor 13 Love.  The love of the God to lay down his life so that he could know us.  Each day I struggle against despair and most days choose to decide that I will patiently endure, waiting for Jesus.

I find encouagement reading of people oppressed through the ages, reading of the amazing endurance.  When they were able to communicate their stories (remember the physical victor writes history), there can be found stories of experiencing God in exceedingly deep ways, but at such great cost.

My personal opinion is this may be what happened with Paul: great suffering (reading his list of sufferings is amazing), despairing of life, finding the deeper meaning in knowing God and then being able to say "for me to live is Christ, to die is gain".  He then went on to choose to go back to Jerusalem to try one more time to convince them to know God, even though God sent a prophet to tell him not to go.  And then lived 2 more years in horrible Roman prison until his beheading. 

I hesitate to be overly familiar with you, Trace.  But one thing I see is that you may be expereincing tremendous grief at the loss of all your astonishing physical prowess.  It is a tremendous loss and such a loss on top of the extreme unending physical suffering is an overwhelming avalanche of misery.

My hope is that my battle for faith in Jesus while suffering will lead one day to a true deep intimate relationship with God.  I get glimpses of it, but not the fullness.  I cannot say to you to just do what I do.  I am not the one across the finish line saying "Follow me", I am another like you, fighting on in swirling dark chaos of pain and difficulty, crying out "I see light over there".  Jesus.

That is the battle.

I have seen God heal people.  I pray this minute that God sends healing to you.  And your sister.

9 hours ago, Melinda12 said:

I am going to stop attending church. 

I cannot stand any more of the people. The group that runs everything is unbearable. Squabbling with each other, being self important, so petty. It puts me off my joy of worship. They even resent that i am a quiet one who will not join in their nonsense. I used to be involved in everything but withdrew some time ago as i got exhausted of being put upon. Now i find their personalities tiresome so i say little and feel unwelcome and increasingly an outsider because i won't play their game. 

I feel resting at home on Sundays is far better. I am happiest reading my Bible, lots of Christian books, praying and being alone and peaceful. I have good real Christian friends and we get together quietly for coffee and to pray and talk in my home. I love that.

But what of fellowship and singing hymns? Of mutual support? It's just the few have spoilt that for everyone and i cannot cope with such disruption to my peace of mind any more. 

So i may attend occasionally now. I will miss it as it was my routine i valued so much. I am so sad about it all. Has anyone else been driven from their church?

Hello Melinda12,

not sure you want to hear my view as I don't think you liked my views on the previous questions you asked.

After debating with myself, I will present it as maybe there is a 1% that will find something useful in it.

It is interesting that this comes up at the same time as the astute question from @Bee32 in his "welcome" post.

As @Justin Adams observed above (interestingly observing three tiers as did Bee32), there are the exceptions, people who truly seek. 

"church" is a word around which swirls massive amounts of equivocation, redefining the word in different ways in the middle of a conversation.  Jesus used the word to initate building his church as those that believe what Peter said in Matt 16 Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
In some usages people mean a logical doctrinal affiliation when the say church, such as Anglican or Baptist.
Often people mean a specific building that houses a local group affiliated with a doctrinal group.  I think that is what you mean here.  You are going to stop attending at that specific building with that specific group of people, because they are in one of Bee32's first 2 sets of christians.

I said all that to illuminate that the church of Jesus is available to experience outside the walls of that particular building/group.

---

Several here have referenced the phrase from Hebrews "[do not forsake assembling]".  This is an appropriate reference, but the context deserves some attention.  Hebrews was written to the Hebrew (Jews) christians, who were still heavily involved in the Old Covenent worship (hence some of passages that are difficult when taken out of context).  Being still devoted to the Law, they would have felt their primary duty to attend synagogue (a Pharisee invention) or the Temple, and viewed association with other christians as the secondary way of experiencing God.  So the writer of Hebrews is encouraging them to in the whole book to move away from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.  A dangerous thing for them to do, as ceasing attending synagogue and associating regularly with christians would expose them to societal oppression.  But associating with other christians is important.

---

Reading through church history, one finds a discouraging but illuminating history of corruption in the organized "churches", but if one keeps reading at the deep level, it is possible to discern an ever present thread of the true church of Jesus, the people in Bee32's 3rd group, the people who know that sin is too comprehensive to overcome and cast themselves on the mercy of God expressed through Jesus, and make that their mission in life, to do the "New Commandment" Jesus gave: "LOVE ONE ANOTHER".   THink about that for a moment - a NEW COMMANDMENT.  Yet it is definitely a commandment in the Old Covenant.  Here is more of it: 34A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”  Important context: this is just before the crucifixion, the inception of the New Covenant.

This section was intended to illuminate that the true chruch of Jesus is not bound together by minute details of doctrine but by Love (precisely defined by the death of Jesus (John 3:16) and 1 Cor 13). 

---

What does all this have to do with your experience with your local congregation?  I feel that the Hebrews passage about assembly is important to spiritual life, but it is refering to assembling with others through a bond of real Love, that is willing to die for the other person's sins (impossible to live up to, but remains the goal).  Those people could be at the local congregation among the always present and powerful groups 1&2 from Bee32.  But if you choose to stop attending that congregation, it is important to find other's that follow Jesus and meet with them to Love each other.  Bee32 needs that kind of a group.  I too desparately need that group.  Melinda12, your friends you meet with may be among the true church, that is for you to evaulate.

@Bee32 to answer your question in the Welcome Forum, I hope and strive to be part of the Jesus group, group 3.  I hope and pray for endurance for you as you walk the lonely road.  Your sins were forgiven right after Jesus gave the New Commandment. Father forgive them for they ...  .  Me Also.

@Neighbor

nice to read more of your adventures.  I would have clicked "well said", but then the forum members that are very understandably concerned about the demonic influences of halloween would have the opportunity to think I was taking an opposing view.

The thing I did not like about your story:  your references to your great mother made me realize how much I miss my great mother.

Good account.

The observation I was planning to share only makes sense if one can see the impact of the commandments on society under Mosaic Law.  And it depends on acceptance of the principle that God still intends people to ponder the Torah.

It appears that interest in this topic is minimal.

Be blessed.

On 9/29/2019 at 3:40 AM, Bam2001 said:

With all this being said, there are some questions I have regarding this.

1) Tupac promoted songs and messages of righteousness, with some gangsta-type themes, only so he could connect and reach out to the people who lived in ghetto hood areas. First and foremost, 2Pac believed in helping the poor, and fought for those who couldn't, but often times his anger did get the best of him, and he would act out on it, but then regret it later on. ~ Does this make him more of a no good thug rather than someone who can be seen as good?

2) Despite him not believing the divine context of the Bible (at least not at the time of the interview), do you think he could still be considered a Christian? He held a very strong and firm belief in God, and believed in the teachings of Christ as well. His Gang Related interview shows him calling Black Jesus, God. Maybe he could've been what is called an "Agnostic Christian"? What is the minimum requirement to being called a "Christian"?

3) Would you say that Tupac made it into Heaven? Or that it seems like He could've? He did exactly what Jesus taught people to do in His Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, but he didn't seem to believe in Biblical authority, but he did refer to Jesus as God. This means he took Him as his "Lord", but I'm not sure if he then also took him as his "Savior". His body art and songs seem to show a promotion of Christian belief, though. I remember reading about King Solomon who was once righteous in the Eyes of God, but then turned to idolatry and had several women as his wives and concubines. I don't think Solomon would've landed in Hell though, so I don't think that what Tupac did, would've landed him in Hell (but I'm not the one to make that judgement).

@Bam2001

If you ever come back online, reply to this and type @ and my screen name "lftc".  I read your whole post.  I have some thoughts that may help with the difficulty you are facing.

9 hours ago, ColorfulBlossoming said:

 

Hi ColorfulBlossoming

reviewing this thread, I see that you did not respond for some time.  Are you still struggling with the same issue?  It truly is a very common struggle.

1 hour ago, ReneeIW said:

I wasn’t posting verses in an attempt to debate. I was just trying to express my feelings by using Scripture.

Christ came to fulfill the promises in the OT. It doesn’t mean the OT doesn’t have value, but it does mean now that we have Christ and a New Covenant and a new way of doing things, we probably shouldn’t be longing for the OT days when things were done differently.

It reminds me of the people in the NT that asked Christ why the disciples were not fasting. The disciples had Christ among them, why would they fast? 

We have  a new way of doing things. Why go back to the OT and wish for the old way? But again, I might be misunderstanding your point.

I’m sure some wish an “eye for an eye” was still the best way at righting wrongs. Is there value in that teaching?  

I’m sorry I participated in this thread and maybe took you off topic. I found it interesting, but then I struggled to see what you wanted us to learn from it. That’s my problem, not yours.?

Thank you for the gracious reply, ReneeIW.

I understand your perpective, that the New Testament changed everything from the Old Testament.  I already stated my view, so I won't restate it here.

I am sure that we each would prefer to build a custom system of law that only punished other people's crimes.  I am not saying that against you, as I would prefer that too.  When I look around the world, I see pieces of law of the various authorities that I like and others that I do not.  People around the world are actively seeking to change their governments,  one hopes they use some higher standard to evualate the basis for such change.  I am not the higher standard, just dust in wind thinking about it as I blow into eternity.

I greatly appreciate your patience as we discussed this.  And I hope your path continues to lead you into the Love and Mercy that led you to have such a deep and true love for the New Testament.

1 hour ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Shalom @lftc

I might be repeating what someone else has already said, if so forgive me. 

I believe the term "two or three.." was the ancient Hebrew way of saying "two or more.."

Obviously two was acceptable but the provision is there to allow more to come forward as a testimony rather than turn them away saying "we have two already, be gone!"

Love & Shalom 

Shalom to you, @Tzephanyahu

Your oberservation is interesting.  Do you have a reference that indicates that it is "two or more"?

That would make the situation even more revealing of the LORD's perspective on the requirements for conviction. 

Posting the Deut passage again for easy reference:

Deut 19
15“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil^c from your midst. 20And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

It is a significant issue to involve more witnesses as v18 requires investigation of each. And each found false gets punishment commensurate to the alleged crime.

I think this topic leads, in part, to a perspective you have posted about in the past.

14 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

Galatians 3:24-25 King James Version (KJV)

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The principle of 2 OR THREE witnesses is not just old testament, I feel obligated to point out it was mentioned in the OP.

I could take the common approach and post opposing verses. However, I find that when it becomes a debate of posting countering verses, the clear indication is that understanding has ceased.  I suggest that if you truly do not believe that the Old Testament has value, then we have no common ground on which to discuss this topic. 

8 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

My concern is with what the church is doing, not the world. 

I still don’t understand the point of your post. Are you suggesting that if there are not three witnesses, there  should not be a conviction?

I agree with your concern as being the church.  As a group it is very important.  And I seeking to share the things one can learn about God's perspective from his view of how government should work.  Do the prinicples of God conflict with the world?  Do the principles of God conflict with the systems of Law?  If they do, as I think you and I have already agreed, what do we do with those prinicples?  I think that at the least, one can ponder them and let them affect the issues in the domain of the ponderer.

7 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

23 hours ago, lftc said:

Still on the same topic, I watched in morbid fascination a few years ago as the governments in the U.S.A. legalized homosexual marriage, overriding the popular vote.  Which side had the authority of your understanding of Romans 13?

I’m not sure I understand the question. 

I had further illustrated that question with the case of the U.S.A. foundation in rebellion against the governing authorities.  Applying Romans 13 as you interpret it, the foundation and claim to authority becomes based on some other principle, not God Given Authority.  That is, unless God Grants Authority to each person or group that uses the power of force to assert authority and wins.  I am not singling out the U.S.A., this issue is one of the fundamental issues of history. 

I would go further and provide clarity to this issue, but that really should be in another topic.  For the purposes of this thread, I seek to establish that the prinicples that God presented in his wisdom given to Moses are timeless and not obsolete.  As to the ability to change government, I join with you in doubting the practical feasibility.  However, principles stand regardless of the regime in control in a particular region.  The world is much larger than the U.S.A. and history is much longer than that of the U.S.A.

16 hours ago, joebloggs said:

Lol no I dont have a blog. My names joe, joe bloggs is a phrase over here in the uk. Means a typical , average kind of a guy.

Yes as a Christian the bible is very important to me. I do my best to live by Christs teachings. And the bible gives us a great indicator of what those are and how those apply to me in any given situation. 

Thank you.

I too do my best to understand the teachings of Jesus, the Christ.  Years ago, I realized I was being dishonest about the Sermon on the Mount, taking one part literal and the next figurative and ignoring that he said that the Law still has applicability.  So that led to taking the Law more seriously, instead of just ignoring it except as a "look how bad it was" study.  Then I realized, like Bereans, the foundation for the Gospel was built through the Old Testament, as Paul clearly lays out.  It really is quite remarkable.

Thank you again!

On 10/24/2019 at 1:02 PM, Elihoenai said:

Luke 16:16 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

16 the law and the prophets [are] till John; since then the reign of God is proclaimed good news, and every one doth press into it;
 

Luke 16:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

 

Does this mean that the Law and the Prophets is Cancelled or Made Obsolete since the arrival of forerunner John the Baptist? If yes, how could this be so, given that John is a Prophet?

Context:

Jesus had just given the Parable of the Dishonest Manager.  Without trying to interpret that (which is one of the more difficult to interpret parables), just keep in mind that it is about money at the superficial level.  Jesus ends with:

"You cannot serve God and money.”

The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him.  And he [Jesus] said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void."

It seems clear to me that the "Law and Prophets were until John" is grammatically related to the "kingdom of God is preached", giving meaning of what was "until John" - the preaching or proclamation of the Covenant.  John the Baptist came and preached "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at near".  This marked the beginning of the proclamation of the Kingdom of God which is known through the Gospel.  The New Covenant, I believe, does not take effect until Jesus death/resurrection.

The context of the Pharisees is important as they took offense at the Parable. They did not understand the Parable and took it as being just about the summary "You cannot serve God and money".  They missed the deeper meaning, which appears to me to be illuminated by the  cryptic phrase in the quoted passage above: "For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God."  This sentence is directly before Jesus alludes to the ceasing of the Proclamation of the Law and the Inception of the Proclamation of Kingdom of God.

I find the importance of the Gospel repeated throughout the scriptures.   What did the Pharisees exalt: knowing ABOUT God through the Law.  If they were to have prepared for the Kingdom of God by participating in the Baptism of John (repentence from what - to what) they would most assuredly have experienced significant financial issues as a study of their involvement in society shows. 

But then Jesus ensures that we do not think he means that the Law is gone.  It has just taken its predestined role to be a pathway to understand the detestable nature of all things related to the fallen world.  He said "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void."   If it seems like a conflict, you are on the right path.  Old Covenant - New Covenant.  The New does not enhace or repair the Old, it is a completely separate Covenant.  The Old Covenant is still available if you want to try it.  In fact you really should fully try that approach, all the way as it is written.  Until you finally accept the New Covenant, with one of its foundations "the written code was nailed to the cross with christ" who "died, fulfilling the righteous requirements of the Law".

Jesus was setting the concept in the hearers minds.  He did this over and over, as it is a very difficult transition to make even today.  And it would be especially so in the context of Pharisaical Judaism, which I think God himself waited for before sending the Messiah.  Today the term Pharisees is an insult - it was high praise indeed at the time of Christ.

My apologies for the long post.  It really needs much more expansion.

20 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

Moses’s Law was to prevent men from slandering one another. Women were not even allowed to be witnesses.

I forgot to respond to these good points you raised.

I agree that the commandment listed in the OP would prevent offical action on slander.  But it goes far beyond that; it would prevent punishment based on slander.  But it goes even further, as you and I discussed.

As to women not allowed as witnesses.  I have been intentionally reading the Law (Torah) for years,  I did not recall any commandment restricting women from being witnesses.  So I did some research.  Such a restriction was added and modified over the years by later groups.  Subject for another post.  The point would be that in the Bible that restriction is not in the Law.  I'm not sure why you were bringing that into the discussion, but I thought I would share what I found.