why do Christians feel that the new testament is more important than the old one?
447756
What? Jesus never said lets leave Judah. What? all the prophets say Israel will "win" in the last days. What> jesus said you wont see me again untill the last days as he assended . What? yet he appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus (the very man that hates jesuses followers)and gives him a plan to bring jesus to the heathens .    Jesus revealed many things to his disiples he never said this man would come along and set the way the new formed congregations (or there even should be congregations) conduct there buisiness. Once established, being set aside from judah, being involved in war and oppression ever since and Judah has been the victim many times ,but now Israel is home Christianity will be used to defend Judah and its rights till the final day. What an interesting arena   this human game is being played out in. I wish I was around to see the Dinosaur game being played! All 66 books are important, probably even more! (ps  ------  try to establish who wrote the scripts for the opposing players oh if you believe somthing  you just end up trying to prove what you belive and will have trouble really seeing the facts)  love to all
343327
The god of the Old Testament is different from the god of the New Testament because they are the gods of different religions.
750356
We as Christains are not bound by the old testament anymore thats why Jesus came to set us free from those laws..Jesus says to love one another as He has loved us..Very plain..To know Jesus we will want to walk more like Him everyday and not do things to cause us to be seprated..
649052
Your point's a good one. I agree that the Resurrection is equally as important (and in some ways moreso) than the Crucifixion. \n\nI think there are many reasons why the cross is often preferred:\n\n1. The Crucifixion is easier to symbolize. (I mean, what do you wear around your neck if you're celebrating the resurrection? An Easter bunny with a halo? heh)\n\n2. The Cross represents the love of God expressed in what Jesus was willing to suffer and sacrifice for our sake. (The Resurrection more symbolizes God's power [over death] than his love.)\n\n3. I think the beginning of Christ's name in Greek was Chi Rho -- the Chi was an "X" (a cross). So "X" became a symbol for Jesus (and could possibly be why "Xmas" became shorthand for "Christmas").\n\nI don't know. I'm strongly ambivalent. I think we need to recall God's power, and the Resurrection is a glorious promise of the Life God offers. \n\nBut, being a rather melancholy, long-suffering sorta fellow, the Crucifixion really resonates with me -- in dark times, it's a reminder that Christ suffered as well, that the Trinity loved me THAT much... and that no matter what I might go through in this life, I am not alone.
981762
The Bible in it's present form didn't exist until hundreds of years after Christ's crucifixion. Until that time Christians had the same scriptures that the Jewish nation had. But they didn't practise Judaism, they practised Christianity.\n\nSo, if it was just the Bible... then Christians would have practised Judaism.\n\nThe New Testament wasn't the foundation of Christianity. Christ was.
204043
the old testament is before the birth of Jesus Christ and the new testament is after, the old testament tells us how we are born sinners, (because of the sin in the garden of Eden) and so much more. The new testament tells us how we can be saved. The birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
1049922
I agree that it is out of date, but I don't think that you can just go and arbitrarily change the content.  And by whose standards would it change?\n\nI think that there are many misinterpretations of the bible over the centuries.\n\nI am going to be ordering one that is supposed to be a direct translation from the orginal Aramaic New Testament to see what the difference is.  It is called The Modern New Testament : Translated from the Original Aramaic Sources by G. Lamsa.\n\nHaving said that, I also think that much of the bible directly speaks to that generation's society and political culture and therefore, not a lot of it has to do with how things are in this day and age, although I feel that Jesus taught us timeless lessons of love and acceptance and faith.  \n\nBut I don't believe that Jesus was the only master and that timeless lessons were taught by Mohammed and Buddha and many other masters as well.
536904
Remember that the Catholic church canonized the bible which had those books in it before the protestant reformation. Catholics didn't add to it, Luther(and others) took them out! Those of you who swear by the King James bible are missing out on several books that are in the Old Testament and of value. We (Catholics) are not "on to something". We just have the complete Bible (and have all along). \nTo my Protestant brothers, check the history of the bible, and see what I'm saying!\nGod bless you for asking this question.
625948
Christians believe that God inspired the writers of the Gospels.\n\nWere the Beatitudes taught on a mount or on a plain or both? It doesn't really matter. What matters is the message in the Beatitudes about how to be happy (or blessed).\n\nThe Gospels were written either by actual disciples of Christ or people who knew the disciples. These were stories that were shared every Sunday during the breaking of the bread (Mass). All Christians knew the stories and would have raised a cry if the writers got it wrong. \n\nThis is a much better oral tradition than the Old Testament which was passed along orally for over a thousand years.\n\nAnother sign of accuracy kept over the last 200 years is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that when compared to modern Scriptures show very little discrepancy.\n\nWith love in Christ.
401462
No-one really knows what they're talking about, because everything these people know has been told to them by somebody else. They dont have the ability to think for themselves so they adopt someone else's belief system. Yes, a lot more crap went on back in the day, but people change what the bible means to humanity to suit their own needs at that time, which is why beliefs keep changing. Even the New testament was written by a bunch of people who never even knew Jesus. So you or I could just as easily write another new testament and go and call that the bible.
339944
It most certainly can! All that was said in the Bible can still be applied today. Some things did change from the Old to the New Testament, but both are still very much valid. The Bible is our guide to life! Read it, study it, meditate on it! I guarantee you will grow from it! God bless!
860899
first all the Bible was written by men, men who loved and followed  Jesus and wrote down his words\nand before Jesus, men were called scribes and they wrote down what they witnessed...\nand the new testament was also written by men with Jesus' words and the men's witnessing of what Jesus did and said,\nthe new testament is a fulfillment of the word from the old testament,\nGod did not change his mind, time went on and the Bible only fulfilled what was told and what happened,\n\ngood luck\nsmile\nand\nGod Bless
180362
This is a logical fallacy, appeal to novelty, that states that because something is newer it is better.  There is nothing, per se, wrong with following customs that are centuries old just because they are old.  It's just as wrong as the "Give me that old time religion" argument, which states that because it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for "me".  That's an appeal to tradition.  People should follow what actually works, regardless of when it was developed.  I guess this isn't really an answer to the question, though.
464487
This is because we are living in the Post-Modern Era.  This means that we are living in a era where the reader brings the interepretation to the text.  And since we have all had different life experiences we have a different interpretation of the Bible.  This being the case the way that the Bible reads in Greek and Hebrew is not important, the way that the Early Church fathers is not important.  It is completly dependant on the readers interpretation of the text.\n\nThis being the case there is a lack of the intellectual study of the Bible anymore.  Another characteristic of the Post-Modern mindset is almost rebelling against the intellectual history of the church.  Let me give you an example from Nitche.\n\nThe existentialists like Nietzsche brought a new nihilism and atheism which influenced culture. Post-colonialism after WW2 contributed to the idea that one cannot have an objectively superior lifestyle or belief. This idea was taken further by the anti-foundationalist philosophers: Heidegger, then Ludwig Wittgenstein, then Derrida, who re-examined the fundamentals of knowledge. They argue that rationality was neither as sure nor as clear as modernists or rationalists assert. Even logic could be biased -- "logocentrism" - the privileging of a system of logic. Psychologists have since gone further in asserting a cognitive bias, which points at a human bias of truth.\n\nThus since humans are the measure of all things rather than God we are the final authorities on Gods word, and our interpretation supercedes the TRUE BIBLICAL MEANING OF THE TEXT.
105386
Because Christianity founded itself on the Septuagint (Greek Bible) and later the Vulgate (latin) rather than the Hebrew originals.\n\nThe Septuagint word used in Exodus 20:6 is "prostagma" (Greek for "orders".) In the Vulgate, the word used is "praecepta" for precepts. \n\nSo because of this, there is definitely a slightly different emphasis in Christian understanding. We don't really consider ourselves wrong to use these texts, as they're actually older (by several centuries) than the Masoretic Hebrew used for modern Torah scrolls. They do offer a valid insight into how the texts were interpreted and thought of in ancient times.
19292
Because they cant read the original Hebrew for the Hebrew Scriptures, or the original Greek for the Christian's New Testament. Therefore they must rely on someone else's translation. \n\nRemember that modern translations are copyrighted, and the organizations that translated them make money when every book of their translation is sold. The KJV is so old, going back to 1611, that it has no copyright anymore, so it is free. That is why it accompanies many, if not all, computer Bible Programs.\n\nAlso keep in mind that the KJV was the only version available, and then the only version acceptable, to many denominations of Christianity for a very long time.\n\nPlease also remember that the person or organization who does a translation is biased, and their translation will reflect their own theology, regardless of whether or not a verse in the original actually says what they claim it says. No translation is totally right, and some are better, and some are worse, than others.
293665
It is confusing. That is why I read my Bible everyday. I believe it is the Word of God. That is all He has given me to go on. I do feel sorry for people who do not realize this. They are easily swayed. It also keeps me on track by belonging to a church. Jesus loves the church, He is coming back for the church.