Why do some Christian follow only the New Testament?

Question

These are examples from the Gospel of Matthew were Jesus refered to the Old Testament in his teachings:

Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes?

So shouldn't all Christians take both the New and the Old Testaments into account? If not, why not?

Answer 1

The only part that should be viewed dominant in the New Testament is the passages of Grace over Law. The Old Testament still gives us the right ways to live and to worship Christ. But the New Testament (covenant) was strictly to fulfill what God promised in opening a way for him. Knowing Christ takes precedence over obeying the Law.

Answer 2

The New Testament has the words of Jesus.. his first coming was told in the old testament, though many failed to realize that.. or rather, they expected the Son of God to be someone more.. for lack of a better word, more magickal.. definitely NOT someone they all witnessed growing up.
We need to know what the Old Testament holds, and not forget the errors, and lessons taught.. however, the words in the New Testament are more relevant.. they were not only for the days Jesus walked this earth, but for today.. the here and now.

Answer 3

Actually, I experienced it myself to one of my newfound friends. He had been qouting many phrases from the New Testament which made me think he is well versed in the Bible. But one time I was telling him stories in the Old Testament, he told me he never have read it.
I then asked how could he be good at the New Book when most parts of the Old Book are always mentioned to be fulfilled by Jesus. Otherwise, the more he will get confused if he reads the Book of Revelation because it definitely reveal what was accomplished and not accomplished in the missions set by God to His chosen ones.

Answer 4

Yes they should use the scriptures of both.

The knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and history of the Old Testament.

Just not all the laws.

There is much more to be understood from the Old Testament than the New Testament.

Mainly, it explains the foundation of Christianity.

Why we are who we are.
Why God did what he did.
And because of all of this, why there was a need for Jesus.

Any knowledge pertaining to the history of the world is in the Old Testament. You just have to know what you are looking for, and where to look.

Answer 5

"If not, why not?"

You've just hit on something that drives me totally wacky when it comes to fundamentalism in the Christian faith. That thing that literally drives me mad is the constant cherry-picking between the two texts. And why does it drive me insane?

The old testament is based on the Torah - the biblical writings of the Jewish faith. The new testament is the story of Jesus. Consequently, if you are calling yourself a Christian, your complete focus for your faith should be squarely on the new testament. Why? Because the two texts are very different with rules and moral standards that are too dissimilar to account for in this answer. And please. If you are Christian? Would you please refrain from pulling bits and pieces from both texts in order to support your personal biases? This is beyond frustrating.

Answer 6

Jesus and the Mosaic Law


Many Christians are perplexed when they confront the issue of the Mosaic Law. How binding is the Law on the Christian? Some have said that Jesus abolished the Law of Moses. I would have to disagree, based on the following passage spoken by Jesus Himself:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Some have suggested that by "fulfil," Jesus meant "abolish." Indeed, "abolish" is one meaning of "fulfil," but it is also the only meaning of "destroy." So if He had meant "abolish," He might as well have said, "I am not come to abolish, but to abolish." We can assume, therefore, that Jesus meant, "to develop the full potentialities of" when He said "fulfil."

So why then do Christians not observe the Mosaic Law? The answer is that they do observe parts, but not all of it. Some parts of the Law were meant to be temporary, while others were intended to be permanent. This is seen in the fact that before Moses, the ancient Jews were not bound to the ritual commands (except circumcision). If the Mosaic Law was not meant to be temporary, then either God changes or the God of the righteous men and women before Moses was a different god. But this is absurd. We know that the God of Abraham was the God of Moses, and that He is our God today. The coming of Christ made parts of the Mosaic law unnecessary.


In order to understand this, we must realize that the Law is made up of three parts: ceremonial, civil, and moral.


The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel's worship. Since its primary purpose was to point to the coming Savior, Jesus made it unnecessary. He did not abolish it, in the sense of destroying it; He fulfilled it. Nowhere do we read that Jesus thought that the ceremonial law was wrong. The principles behind the ceremonial law are still applicable to us today, that is, the principles of worshipping and serving a holy God.


The civil law prescribed rules for the Israelites' daily living. These laws separated the Jews from the Gentiles, and gave the Gentiles the example of how a holy people should live. Since much was given to the Jews, much was expected. But God gave a new covenant in Christ, and there is now no distinction to be made between Jew and Gentile. We are still to follow the requirements of this law as God's people, but the punishments are not for any nation to impose on its people, because we are no longer separated by nations but by God's grace (Christians and non-Christians).


The moral law is basically the Ten Commandments. We are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. Jesus not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments, He wished that they would go above and beyond them. He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." He desired not only an outward observance of these laws, but an inward observance as well.


So we see that the parts of the Law that have been rendered obsolete are those that contain ordinances. An ordinance is either a memorial of something that has already passed or a type of something in the future. The Old Testament laws containing ordinances were not meant to be permanent. There are no ordinances in the Ten Commandment Law.


Now, we must remember that following rules and regulations will not get us into heaven. It is only through the blood of Jesus that we can see heaven. But if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.

Answer 7

I don't know because if they read it, they would see that everything in the old testament points to Christ. The sacrificial offerings (which had to be perfect) typified Christ and what He would accomplish, being the last sacrifice. Who do they thing Isaiah 53 is about? The entire bible is the story of Jesus Christ. You can't have one without the other.

Answer 8

If they followed the Old Testament they would then acknowledge that Jesus was a Prophet, and that Muhammad was the last

Answer 9

Yes they should, the Old Testament doesn't mean anything without the fulfillment of Christ, and the New Testament looses it's value without the Old Testament showing our need for Christ

Answer 10

SOME Christians mistakenly believe that Jesus came to do away with the Old Covenant. He said He came to fulfill it. Christians who rely on somebody else to read the Bible for them will have this problem.