if the other is not the same as the original or substituted in place of the original and/or trying to be passed off as being the original...it's called fraud ..

if Jesus claim is that he did not come to change the laws of Moses but then claim that the laws ended then the term "fulfill" falls into what the laws call "bait and switch"

BAIT AND SWITCH
when someone place an item on sale to get you into their store and then when you get to the store they claim that the sale ended and try to sell you something else

Cowboy...all you are doing is making your God and Jesus and yourself out to be scammers

What in the world are you talking about Funches? No one's selling anything, nor did it change like that. We're not talking about a "choice" as in buying something or not buying something. We're talking about laws and prophecies. And again, the laws only hold power until all prophecies are fulfilled. And thus has absolutely nothing to do with your example of someone selling something. It's not a "surprise" when the law changes. It's prophesied to happen, it's told to us before hand that it will happen.

see even you have now claimed that the law was changed and that it was prophesied to happen when Jesus clearly stated that he didn't come to change the laws

and that is how you are making Jesus out to be a scammer

-_- Just your twisting of words and perhaps my misuse of wording. Nothing "changed" as in altered. It did change from one covenant to the next, but the covenant therein did not change. It was completed, finished, finalized, came to a conclusion. And we were given a new covenant.

Cowboy...you already admitted (without thinking) that it was prophesied that the law would change ....what you did my friend was what is called a "Freudian Slip" ...or in this case you posted Freud-inally

as I said...in the end you always prove me right

No, just you twisting of words and taking them out of context funches. It did change from one covenant to the next, but the first did not change as in being altered. I never said it was changed as in being altered, again. Just you playing games and taking things out of context.

Cowboy...if Jesus said he didn't come to change the laws this means that whether he is alive or dead or long after death..his presense or lack of presence would not have anything to do with those laws

anything more than that makes Jesus a liar and you a false gospeler

repent heathen

Aye, but he didn't change the laws. He fulfilled one and gave us another. He didn't alter anything.

if he "gave you another" as you yourself just claimed in the above post.......that represent "change"

He didn't change the covenant therein. He didn't alter anything. He fulfilled the first, making it obsolete. Then gave us another in it's place. He didn't change the original covenant, he fulfilled it, completed it then gave us a new one.

Cowboy... anything other than the Original... "represent change" ...it's simply no way around this ...without fraud involved

ah, but he didn't say he didn't come to make a change or anything of that such. He came not to change the covenant, he came not to alter it, make changes to the covenant therein. Which he didn't.

Again, the second covenant is not an altered version of the first. They are two totally different covenants made between God and man. There was no change in the covenant therein.

The first is the original covenant, the second is original as well. As again, the second is not an altered first.

Original - a work composed firsthand

Both covenants are firsthand, neither one was an alteration of the other or any other covenants.

a second can never be the Original...it can only be a copy

trying to pass a second off as being an Original is called fraud

and then trying to claim it's not fraud because the original has been fulfilled is called scamming

Ah, would be a copy if it was the same. But it is not the same. The first was fulfilled, completed, finished. After it's finished, it's as if it never even existed. So with that God gave us a new covenant sealed by the blood of his son on the cross of Calvery.

So are you saying your beliefs tend toward those of Marcion? If I misspelled it Maricon before, I am sorry- that word is a "bad" Spanish slang word.

Cowboy..if it's not the same...that mean it's not the Original



wow...it's funny to read a Christian denying the existence of something



a "new covenant" in itself acknowledge that it's not the Original and makes your God and your savior or in this case mostly likely you as being a perpetrator of flimflammery

and Christians would generally invoke faith instead of making their savior out to be some type of scam artist

so it's something else going on with you Cowboy ...you want to talk about the problem?

so come on talk with me walk with me

Original - a work composed firsthand

The "second" covenant, it not a revised covenant from the first. It is not an alteration of the first. It is a new covenant all in it's own. So, no there was no changing of any laws. The fulfillment of one covenant which again once it was fulfilled it was made moot, it was completed, no longer held power over us. And we were given a new covenant, the new covenant is an original as it's first hand, it's not an alteration of the first.

I denied nothing. As you'll notice I said "as if" it never existed. I didn't say it never did. But thank you for your time Funches :) love the enthusiasm in our discussions.

a "new covenant" would be secondhand not firsthand