Thank you for answering the question. It is not easy to admit sometimes that we have areas where we are not subject matter experts.
It must be harder to admit that you've wasted a significant amount of time defending your make-believe friend.
Sorry, couldn't resist
The Mosaic Law was a contract. The New Covenant is a contract. Middle Eastern contracts. It is helpful to know the culture and context of any contract when you are applying critical analysis to it. That's very basic academic scholarship that any atheistic professor of antiquities, history, or eastern civilization would agree with. How does this apply to the timing? One contract (Mosaic Law) had to be completed by Jesus' living righteously. Then it could be declared that the terms were completed. Then a new contact (the New Covenant) could be inacted. Think of a contract with someone to cut your grass for a year. The terms are strict and can't be changed. So you have to wait until that contract has been fulfilled before you can create a new contract that includes trimming the hedges in addition to cutting the grass.
Now, before I get to your analogy, I'd like to point out the problem with any of your responses to me. You seem to have a hard time answering a direct question with a direct answer. Instead, you hedge. You offer flawed analogies (like this one). You leave doors open so you always leave a little wiggle room when the reality disagrees with you interpretation of "The Word". One of the few straight answers I got was that Jesus was under Mosaic Law. Except now, he really wasn't?
Your grass cutting contract analogy is flawed because, the be a contract like the Mosaic Law, I would have had to been forced into the contract at birth. The contract would also have to be so stringent (each blade of grass cut to exactly 2.567867354566cm) that there would be now way for me to ever meet the terms. Then, the person who forced the contract on me would have the right to punish me eternally for not being able to meet the terms of the contract I never agreed to.
I understand why you explain in analogies and half thoughts. I'll give you one of my own. You explanations are like pudding (I'm being nice). In some places you can lay it on thick and it almost seems solid. In other places, the pudding has to be spread so thin as to be almost completely transparent. For example, this gem . . .
At some point in Jesus' life, it was determined that He had fulfilled the Law - that He had completed from the human/Jewish side. I can't tell you exactly what day that was, because it isn't told to us in the Bible, but apparently He had fulfilled it when He declared all foods clean (from the deity side). Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was in how He lived.
. . . you simply made up. Conjured it out of thin air and then presented it as established fact.
Then, of course, you get to declare people wrong . . .
The Americans in the North and the South, whether they were Christian, Deists, or atheists, who thought it was their god given right to own slaves were wrong.
. . . when the reading of the Bible at that time supported their beliefs. I would imagine (just my opinion. not fact) that in 200 years Christianity will look very little like the religion you practice today and equally sure "scholars" will declare your beliefs wrong.
Who will be right then? How will anyone every know?