I demonstrated through Scripture this was always untrue, even going all the way back to Abraham (Genesis 12:3, cf. Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8). While not a party to the New Covenant, the blessings and requirements fall on believing Gentiles who convert to Christ. The only thing we don't have coming to us is the land. That part requires all of Israel to return to God.
Saying it doesn't make it so. You established no such thing. Not even close. You're the only person I've ever heard of who even believes such a thing.
"IN CHRIST," which is, in the Church.
No, not in the church - lower case 'c'. I do not worship the church nor am I identified by it.
And of course in the Church there is no Jew or Gentile;
No, there is no Jew or Gentile in regards to entering into or maintaining a relationship with God (i.e. salvation). Before Israel was cut off (Romans 9) you could not enter into a relationship with God unless you did so through Israel (i.e. submitted yourself to the law). Now, there is no law, no Israel, no circumcision, no nothing but grace through faith - period (Romans 3:21; 4:5 and elsewhere).
the land promise made to all of Israel and not to Gentiles though, are waiting "until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21).
There's a whole lot more that God promised Israel than just a plot of land. None of it applies to us - none of it. Some of the promises made to us are similar but any such similarity is coincidental and not due to some sort of transfer from Israel to us. That which was Israel's will be Israel's again and forever shall be so but for now, Israel is out of the picture entirely (soteriologically speaking).
I grant that the land promises are "on hold," but the everlasting New Covenant is not otherwise "on hold" while the Lord Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Yes, they absolutely are. What is it that you think it meant when Paul said that Israel had been cut off because of unbelief (Acts 7-9; Romans 9-11)? That they lost their land rights? Give me a break! NO ONE but you believes such a thing. It's ridiculous.
Right, it is an amendment of the Old Covenant, some things remain, some things are different. See below.
See Hebrews actually. Are you a Hebrew?
Leviticus 19:18 is still in force for Gentiles in the New Covenant. Confer Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:14.
Your understanding is so shallow, it feels like I'm talking to a child. The so called "Golden Rule" has been the basis of morality since BEFORE the law! Murder, adultery, stealing, etc were all immoral long before Moses brought those tablets down the mountain! If your doctrine was correct, there would have been no need for Paul to write either Romans 13:9 or Galatians 5:14! It would have been the stupidest thing in the world for him to write!
What you fail to understand is that you do not need the law in order to be moral or even righteous. In fact, quite the contrary. The law has a ministry of death. The more laws you try to follow, the more of them you will break. The law is of the flesh and you cannot be righteous by the flesh. If you sow to the flesh you will reap death. In fact, God Himself will see to it that you fail, if you are in Him and try to follow the law. In the Body of Christ, it is Christ and Christ alone or nothing at all. You do not get to help God make you righteous. This is the lesson God spent most of the entire history of mankind teaching humanity and you have failed to learn it.
It isn't beside the point. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).
It absolutely is beside the point. You can add grace to a covenant of law but you cannot add law to a covenant of grace.
If you hire a man to do a job and he does the job but not perfectly, you may decide to pay him his full wage anyway, perhaps even more than has asked. This is grace added to a law.
If someone does something for you that was well beyond you means to accomplish for yourself and does so as a gift to you because he loves you and you attempt to pay him back with a McDonald's Happy Meal, then you've added law to grace and insulted the gift giver.
Mixing law and grace only works in one direction. Try it the other way and it ruins it.
As I said and which you did not address, the plan was always for the Lord to be put to death, to dedicate the New Covenant, and it was specifically not just because God so loved all of Israel, but because He so loved "the world," that Christ came (John 3:16!). That was always the plan, as I indicated through Old Testament Scripture, which the Apostles confirmed and which I also referenced.
This much is not in dispute. The New Covenant was underway with Peter and the Twelve who had been given the Great Commission to do just as you are suggesting here. But, when Israel officially rejected Christ as their Messiah (Acts 7) and they stoned Stephen, God is seen standing in judgment against Israel and they were cut off and God turned instead to the Gentiles through Paul who was the first convert under the dispensation of Grace (Acts 9).
Note that, if your doctrine is correct, there was no need for Paul. If things continued uninterrupted, as you are suggesting here, then why Paul? Where's the need for a thirteenth Apostle and why was Paul sent by revelation to Jerusalem in order to explain "his gospel" to the Twelve and why did Peter, James and John agree with Paul that they and the Twelve would disregard the Great Commission and instead remain in Israel and minister to Israel only? Or didn't you know that such a thing ever happened? (Galatians 2)
The parties to the New Covenant are God the Father (represented by the Son) and all of Israel (represented by the 12 Apostles), but the blessings and requirements include Gentiles, the only part which does not is the land.
You are THE singular person alive on planet Earth that believes such a ridiculous thing.
And the Lord Jesus is also the One mediator of the New Covenant, in that He also represented all of Israel in dealing with the Father, and all of the Gentiles, in His sacrificial death on the altar of the cross (1st Corinthians 15:3!).
As I said, this is not in dispute. It's the connections you make to it that make no sense.
You just don't seem to understand the terms of the New Covenant.
That's a laugh! I wonder what colossal percentage of the New Testament you must have to just ignore to maintain this wacky doctrine?
