Thanks for taking the time. First, there's still no evidence that "fulfilled" means "over" or "gone"; it's your interpretation. I learned that reasonable inferences could be defended from the text and context, but your idea of an installment contract comes from the bankster world and not the text or context.

You get credit for citing Acts 13:45-51. This is a local group of Pisidian Antioch Jews who unite to oppose Paul, who then ministers to Gentiles; some take it as if it's an earth-shaking change in his strategy, but it's just a statement of giving up on partnership with a handful of people who don't want it. The passage he quotes, Is. 49:6, is indeed about the newness of the covenant reaching Gentiles, but everybody knew the part he didn't quote: It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles .... So the Servant of Israel had a mission to Israel that would be expanded to also include the nations. The very passage proves no replacement. Paul was wholly supportive of the delegation whereby he and Barnabas focused on Gentiles and Peter, James, and John focused on Jews (Gal. 2:8-9). So Acts cannot contradict his express delegation strategy. I appreciate your citing your sources because it shows you're interested in learning in case they don't say what you think. No contractual termination there (unless we want to assume Jesus uprooted the Pisidian Antioch synagogue only, consistent with Romans 11).

your extratextual heresies involving the killers of Christ being “already saved” and going to heaven

I never said that, dispies say that. Obviously Jesus's circle like Zechariah and Elizabeth were saved by faith in a Messiah to come just as Hebrews 11, so there were many saved by faith before Christ came. Obviously not all Jews had this faith, as at any other time, and they were winnowed by Jesus's death. The subset of dozens of Jews who worked for his death and hundreds in the approving crowd were indeed "unsaved" when they did so. Funny thing, in Acts 3-4, two months later, Peter says to a crowd of the same people "Ye ... killed the Prince" and told them "Repent ... and be converted", and "many of them which heard the word believed", by implied count including hundreds of the original crowd that called to convict him. So, no, they weren't saved, and there was a curse on the people generically consistent with other curses on other peoples, but the crowd who betrayed him were swayed immediately by one sermon from Peter and became many of the first 5,000 Christians.

Saying that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law unto death, and that we are deemed to, is perfectly consistent with the covenant. You seem to think that Jesus broke some Mosaic law as if Moses wasn't inspired. If the "spiritual law" that Jesus kept was different from the physical-spiritual law of Moses, then Moses failed to show the real terms of perfection and Jesus invented them afresh like a gnostic. But instead, everything Jesus did was justified by the same methods of interpreting the law that the leaders used (and that he approved). Jesus came "under the law" (Gal. 4:4) and that's obviously the Mosaic Law; he became "a debtor to do the whole law" (5:3).

(Now I'll grant that I don't see all the language I'm looking for in this pass of Scripture, so I may need to back off from the formulation I understood from Sproul. The Biblical language is "obedient unto death", Phil. 2:8. Obedience to what? Obviously God, which would include any command God offers and Israel accepts. So I can't conclude that Jesus was disobedient to any provision of Moses.)

the killers of Christ are not saved, nor are their laws valid.

You're mixing a few things. (1) A large group of the people who called for his death were in the first 5,000 Christians, so they were saved. (2) The Jewish people as a whole received a national curse for their elected representatives calling for his death and placing the curse upon the children in the mouths of the crowd, and this national curse does exist and works like other curses. As others have agreed here, as soon as any Jew accepts Jesus as Messiah the curse is broken for that one. And Romans 11 indicates they will discover Jesus en masse in the future, which is of course the hope of any evangelist. (3) The Laws of Moses are valid for those who accepted them (the Jews), as the Gentiles have accepted the Laws of Noah. Jesus accepted all the Laws of Moses, and removed encrusting lies like "Hate your enemy", which was not Mosaic. So they are valid as demonstration of righteousness for Jesus, and Moses gives a higher basis of righteousness compared to many others so Jesus is fulfilling the highest standard known, and that is the righteousness he shares with us, the highest standard. Perhaps you're concerned about some unstated corollary of these things, which I can't deal with unless I guess it right or unless you share it.

The law of Christ says the exact opposite of what you say about who is and is not saved.

I don't know what you think I said about being saved! I said "I'm saved by Jesus's works"; "we could [not] be saved by keeping" the old law; all are saved "by believing in the seed". Do you think nobody was saved before Christ? There are strands of churchianity teaching that. Obviously by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal. 2:16); and by faith Abel ... obtained witness that he was righteous (Heb. 11:4). Now, I know the formulation "saved by Jesus's works" is a bit novel in covenant theology, and there are valid competing views on exactly how this righteousness and salvation is applied, but the Scripture doesn't say the exact opposite. (Perhaps you think I said people were saved by works when I didn't.) What it says is the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe manifests in Christ's righteousness (Rom. 3:21-26). So, more accurately, I'll say my righteousness is within Christ's righteousness (which is obviously his obedience to the whole law). (My response to this righteousness is growth in the law of Christ.)

There's still no text that God supersedes or supplants or replaces a whole covenant or people. You posted text and very brief explanation, but I showed it doesn't say this but instead it supplements the covenant (unfolds, expands). You acted like "supplement" means "replace" but it doesn't. Instead, Is. 49:6, quoted in your cite, says that the newness of the covenant is "also" to the Gentiles, without losing anything of the gospel of Jesus the Jewish Messiah being also for ethnic Jews, millions of which have accepted it.

I have already directly cited, sourced, and defined every word I have used, in context, in all previous conversations

I grant that the interface is tricky but if you use comment view from the top you can see everything in one screen. You seem upset that I call you unclear because of your indirect style. Well, directly, you admitted supersession isn't in the text because you implied it's a retronym. I asked what supersedes what and you act like the existence of the new covenant by definition supersedes the old, but that's not how covenants work. (The old never worked for anyone but Jesus, and that was the point and was enough.) You then came right out saying "supplement" ("also") means "replace", but supplements don't replace. So my statement of your being unclear is that you don't have a presentation ready for where you get this idea of abolition. Christianity being about the New Israel is not a replacement or supersession because New Israel grew out of the covenant subset of Old Israel that was truly Israel. So original Christianity has lots that we both agree on, but it doesn't have your inference that something essential was removed, replaced, abolished, or superseded. (In fact that's what dispies think.) I began by telling you I was still looking for it (still am), and by suggesting that you could define "how people got saved from sin before Jesus came" for us to advance the discussion (still am).

the same propaganda only dispensationalists post

Hmm, let's guess. You mean dispies post "Medinat Israel is good"? I've posted that personally I can't judge this war yet but am looking forward to the ICJ findings on genocide. You mean dispies post "Jews are saved without Jesus" (Hagee sounds this way sometimes)? I've posted that Jews have always only been saved by Jesus. I grant that lots of Christians think that because Jesus constituted The Church then The Church is all the people we need to worry about, but, when I asked the Lord how people were saved before Jesus (similar to how are they saved before the gospel reaches their tribe), I found it was by faith in Jesus even without knowing his name. Oh! Maybe you think that because most everyone knows his name now, it's impossible now to be saved without knowing his name. That's pretty hypothetical when you actually pursue it: how is a person saved today if he never heard the name of Jesus? The short answer is that God knows, and the medium answer is that Romans 2 shows they are judged yea or nay by whether the law of Christ is on their hearts. So contending that the law of Christ, which we keep, was also kept by people who didn't know Jesus's name, is very consistent and not something dispie. I totally understand that as a supersessionist you may find covenantalism new and hardly distinguishable from dispensationalism; thus the history lesson. All three diverged out of millennialism (dispies last) and before the Reformation people didn't need to argue the details because Hebrews 11 was enough. So I appreciate your taking the time to learn that I'm not a dispie.

Those that "continue to purposely and consciously act in diametric opposition to that law" are damned, yes, but this is not ethnically predestined upon any human whatsoever. (Did you want to discuss Nephilim?)

you keep lying about the contents of the Bible

Since we're discussing libel, I have a high bar for that proof, namely someone puts up a Bible quote, then they put up a quote from me that is logically contradictory to the Bible, and then we determine if I have a defense that it's not logically contradictory. If we are both pursuing truth alone this is straightforward. It also doesn't seem to be how you are accustomed to proving lies. For instance:

Jesus has a second and better priesthood, not a replacement.

Oh, so there’s more than one way into heaven? Shut the fuck up, retard.

I quoted Hebrews, which says nothing about "more than one way". It says (your text) Jesus is a Melchizedek priest not a Levite priest (two priesthoods); it says he's "second" compared to "priests ... according to the law" (even though he's prior); it says "mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises", but the first was not a "way" because there was "fault" with its party (Israel, except for Jesus); it does not say "replacement" because the first was never intended to give salvation by works except by Christ's obeying it (so the thing you may think was being replaced, never had that place). And it says "place" for the second while the first was still standing and offering. So here you act like I'm lying but it's just your classic unstated premises, which evaporate when brought to light.

I repeat, 'The text literally says the new covenant is "established" in a better "place", so it contradicts the idea of replacement as if established upon the same promises without change.' If you think "replacement" means "establishment in a different place", we can run with that but "words don’t mean whatever you want them to mean."

refuting anything I’ve actually said

If all you said was that some Jewish branches were broken off, at the start I agreed with that, saying "portions are transplanted to the same whole". You didn't accept that as the baseline but acted like it was contrary to all you said.

the right of Pharisees to interpret Moses ... implies the “validity” of the papacy in exalting a human woman as sinless.

Interesting! (And totally aside.) It's true that my sympathy for getting Catholics saved out of the failures of their system is similar to my sympathy for getting Jews the same, I thought that was evangelism. Jesus said Pharisees sit in Moses's seat and must be observed, and he also gave Peter a seat and the right to appoint successors, and so I can't discount whatever he meant by that even as I point out excesses in interpreting these things. But as a Protestant it still comes down to agreeing that one's personal judgment must still respect other judgments shown to be in the real body of Christ. We come to find out why others than our narrow clique do the weird things they do. We can still tell them they're wrong, but understanding them makes it easier for them to hear us. So, yeah, that has some applicability to the two of us understanding each other.

So the ones who don’t believe He came… They’re definitely still saved, though, right? Because they definitely still believe a mashiach will come (even though He already has), and they’re still waiting, to this day… They’re saved? Still?

Now this is a great communication! And it's easily dealt with because it reveals a misunderstanding clearly so that it can be dismissed clearly. Have you never seen the Westminster Kids' Catechism? "Q. 61. How were pious persons saved before the coming of Christ? A. By believing in a Savior to come." This is a pretty common standard among Protestants and was something I learned long before I knew any of these big words. Obviously that has nothing to do with being saved after Christ. Most Jews today have heard the name of Christ and it appears (though God knows the hearts) that they have rejected it. By human standards, when a rejection is clear to us from an individual, we can run with that (you show that Paul did); but also, for evangelistic purposes, when there may be a way to regard a person's statements as not having rejected Jesus directly, we pursue the possibility of entree to acceptance of Jesus. And the fact is that most Jews are too cagey to speak directly about Jesus. Steven Anderson pinned down Reuven Mann, who could only say "maybe" Jesus was a sinner, as if he couldn't be dogmatic. Because in my searching for Jewish dogma, I never find a dogma that Judaism has rejected Jesus per se. Many Jews continue dying in their sins; I hold out hope that some of them may be saved by trusting God provides a Messiah and not knowing for sure who that Messiah is or isn't. They're still pre-gospel and get the same "creative evangelism" as Muslims.

[Continued.]