I guess we just see things differently. You're right that the majority of the New Testament is centered on Jesus, as it should be. He is the only way and that is the message He brought and was carried to the Jews and the early church, some accepted and some rejected. Paul told Christians how to handle Israel and Jews who didn't convert in Romans and, I assume, felt that the one chapter was all that subject needed.
Just know this, your viewpoint (dual-covenant theology) didn’t emerge until the 1800’s, when
The Great Game between the UK and Russia was happening (Crimea was one of the contested areas at the time - what’s old is new again!). It’s hard to do a deep dive on Scofield and not see how much of a swindler he was. But your understanding of a two-tiered salvation system, one for Jews and another for
Goyim, conveniently gave Western imperialists a sympathetic base of domestic support for imperialism in the Middle East, so long as it was marketed as servicing God’s chosen people in some manner. (Similar tactics were used to gain domestic support for colonizing foreign islands like Hawaii and the Philippines when politicians openly advocated for “Christianizing” indigenous “savages.” Before that, Catholic and Protestant European powers gave similar excuses for their conquests in the Americas, Africa, and elsewhere.)
Returning to the 1800’s, militarists, industrialists, financiers and their puppet politicians believed less in theology and more in the proposition that whoever presided over the extraction of Middle Eastern oil would have a jump start in controlling the fate of the world. Oil was considered
that important. So the World Zionist Organization partnered with the blossoming Evangelical/revival movement to promote Western policies to send money, arms, and immigrants of spurious Semitic ancestory to Palestine to secure a beachhead on the Eastern Mediterranean. The West already knew how vital control of the nearby Suez Canal was to preserving its Asian colonies and interests. To allow another imperial power to ride the coattails of Christendom’s connection to the Promised Land by militarily moving into the region would threaten control of the Suez and Western hegemony at large. So you have evil people like the Rothschild family helped to make Zionism happen. See the Balfour Declaration.
I also don't believe war has been the main cause of the destruction of the nuclear family or our way of life… Sin has destroyed the nuclear family because people accept it as normal these days.
It most certainly has. Wars destroy everything, the conqueror and the conquered alike. It exhausts resources of all sorts and kinds: food, materials, money, and perhaps most importantly, the scarce supply of brave and strong men upon which every prosperous society relies. History clearly demonstrates this, and economics can predict it. War feeds all the critical resources of civilization into a massive wood chipper faster than those resources can be replenished naturally in peacetime. This is why every dying civilization is preceded by massive government expenditure (ie consumption of wealth). And nothing consumes wealth faster and redistributes it into fewer hands more than war. Smart people have known this throughout history, from Aristotle to our Founders. (This is why my forum avatar and signature are what they are.)
Funny how we can call absentee, derelict and unfaithful husbands and fathers “sinful” and understand it as a cause of cultural decline, yet it’s somehow noble and a net benefit to society when men readily and dutifully abandon their family in slavish submission to corrupt politicians to sacrifice their lives in overseas wars to protect the assets of Rockefeller and the investments of JP Morgan.
So in a literal sense, fatalities kill husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, etc., hence damaging the families to which they belonged. Even if they return alive, they return a lesser person emotionally, physically, or both. Even if war doesn’t take a soldier’s life, it will definitely take something else. The rate of suicide, illness, and homelessness among veterans attest to this. Plus the lost time with your family and community can never be returned to you. People move on without you.
In an economic sense, the inflation and financial bubbles/bursts resulting from federal spending raises living costs, thereby destroying single income families. Inflation also consumes the wealth parents leave behind for their posterity to preserve a proud lineage. Over time this causes adults to delay parenthood, which inevitably reduces the number of children, which then diminishes the passing of cultural values from one generation to the next. Two-income households produce increased stress on spouses as domestic responsibilities and chores go undone, highlighting the priceless value of a queen who can focus her energy managing domestic affairs while the husband specializes in moving up in the professional arena. The lack of division of labor in the home results in a higher divorce rate as spousal needs and purpose go unmet and financial security evaporate via inflation.
Sociologically, two-income families force children into the custody of state schooling and state indoctrination, severing family bonds and replacing loyalty to family, clan, and community with loyalty to federal authorities and the ideals fed to them. You should see the quotes of Lenin on state schooling. Or Prussian leaders, or Horace Mann, or Rockefeller’s Board of Education. Perhaps no policy has destroyed human civilization more throughout history than state schooling.