"Full" debate with a Jehovah's Witness "Letusreason1234" on the two class theology

Unfortunately, Letsureason backed out of the debate half way through without any notice.  I was really hoping we'd make it through to the end, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a JW would act this way when 99.9 percent of them are nameless and faceless on the internet.  Anyway, i've posted what we did of the debate, which I hope to be useful to some people.  If you watch or listen until the end, i'll provide a short post-debate commentary.

You can watch the debate HERE

You can listen to the debate HERE

1st rebuttal in my debate with Letusreason1234

See Letusreason1234's opening statement HERE.

This is my first rebuttal in our debate:

Debate with Letusreason1234: My opening statement

As mentioned over a month ago, I will be debating a JW who goes by the nick, Letusreason1234.  However, we couldn't seem to agree on the method by which we'd approach this debate so we decided to do this on YouTube via video responses.  Assuming the full debate will be completed, i'll make an audio download as well as a full length video of the debate.  Here is my opening:

2nd discussion with JW "Letusreason1234" on the eternal hope of Christians

Like our FIRST DISCUSSION, this one will continue along the same lines in contrasting the Jehovah's Witness view with what I believe to be the biblical view of all Christians living forever on the new earth.

You can watch the discussion HERE

You can listen to the discussion HERE

An observation on dispensationalism

I confess to not being very familiar with the dispensational vs. covenant theology debate.  And of course, there are different brands for each.  However, since i've been doing some reading in eschatology as of late, this issue has become fairly relevant.  As I was reading through the book of Exodus yesterday, I came across a text that i'd like to make some observations with:

“YHWH said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it. “A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it. “It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. “All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this. “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to YHWH, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.”

(Exodus 12:43–48)

If I understand dispensationalism correctly, God has two covenant communities with unique promises for each.  But here, we see that gentiles (or foreigners) may be grafted in.  Obviously, these gentiles are not descendants of Abraham or any Israelite.  But through receiving the sign and seal of the covenant (through circumcision), they may now be part of the community and (as far as I can tell) receive all their blessings and participate in all the rituals.  It would seem that if YHWH is to have two covenant communities then the gentiles would have been treated as such, just as dispensationalist treat gentiles in full distinction from Israel today.

Here is where I see a problem.  With the administration of the New Covenant, a new "sign and seal" was administered: regeneration.  This can be seen in texts like Ezekiel 36:26 and others.  So, my question is this: if anyone can be a part of the covenant community (whether its the new or old covenant) through meeting the requirements (circumcision for the old, regeneration for the new), then on what basis can we say that YHWH has two separate covenant groups with different promises?  Furthermore, does the Exodus text not show that racial descent has little to do with being part of the covenant?

It could be the case that i'm off on my observations, due to my unfamiliarity of the issues.  So i'll leave it to the reader to correct me if any need to be made.