Coming back to here because we hit maximum thread depth.

Argument 1) The passage says Jesus will save the Jews when he returns. If there's no connection between Jews then and Jews now, it makes nonsense of that prophecy.

Argument 2) The context of Romans was a time when Jews were actively persecuting the church and murdering Christians. Paul was severely mistreated by them and nearly killed.

You appear to be arguing that subsequent developments make the book of Romans moot, but that's silly, because if it applied at a time when they were seriously assaulting the church, then it applies now.

Argument 3) I don't like the Talmud, and think it's pretty bad. (It's not as bad as the online antisemites say though; many of the viral quotes are made up - you have noticed that, right?). But once again, it's no worse than the stuff the Pharisees and Saducees pushed, as far as we know, so it's a weak argument to say the NT ceases to apply given that it's just a written version of the same rabbinic stuff that existed when the NT was written.

Argument 4) Jews still have the Torah, and it ranks higher than the Talmud, as the NT outranks the OT for us.

Back up again, could you please pick somewhere higher up the thread and restart there so we don't end up with an indecipherable thread?

How can Israel include the church when v25/26 together go as below?????

V25 and 26 are literally the same sentence, and v25 refers to the hardening of Israel and contrasts Israel with the Gentiles. Also see verses 2 and 7, which use the word Israel in the same way, referring to their hardening. Is the church that which is hardened and is non-Gentile?? Israel = Jews here, unambiguously.

Romans 11:25-26 NASB For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; [26] and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

Correct, and to mind ones attitude towards them knowing that your election is neither something you can take credit for, nor that they cannot also have, should they believe.

Going full hostile, calling them Satan worshippers, etc, fails on two counts; it's a) incompatible with humility on your part and the instruction regarding your attitude towards them,

and b) incompatible with them being like natural branches that have been broken off for their disbelief but are regraftable, and the bit earlier where it says God has not (collectively) rejected his people.

If Paul was to describe Satan worshippers, the reason for their non salvation wouldn't be described merely as 'unbelief'. Paul is pretty blunt in his epistles when he considers something demonic or of the devil.

There is a third way in which it fails, which is that charging in and calling people Satan worshippers is among the world's worst conversion strategies, but that's a practical matter rather than a principled one.