For God so loved Israel, NOT the entire world

Debate Objection I find it inexcusable that Pro continues to use the N words to refer to African Americans. While the KJV Bible uses these words, Pro should note that the KJV Bible was written in the 17th century, and at that time these words were the terms used to refer to African Americans. That doesn't change the fact that this word is now considered offensive to that African American community, and Pro should be respectful to them. Defense of Contention 2: Evidence from the Old Testament As I mentioned in my previous round, I wasn't able to defend my second contention to rebut the number of arguments put forward in this debate, so I will defend it here. a) Pro argues that the reference to foreigners in Isaiah 56:6-7, refers to Jews! Pro's explanation: Because these foreigners kept the Sabbath, then they are not really foreigners anymore. This is another invalid argument by Pro. What this verse clearly means, that foreigners, who are not Jews, can join the Jews in worship of God. In other words, non Jews can become Jews. This supports my claim that God loves non Jews. Please dismiss Pro's argument. c) Pro doesn't challenge my example regarding Jonah. I extend. d) Pro argues that the reference to "many nations" in Micah 4:2 somehow means Israel! Pro states: “The Law will go out from Zion: Again, who was the Law given to? Israel, not the heathen nations." Pro's argument is invalid! The verse states that the Law will go out from Zion to many nations. If Pro didn't notice, this refers to the future! Pro states that the law was already given to the Israelites in the past. This verse strong corroborates my claim. Please dismiss Pro's argument. Rebuttals of New Contentions Rebuttal 7: Pro argues that God doesn't change. Pro argues "why would HE change in the NT and say HE chooses everyone, not just the Israelites?" Pro is assuming something that I didn't make. God didn't change in the New Testament. He didn't all of a sudden decide: "Hey! Wait a second… There are these other people that I kind of forgot about for thousands of years… May be I should love them too!" I've shown evidence from the Old Testament that God loved everyone, but chose Israel to carry the law. Pro's argument is invalid and should be dismissed. Rebuttal 8: Pro argues in Romans 2:25-27 before Romans 2:28-29 "is speaking about those who were and still are under the Law, the only ones who were and still are under the Law is the Israelites." Pro again is reading out of context. Romans 2 clearly defends my claim, and is chastises the Jews! Out of respect to the reader, I will not post the entire chapter here, but feel free to give it a quick read and then vote Con [2]. The debate can end here. But here's a quick example: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." Romans 2:14 Rebuttal 9: Pro argues that "If the “Gentiles” are the non-Israelites, why would Christ go and teach a scattered people that are among the Gentiles?" citing John 7:35. This argument is ridiculous! The words are not Jesus' words, but the words of the confused Jews who were confused by Jesus message John 7:33-34. This is an invalid argument and should be dismissed. Rebuttals to Pro's Defense Rebuttal 2: I argued that Con must show that Gold only loved Israel, and Israel alone. Pro's defense is self refuting! Pro states: "I am not GOD, so you’ll have to ask HIM that yourself when HE judges you". Did Pro just concede this debate? Wasn't it Pro who instigated this debate and the one who made the truth claim: "For God so loved Israel, NOT the entire world"? If Pro can't show why God loved Israel and Israel alone, then why did Pro instigate this debate? I argue that this debate is basically over and the reader should simply vote Con. And I mean this sincerely. I argued that choice doesn't necessitate love. Pro's response: "Is that how the Bible defines love, as a burden?" What? Pro's response is irrelevant. Just to reiterate, Pro inferred in Round 2 that God loves the Jews because they were chosen, and not the rest of the world. I extend my rebuttal that choice doesn't necessitate love. Pro's argument should be dismissed. Pro then shows why God chose the Jews. This is a red herring and should be dismissed. Rebuttal 3: Pro argues that "whoever believes in him" refers to Israel in John 3:16, arguing that I am somehow privately interpreted the scripture. To support the claim, Pro provides additional verses from Acts 2:21-22. Pro's arguments are clearly out of context! The first verse Acts 2:21 is part of a reference to the Old Testament. Acts 2:22 is the beginning of a new paragraph! See it for yourself [4]. But in any case, this chapter was about the Pentecost event where the disciples learned to speak every language in the world so they can preach to the entire world, without regard to age, sex, social status or, as Acts 2:39 indicates, ethnic origin [4]. This supports my claim against Con's. Pro then argues that the Gentiles are only the Northern Kingdom, and sites Isaiah 49:6. I will post the entire verse here in an easier to read version (NIV): "he says: 'It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” Isaiah 49:6 While I agree that the verse refers to the lost tribes of Jacob. But the second sentence says "I will also make you a light for the Gentiles" The word also clearly separates those Gentiles from the tribes of Jacob. "also" can also be found in KJV, so this can't be argues as a translation error. This refutes Pro's argument. Rebuttal 4: Pro insists that Jesus speech with Nicodemus means that He was referring to the Jews only, and not the rest of the world. The example of pop Pro provided is funny, and is a red herring. As I've mentioned earlier, speaking to a Jew doesn't means the message is only to the Jews. This argument should be dismissed. Rebuttal 6: Pro disagrees that the definition of Jew and Israel has changed in the New Testament. Pro's claims that I am arguing that God changes! But I didn't claim such a thing, and nor does my argument necessitate God to change. This argument should be dismissed. Defense to my Contentions 1. Evidence from the New Testament c) Pro argues that I'm going off topic when I argue that "the Law of Moses is not required for salvation". But I'm not going off topic, because if non Jews can be saved, then that corroborates my argument. Please dismiss Pro's argument. Pro then makes a strange argument! When I cite Galatians 3:7-8 to show that "Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith", Pro rebuts by saying that "every nation of people have enslaved the Israelites"! This is irrelevant and should be dismissed. Pro's other argument that God loves Israel so much is also irrelevant. Pro fails to show that God only loved Israel which is the proposition of this debate. 3. Incompatibility with God's nature Pro counters by saying if God loves everyone, why does He hate? Pro cites Romans 9:13 which refers to Malachi 1:3. There are two problems with this argument: First, the proposition of this debate is that God only loved Israel and hated the world. Pro is trying to change the subject. But for the sake of the reader, I will explain this argument briefly, as Pro took it out of context. Esau's other name is Edom [5]. Both Malachi and Paul were referring to the Edomites who were the descendents of Esau. This argument is a red herring and should be dismissed. Sources [1] Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV) [2] https://www.biblegateway.com... [3] Joel 2:28-32 [4] https://www.biblegateway.com... [5] Malachi 1:1-4