For God so loved Israel, NOT the entire world

But I am exhausted and I feel that this debate has gone longer that it should. I'll try (if I can) to keep my arguments short for the sake of the reader (and my sanity). Debate Objection It appears that Pro didn't like my objection to him using the N word, and Pro's use of too many arguments (Gish Gallop), so Pro accuses me that I violated Rule #2 for not citing the Bible in my source: . http://christianity.about.com.... However that source cites 44 New Testament verses and their related verses in the Old Testament. Did Pro and the reader expect me to list all of them! When I cite biblegateway. com so the reader can easily read the verse, am I violating this rule? These are still biblical sources and the reader should dismiss Pro's claim. Summary I presented my case to show that the proposition that "God only loved Israel, but hated the world" is false. 1. I presented evidence from the New Testament 2. I presented evidence from the Old Testament 3. This claim is incompatible with God's nature 4. All Christians and Jews believed that God's love wasn't limited to the Jews only, so did God just leave His people so confused all these centuries? Pro failed to refute (or even weaken) any of my contentions. At the same time, Pro made more than 10 arguments, all of which were either invalid, fallacious or worked to support my contentions. I've also demonstrated many instances where Pro was reading verses out of context. I ask the reader to vote Con and dismiss Pro's claim. Final Response Pro provided additional arguments in the final round, which I'll respond to here: 1. Pro claims that I contradicted myself when I said that God didn’t change. Pro's explanation: If God offered salvation only to Israel in the Old Testament, why did He offer salvation to the Gentiles in the New Testament? But I didn't claim such a thing! I didn't state anywhere that God offered salvation only to Israel in the Old Testament. I showed many examples to the contrary, so Pro's argument is invalid. 2. Pro argues that my example regarding Jonah and Jesus is out of topic. I am not sure if Pro is reading my arguments, or not! It's not out of topic. I used this example to show that Pro is misusing the Old Testament, and to show that just because two verses in the Bible are related, "[it] doesn't necessitate that every aspect of the reference is also true for what's referencing it. " See Round 3 for the explanation. 3. Pro argues that because I said the definition of Jews and Israel changed in the New Testament, then it follows that I am implying that God changed. This is non-sequitur. This argument should be dismissed. 4. I challenged Pro to show that God only loved Israel and Israel alone. Pro answers by showing that God chose Israel because they "were the fewest of all people". Pro's answer is simply inadequate, and it doesn't show that God only loves Israel and no one else. I've also shown before in Round 3, that choice doesn't necessitate love. My challenge stands. 5. I showed in Round 4 that Pro's use of Acts 2:21-22 is clearly out of context, because the two verses are part of two paragraphs. I've shown references in that chapter itself that support my claim. Pro's response in the last round is inadequate. 6. Pro argues that "all notions enslaved [the Jews]". This is irrelevant to the proposition of this debate. 7. Pro brings the subject of Esau again. I've mentioned to the reader that God was referring to the Edomites. I didn't want to bring too much theology, so I apologize to the reader that I will bring it here. But basically, the Bible makes use of words in allegorical forms. For example, God demands that we love our parents, it's one of the ten commandments [1]. At the same time, the Bible says: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple. " Luke 14:26. Why did I bring the above example? A literal read of this verse suggests that we must hate everyone! That's not reasonable. I could literally bring more than 20 verses commanding us to love. So what's the context of that verse? That verse was meant to show that we shouldn't put anyone, including ourselves, above God. So it's important to understand the context of the story of Esau. 8. Pro claims to provide evidence that the reference to the Gentiles is actually "not really the Gentiles". Pro argues that they are also Jews! This claim is extraordinary, and I've shown many examples why that cannot be the case. There were verses that specifically name both the Jews and the Gentiles. Yet Pro argues that these Gentiles are only the Jews of the Northern Kingdom. Without evidence, this could even be considered kritik, but I don't want to go there. 9. The argument that the nations are a drop of a bucket is simply irrelevant. Pro is over reaching by assuming that God doesn't hate them. Really? But the Bible describes all His people as dust [2]. The Bible is allegorical. I apologize to the reader who's probably exhausted at this point. But if you survived this ordeal, please vote Con! Thank you. Sources [1] Exodus 20:12 [2] Psalms 103:14