For God so loved Israel, NOT the entire world

Debate Objection I want to first object to the number of verses and arguments that I have to defend. There were probably more than 30 verses that Pro used which makes it difficult for the debater to rebut the arguments. This type of argumentation is called Gish Gallop [1] and should be considered as misconduct. I also wasn't happy with Pro's use of the N word referring to black people, even though Pro used it subtly and may be without poor intentions; I still find it in very poor taste. Not to add that Pro has bolded and underlined almost the entire space. This is a disservice to the reader. Rebuttals Rebuttal 1: Pro argues in 1 Peter 2:9 that the holy nation and peculiar people mentioned in the verse are Israel and the Jews, respectively. I agree with Pro that Peter was referring to Exodus 19:5-6. But in the New Testament, the definition of Jews has changed. According to the Bible: "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." (Romans 2:28:29) Peter was talking to the Christians telling them that they are a holy nation and peculiar (meaning special) people. That's because Christians are the new Jews. As the verse that I provided shows, being a Christian is by faith (circumcision of the heart). It's important to view these verses in a non-literal way, and consider the context of the verses. Otherwise, we'll end up circumcising the heart literally! I ask the reader to dismiss this argument. Rebuttal 2: Pro argues in Amos 3:1-2 and Psalms 83:3-5 that other nations got jealous. This is irrelevant. Just because the Jews were chosen, Pro must show why this necessitates that God only loved them, and no one else. Choice doesn't necessary mean love, it could be a burden. If I choose someone to carry my luggage, does that mean that I love that person, and that person alone? This is non-sequitur, and it's Pro's responsibility to show why Israel was the only loved nation. I have already shown in my second contention that this is actually not the case. Therefore this argument is negated. Rebuttal 3: Pro argues that John meant only the Jews in John 3:16 (For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life) Pro argues that God promised Israel everlasting salvation in Isaiah 45:17. Pro then argues that because John's verse states that "whoever believes in him shall have eternal life", then this eternal life automatically applies to Jews only! But this is non-sequitur! If God offered someone everlasting life, that doesn't mean necessarily that He can't offer that everlasting life to others. I will turn this argument against Pro and show how the Old Testament mentioned salvation to non Jews. "I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth" Isaiah 49:6 Therefore this argument is negated. Rebuttal 4: Pro argues that because Jesus spoke to Nicodemus (a Jew), he didn't speak to the "whole world". This argument is irrelevant. Just because Jesus spoke to a Jew, and not the "whole world" doesn't mean that God only loved Israel. This is non sequitur and I ask the reader to dismiss this argument. Rebuttal 5: Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up in John 3:14. Pro argues that this verse was meant only for Israel. But this argument is invalid. The Old Testament is filled with signs and prophecies that were mentioned again in the New Testament [2]. These signs are very allegorical. It doesn't necessitate that every aspect of the reference is also true for what's referencing it. This is important. I will show you an example to illustrate this. In Matthew 12:40, the Bible shows how Jonah's 3 days in the belly of the whale is an example for Jesus 3 days in the tomb. That doesn't mean that every aspect of these two events is the same! Jonah was running away from God's command [3], while Jesus didn't and was expecting His death [4]. Pro's example is far reaching and should be dismissed. Rebuttal 6: Pro argues that Christ was sent to the lost sheep of Israel and therefore Pro argues that God only loved Israel and not the rest of the world. Pro again chooses literal reading of the Bible. I've already demonstrated that the definition of Jews and Israel has changed with the coming of Jesus. Here's yet another verse to support my case: "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Romans 9:6. This argument is negated. Defense of my case 1. Evidence from the New Testament a) Pro argues that the sheep mentioned by Jesus are the Jews. What Pro missed is that Jesus said other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. So while I agree that the Jews are His sheep, however the other sheep are necessarily and logically mean the non Jews. Pro fails to refute this argument. b) Pro conceded that Gentiles means non-Jews, but argues that in rare occasion they can refer to Jews as well. It's the responsibility of Pro to show why these references of Gentiles that I provided somehow fall under that rare category. Pro provided a truck load of verses and I read each one of them. (Deuteronomy 28:64, John 11:47-52, James 1:1, 1 Corinthians 12:2, Isaiah 7:8-9, 1 Kings 12:26-30, Hosea 4:17, Hosea 1:6-11, Ezekiel 37:15-22, Hosea 11:12), none of which even mention the word Gentiles! I ask the reader to dismiss Pro's claim. Pro then references Ephesians 2:11 which I would like to present to the reader show how this supports my argument as it refers to the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles: "Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth […] you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ." Ephesians 2:11-13 Thank you Pro for refuting your own argument. Pro then references Romans 11, which also refutes Pro's own argument. It states that Gentiles has come to make Israel envious [6]. Pro also references 1 Peter 2:10, which also refutes Pro's own argument. It states "Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God" This verse corroborates my argument that the people of Israel has extended beyond the Jews. Pro then refers to Psalms 147:19-20, that other nations don't know the laws. This is irrelevant. I agree that the Law of Moses was only intended for the Jews. But this has changed in the New Testament. Pro also fails to show why this means God only loved the Jews and no one else. c) Pro argues that the preceding verse 20 of Romans 3:22-24 shows that it was only referring to the Israelites. But this is ridiculous! This verse shows that no one will be saved by their work alone "…no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law…", but rather by grace "…all are justified freely by his grace …" This supports my argument that the law of Moses is not required for salvation, but "by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus". d) Pro again argues that the verses prior to Galatians 3:28 were referring to the Jewish law which only applies to the Israelites. I am irritated because this is a bare assertion. The chapter strongly supports my argument. I'll just give an example from the prior verses to the reader: "Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith" Galatians 3:7-8 Please dismiss Pro's arguments. 2. Evidence from the Old Testament I will have to address this in the next round because Pro bombarded me with arguments ("Gish Gallop" technique). Please don't penalize me for this. 3. Incompatibility with God's nature I'm stunned to see that Pro actually argues that God is racist, and that He only deals with Israel (and only loves them!). If the god Pro believes in actually exists, then this god is unjust, not good and not even decent. This god wouldn't be the Most High, because I am not a racist, and therefore I would be better than the god Pro is appealing to! How can Pro say that such a god is not unjust? If Pro's god favors a group over others, not because of their merit or behavior but because of who they are, then this god is extremely unjust. This debate presupposed the existence of God. There are many definitions of God, but justice and goodness are some of the attributes of God. If God exists and He is just, then He couldn't possibly be racist. Please dismiss Pro's argument. I am actually bothered. 4. The confused Christians and Jews! Pro argues that only the Christians and Jews today are confused, but that's not what the Bible says. This is a bare assertion. Pro didn't provide any evidence from the Bible or history that the early Christians or Jews actually believed that God didn’t love others. Regarding my argument "If God exists, did He just decide to leave His people confused for centuries?" Pro only argues that "Modern day Christians and the fake “Jew-ish” will be confused". But this doesn't answer the question! According to Pro, the Jews include “African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans…etc" [7] Since these are the true Jews, then why are these true Jews so confused not to believe in what Pro is proposing? Did God just forget about them? Please dismiss Pro's arguments. Sources Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV) [1] http://rationalwiki.org... [2] http://christianity.about.com... [3] Jonah 1 [4] Matthew 16:21 [5] https://www.biblegateway.com... [6] Romans 11:11[7] Pro's argument, Round 2